N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOHN GEOFFR

E Y IB A RR

A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-10307

D.C . No. 4:09-c r-01733-R C C -JC G-1
M EM OR A NDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOHN GEOFFR

E Y IB A RR

A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10631

D.C . No. 4:09-c r-01733-R C C -JC G-1

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 Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d June 11, 2014 ** 

# FIL ED
JUN 30 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c i sion without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia

B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HAYES, Distric t Judge
. *** John Ge o ffre y

Ibarra a ppe a ls his c o nvic tions of twe nty -one c o unts of knowingly

m ak ing fa lse sta

te m e nts on a

form re quire d to be ke pt by fe de ra lly -lic e n se d fire arm s de a le rs in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 924(a )(1)(A), and his c onvic tion of onec ount of e nga ging in the busine ss of de a ling in fire a rm s without a lic e nse in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(a )(1)(A). For the following
re a s ons, we a ffirm
. First, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de nie d Iba rra ’ s pre t ria l m otion to disc lose the ide ntity of the ATF c onfide ntia l inform a nt whose tip sta rte d the inve stiga

tion of Iba

rra or for in c ame ra re vie w of the inform a nt file
. Ibarra provide d only spe c ulat ion a nd suspic ion tha

t the inform ant m ight ha

ve e nga ge d in e n tra

pm e nt, a nd thus did not m

e e t his burde n to show tha t disc losure of the i nform ant’ s ide ntity w o uld be “ re le va nt” or “ he lpful” to a

ny de fe nse . U.S. v
. Spire s , 3 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th C ir. 1993); U.S. v . Amador-Galva n , 9 F.3d 1414, 1417 (9th C ir. 1993).

*** The Honora

ble W i llia m Q. Ha y e s, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2Se c ond, the distric t c ourt did not err whe n it de t e rm ine d tha

t the gove rnm e nt did not viola

te Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by not re ve a l ing to the de fe nse the re lationship be twe e n the ATF a nd a nothe r c onfide n tia l inform a n t who
wa s a witne ss a t Iba rra ’ s tria l. Tha

t inform ant’ s c onfide ntia l re lat ionship with the ATF wa s m inim a l , unre late d to Iba rra ’ s c a se , and did not be g in until long afte r the witne s s inte ra c t e d with Iba rra . The inform ant’ s re lationship with the ATF wa s the re fore not “ m a t e ria l” unde r Brady be c a use the re wa s no “ re a sona ble proba bility that . . . the re sult” of the tria l “ would ha ve be e n diffe re n t” ha d the re lationship be e n disc lose d. U.S. v
. Si , 343 F.3d 1116, 1122 (9th C ir. 2003). Third, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion whe n it pe rm itte d brie f
m e ntion a t tria l tha t the ATF inve stiga

te s gun tra ffic king in M e xic o. The c ourt gave a c urative instruc tion a de quate to a lla y any pote ntia l pre

j udic e . Se e Gre e r v . Mille r , 483 U.S. 756, 767 n.8 (1987) (holding tha t jurors a re pre sum e d to follow instruc tions to disre ga

rd ina dm issiblee vide nc e a bse nt a n “ ove rwhe lm i ng proba b ility ” the jury

will not be

a ble to follow the

instruc tion). M ore ove r, in light of the re st of the e vide nc e , inc luding the la rge num be rs of gun purc h a se s Iba rra
m a de within short pe

riods of tim e and Iba

rra ’ s a dm issions to ATF a ge nts tha t he purc ha se d on be ha lf of his c ousin, it is not “ m ore proba

ble tha n not” tha t e ve n if

3the re we re e rror, it would ha ve a ffe c te d the ve rdic t . U.S. v
. Alv are z , 358 F.3d 1194, 1205 (9th C ir. 2004). Fourth, Iba

rra ha s wa ive d

the issue whe t

he r the distric t c ourt e rre d by not pe rm itting him

to a sk que stions a

bout gun shows. The

re c o rd de m onstra

t e s tha t Ibarra fa ile d to e xpla in why

he wishe d to ra ise the issue a de quate ly e nough for the tria l c ourt to ruleon it. Se eTame n v . Alhambra W orld Inv ., Inc
. , 22 F.3d 199, 205 (9th C ir. 1994) (holding a n issue wa ive d on a

