N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. AB ELAR DO NIEB LA-TOR

RES, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10261

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-02037-R C C -DTF-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R ane r C
. C ollins, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C HR ISTEN, a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc u it Judge s. M e xic an nationa l Abe l ardo Nie bla -Torre s (Nie bla ) a p pe a ls his c o nvic tion for c o nspira c y

to posse ss with intent to distribute m arijua na , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(1), 841(b)(1)(D), a nd 846. Thedistric t c ourt found Niebla guilty
a fte r a be nc h tria l. On a

p pe a l , Nie bla

argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by :



# F IL ED
JAN 31 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.(1) pe rm itting the prose c ution to a

uthe ntic ate ite m s of phy sic a l e vide nc e with he arsay te stim ony ; a

nd (2) a dm itting e vide nc e of a prior sm uggling a rre st unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 404(b). W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,
and we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s rulings. 1 1. Nie bla c o nte n d s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in two wa y s whe n it a llowe d the p rose c ution to a

uthe ntic at e Exhibits 14 (a photo of binocula

rs a n d two-wa

y
ra dios) a nd 55 (binoc ula

rs) with he arsay

te s tim ony . First, he m a inta ins tha t the
a dm ission of the se e x hibits viola te d Fe de ra l R

ule s of Evide nc e 801 a

nd 802 be c a use the gove rnm e nt la id its founda tion through Age

nt C ole lla ’ s sta

te m e nt tha

t Age nt Ga lle gos told him whe re the ite m s we re re c ove re d. Unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide n c e 104(a ), “ the c ourt is not bound by e vide n c e rule s, e xc e pt thoseon privile ge ,” whe n de c iding “ any pre lim ina

ry que stion a

bout whe the r . . . e vide nc e is
a dm issible .” Se e also Fe d. R
. Evid. 1101(d)(1); Bourjaily v . Unite d State s , 483 U.S. 171, 178 (1987). Thus, the distric t c ourt wa s not bound by R ule s 801 a

nd 802 whe n it de c ide d whe the r the re wa s a prope r founda

tion for Exhibits 14 a

nd 55. Ne xt, Nie bla

argue s tha

t Age nt C ole lla ’ s te s tim o ny viola te d his
c onstitutiona

l rights under the C onfronta tion C la use be c a use he wa s de nie d the

1 Nie bla a lso a

rgue s , unde r the c orpus de lic ti doc trine , tha t the gove rnm e nt did not introduc e suffic ie nt e v ide nc e to c orroborate his c o nfe ssion. W e a ddre ss this c la im

in a n opinion file d

c onc urre n tly

with this disposition. 2opportunity

to c ross-e xam ine Age nt Ga lle gos a bout whe re he found the binoc ula rs
and two-wa

y ra dios. B e c a

use Nie b la

did not ra ise a C onfronta tion C la use obje c tion a

t tria l, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Tran , 568 F.3d 1156, 1163 (9th C ir. 2009). W e c onc lude tha t e ve n if the distric t c ourt e rre d, the
e rror did not a ffe c t

Nie bla ’ s substa

ntia l rights be c a

use the gove rnm e nt prope rly
a uthe ntic ate d the e v ide nc e . Se e id. A propone nt m ay a

uthe ntic ate an ite m

of phy sic a l e vide nc e by

a s se rting tha

t it “ is re l e va

nt be c a use i t wa s found a

t the sc e ne of the c rim e ,” an d proffe ring te stim ony from a witne ss with knowle dge “ that the [ite m ] offe re d is the[ite m ] whic h wa s found the re .” 2 M C C O R M I C KO N E V I D . § 213 (7th e d. 2016). The binoc u la rs we re re le va

nt be c a use Age nts C ole lla

an d Ga lle gos found the m

with Nie bla on the m ounta in, a

nd the ir pre se nc e m a de it m ore like ly tha t Nie bla wa s a
sc out. Age nt C ole lla wa s a witne ss with knowle dge : he wa s pre se nt whe n Age nt Ga lle gos found thebinoc ula rs, he photogra

phe d the m on the m o unta in, a

nd he logge d the m into e vide nc e . Age nt C ole l la re c ogniz e d Exhibit 55 a s the binoc ula rs he an d Age nt Ga lle g os re trie ve d. This te stim ony wa s “ suffic ie nt to support a finding tha

t the ite m i s wha

t the propone nt c la im s it is.” Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 901(a). The gove rnm e n t like wise did not ne e d Age nt Ga l le gos’ s sta te m e nt a bout whe re he found the ra dios to properly a uthe ntic ate a

photogra ph of the m . S

e e
3Unite d

State s v . Brook s , 772 F.3d 1161, 1171 n.3 (9th C ir. 2014). Thegove rnm e nt offe re d Exhibit 14 to illustra te Age nt C ole lla ’ s te stim ony a bout theite m s he found on the m ounta in. A photogra ph offe re d for illustra

tive purpose s “ is a

uthe ntic ate d if the witne ss te stifie s tha t the photogra

ph is a c orre c t a nd a c c urate re pre se n tation of re l e va nt fa c ts pe rsona lly

obse rve d by

the witne ss.” 2 M C C O R M I C KO N E V I D . § 215 (7th e d. 2016). Age nt C ole lla

te stifie d tha

t: (1) Exhibit 14 de

pic te d the ite m s he and Age nt Ga lle gos found on the

m ounta intop on the

da y of the arre s t; (2) he pe rsona l ly sa w the ra dios a

nd binoc ula

rs tha t da y ; a nd (3) the photogra

ph wa s “ a fa ir a

nd a c c urate
re pre se ntation of theite m s .” The gove rnm e nt pre se nte d e xpe rt-witne ss te stim ony to link the

ite m s in thephotogra

ph with its the ory

tha t Nie b la wa s a sc out for a drug-tra ffic king orga

n i z ation. This te stim ony

wa s suffic ie nt to e sta

blish the
re le va nc e and a uthe ntic i ty

of the Exhibit 14 photogra p h. 2. Nie bla a l s o a

rgue s tha t the distric t

c ourt e rre d by

a dm itting e vide nc e tha

t he wa s pre viously

arre s te d for sc outing under Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 404(b).

“ Evide n tia

ry rulings a dm itting e vide nc e of othe r a c ts unde r Fe d e ra l R ule of Evide n c e 404(b) a

re re v ie we d

for an a buse of disc re tion, but whe the r the e v ide nc e of othe r a c ts is re le va

nt to thec rim e c ha

rge d is re v ie we d de novo.” Unite d State s
v . Liv i ngston , 725 F.3d 1141, 1148 (9th C i r. 2013) (quoting Unite d State s v . 4C

astillo , 181 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th C ir. 1999)). “ The propone nt of the R u le 404(b)
e vide nc e m

ust show tha

t the e vide nc e ‘ (1) prove s a m at e ria l e l e m e nt of the offe nse for whic h the de fe nda

nt is now c ha

rge d, (2) if a dm i tte d to prove inte nt, is sim ila r to the o ffe nse c ha

rge d, (3) is ba s e d

on suffic ie nt e vide n c e , a

nd (4) is not too rem ote in tim e .’ ” Unite d State

s v . Hardrick, 766 F.3d 1051, 1055 (9th C ir. 2014) (quoting Unite d State s v . Ramire

z-Roble s , 386 F.3d 1234, 1242 (9th C i r. 2004)). The distric t c ourt a d

m itte d e vide nc e of Nie bla ’ s prior a rre s t to prove knowle dge , inte n t, a

nd la c k of m ista

k e . Knowle d ge and inte nt a re e le m e nts of
c onspira c y

to posse ss with intent to distribute m arijua na . Tran , 568 F.3d a

t 1164. Nie bla put the se e le m e nts, a long with lac k of m i sta k e , at issueby

arguing tha

t he
wa s pre se nt on them o unta in without knowing why he wa s the re or what work he ha d be e n hire d to do. His prior a rre st for a sm

uggling offe nse in the sam e c orridor te nds to provetha

t Nie bla unde rstood thepurpose and role of a sc out in a
sm uggling opera tion, whic h goe s dire c tly to his knowle dge of a

n unla wful
c onspira c y

and his intent to join. Se e Unite d State s v . Ramos-Atondo , 732 F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th C ir. 2013). The re we re a lso substa n tia l sim ila

ritie s be twe e n the two a rre sts: the2011 e ve nts took plac e c lose to the m ounta i n whe re a ge nts
a ppre h e n de d Nie bla

in 2014, a

nd he posse sse d som e of the sa m e ite m s.

5The re wa s suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t the prior a

rre st oc c urre d to support
a dm ission under R

ule 404(b) be c a

use Age nt Pa c o te stifie d tha t he arre ste d Nie bla for sc outing a c tivitie s in 2011, a nd de sc ribe d the c irc um sta nc e s surrounding the
arre st. Se e Unite d

State s v . Basinge r , 60 F.3d 1400, 1408 (9th C ir. 1995) (e xpla ining tha

t “ te stim ony

by the se arc hing a

nd a rre s ting offic e r is suffic ie nt
e vide nc e tha

t the prior a c t oc c urre d” ). The 2011 a rre st, whic h ha

ppe ne d thre e y e ars be fore Nie bla

wa s a rre ste d for the c ha

rge d offe nse , wa s a l so not “ too re m ote in tim e .” Se e id. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by de c lining to e xc lude Nie bla ’ s 2011 a

rre st unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide n c e 403. The probative va lue of the a rre st wa s high, a

nd the da nge r of unfa ir pre

judic e , c onfusion, or de la y wa s
re lative ly low. As e xpla i n e d, Nie bla put his knowle dge and inte nt a t issueby
c la im ing tha

t he wa s m e re ly

an innoc e nt by sta

nde r una ware of a ny c rim ina l
a c tivity
. The distric t c ourt he ld a be nc h tria l, a

nd judge s a

re le ss like ly

tha n jurie s to de c ide an issue on a

pure l y e m otiona l ba sis, or to c onc lude , ba se d on a de fe nda n t’ s prior ba d a c t s, tha

t he or she is guilty of the c ha rge d c rim e . C f. E.E.O.C . v . Fame r

Bros. C o. , 31 F.3d 891, 898 (9th C ir. 1994) (noting “ in a be nc h tria l , the risk tha

t a ve rdic t will bea ffe c te d unfa irly an d substa

ntia lly by the
a dm ission of irre le va

n t e vide nc e is fa

r le s s tha n in a jury tria l” ).
6W e find no e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s re a soning a nd we AFFIRMthe distric t c o urt’ s e v i de ntia

ry rulings. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l. AFFIRM E D.

7