ppe a l whe n it wa s not “ ra ise d suffic i e ntly

for the tria l c ourt to ruleon it,” whe n the pa rty did not “

p re ss[] or e ve n e xpla in[] ” the issue , a

nd whe n the tria l c ourt ha d no opportunity to “ m ake any e xpre s s . . . c o n c lusions of la won the m atte r” ). Fifth, the jury i nstruc tion wa s c orre c t a s to the c ha rge s unde r 18 U.S.C
. § 924(a )(1)(A). That provision is a se pa ra te grounds for prose c ution a n d
c onvic tion a

nd doe s not c o n ta in a

m ate ria lity re quire m e nt. U.S. v . J ohnson , 680 F.3d 1140, 1144, 1146 (9th C ir. 2012). 1 Sixth, the Ninth C irc uit m ode l jury instruc tions thedistric t c ourt ga ve we re c orre c t a s to the c ha

rge unde r 18 U.S.C . § 922(a )(1)(A). The sta tute re quire s tha

t the d e fe nda

nt ha ve a “ p rinc ipa l obje c tive of live lihood a nd profit,” 18 U.S.C
.

1 Ibarra ’ s m otion to sta

y proc e e dings pe n ding Abramsk i v . Unite d State

s , No. 12-1493, 2014 W

L 2676779 (U.S. June

16, 2014), is DENIED a s m oot. 4§ 921(a )(21)(C ), (a )(22), but nowhe re re quire s a princ ipa l obje c t ive that tha t profit be one ’ s primary s ourc e of inc om e . The m ode l jury instruc tion c orre c tly so sta te d
and c orre c tly

de s c ribe d the e le m e nts of thec ha rge . Se ve nth, the e v ide nc e wa s suffic ie nt for a ny ra tiona l finde r of fa c t , U.S. v
. K ing , 735 F.3d 1098, 1106 (9th C ir. 2013), to find Iba rra guilty of de a ling in fire arm s without a

lic e nse in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(a )(1)(A). A ra tiona l juror c ould c onc lude tha

t Ibarra “ de vote [d] tim e , atte ntion, a nd la bor to de a ling in fire arm s a s a

re gula r c o urse of tra de or busine ss with the princ ipa l obje c tive of live lihood a

nd profit through the

re pe titive purc ha se and re sa l e of fire a rm s” within the m e aning of thesta

tute and a s sta

te d in the jury

instruc tion. 18 U.S.C . § 921(a )(21)(C ). Evide nc e a dduc e d at tria l showe d tha t Ibarra purc ha se d

ove r twe nty fire arm s , took title

of the we a

pons in his own na

m e , a nd the n de live re d the m to his c ousin in e xc ha

nge for $100 pe r we a

pon. A rationa l jury

c o uld
c onc lude be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt tha

t the s e a c tions re pre se nte d the “ re pe titive purc ha se and re sa le of fire arm s.” Eighth, a nd fina lly , unde r pla in e rror re vie w the c ourt did not err e ithe r proc e d ura lly or substa

ntive l y in im posing se nte nc e . U

.S. v . K now s His Gun , 438 F.3d 913, 918 (9th C ir. 2006). A “ distric t c ourt ne e d not tic k off e a c h of the § 3553(a ) fa c tors to show tha t it ha s c onside re d the m .” U.S. v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 5992 (9th C i r. 2008). It is e n ough to “ c a l c ulat e the range a c c urate l y and e xpla in why (if the se nte nc e lie s outsideit) this de fe nda nt de se rve s m ore or le s s” be c a use the c ourt is “

pre sum e [d] ” to ha

ve c onside re d a ll the § 3353(a ) fa c tors. U .S. v . Mix , 457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th C ir. 2006). Thec ourt he re ba la nc e d Iba rra ’ s fam ily
re sponsibilitie s a ga i nst his offe nse s a nd his la c k of knowle dge of or c onc e rn a bout whe re the guns he purc ha se d we re going, a n d the n im pose d a se nte nc e le ss tha

n ha lf tha t re c om m e nde d by the se nte nc ing re port. The c ourt did not pla inly e rr. AFFIRM E D.

6