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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GILB ER TO M AR TINEZ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10251

D.C . No. 2:14-c r-00495-SR B -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 Susa n R . B olton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 11, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and M c KEOW

N, C irc uit Judge s , a

n d PETER SON, *** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nt Gilbe rto M artine z a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions, a fte r a jury tria l, for posse s sing five kilogra

m s or m ore of c o c a ine with inte nt to distribute ; posse ssing 

# FIL ED AUG 15 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria t e for public ation 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

b le for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2). *** The Honora

ble R o s anna

M a louf Pe te rson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.100 kilogra

m s or m ore of m arijua

na with inte nt to distribute ; posse ssing 50 gra m s or m ore of m e tha

m phe tam ine with inte n t

to distribute ; using, c arry ing, or posse s sing a

fire a rm in furthe ranc e of a

drug-tra ffic king c rim e ; a nd be ing a fe lon in posse s sion of fire arm s and/or a m m unition, in viola

t ion of 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), (b)(1)(B )(vii) & (b)(1)(A)(viii); 18 U.S.C . § 924(a )(2) & (c )(1)(A)(i); and 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1). W e a ffirm
. 1. On de novo re vie w, Unite d Stat e s v. Due na s, 691 F.3d 1070, 1079 (9th C ir. 2012), we hold tha

t the distric t c ourt prope rly de n ie d the m otion to suppre ss. Proba ble c a use and e xige nt c irc um sta nc e s justifie d the wa

rrantle s s e ntry

and lim ite d se arc h of the hom e , se e Hopkins v. B onvic ino, 573 F.3d 752, 766–67 (9th C ir. 2009) (sta

ting those two re quire m e nts for wa rrantle ss e ntry ). At
a pproxim a te l y

2:50 a .m . on M arc h 31, 2014, a n a nony m ous 911 c a lle r re porte d that he sa w four or five m a le s— at le a st one of whom wa s a rm e d— bre ak into a
ne arby duple x by kic king down the door. Afte r the door wa s kic ke d in, thec a lle r he ard loud y e lling a

nd possibly

gunshots. The

inform ation obtaine d from the 911
c a lle r wa s c orroborate d be fore the offic e rs e nte re d the hom e by De fe nda n t’ s flight from the sc e n e , the c o ntra

ba nd found in De fe nda

nt’ s truc k a

nd outsidean a pa rtm e nt c om

ple x whe re he ha d m om e nta rily stoppe d a s he fle d from

polic e , a n d the v isible e vide nc e of forc e d e ntry at De fe nda

n t’ s hom e . M ore ove r, vic tim s or 2suspe c ts m i ght still ha ve be e n in the duple x, a

nd the offic e rs lim ite d the ir se arc h to

" sy ste m atic a lly

c le ar[ing] the room s" to e nsure that the re we re no " p ote ntia l suspe c ts or vic tim s" still in the duple x. Tha

t the offic e rs took 51 minute s to loc ate the h ouse be fore e nte ring doe s not a ffe c t our c onc lusion, be c a u se the y re a sona bly
c onc lude d upon a

rriva l tha t the ir im m e diate e ntry

wa s ne c e s sa

ry " to prote c t or pre s e rve life or avoid se rious injury ." Unite d State s v. Ec he goy e n, 799 F.2d 1271, 1278 (9th C ir. 1986) (quoting M inc e y v. Ariz ona , 437 U.S. 385, 392 (1978)). Eve n if we we re to c onc lude tha t the warrantle ss e ntry

wa s unla wful, suppre ssion is not a

n a ppropria te re m e dy be c a use the wa

rrant a pplic ation wa s inde pe nde ntly

supporte d by

e vide nc e obta ine d

be fore the e ntry . Se e Unite d Stat e s v. Drive r, 776 F.2d 807, 812 (9th C ir. 1985) (" The wa rrant m ay be uphe l d e ve n whe re it c onta ins ta inte d a nd unta inte d

fa c ts a s long a s the unta inte d portions
c onta in a suffic ie nt showing of proba ble c a use to re nde r the warrant va l id." ). The
a ffidav it in support of the warrant liste d se ve ra l unta i nte d obse rvations tha

t e sta blishe d proba

ble c a use . 2. The distric t c ourt a c te d within its disc re tion, Unite d

State s v. Ane kwu, 695 F.3d 967, 978 (9th C ir. 2012), whe n it de c line d to a sk a propose d voir dire que stion tha

t inquire d whe the r any of the pote n tia l jurors would be " m ore inc line d to find thede fe nda

nt guilty . . . sole ly

be c a use he ha s prior fe lony

c onvic tions." 3During voir dire , the distric t c ourt inform e d the pote ntia l jurors tha t one of the
c ha rge s a ga inst De fe nda

nt a lle ge d tha

t he wa s a fe l on in posse ssion of a

fire arm . Afte r a dvising the

jurors of tha

t c ha rge , the distric t c o urt a ske d the m if the y would be a b le to pre sum e De fe nda

n t’ s innoc e nc e and hold thegove rnm e nt to its burde n of proof. The distric t c ourt a lso a ske d pote ntia l jurors whe the r the y ha d " strong fe e l ings a bout thec rim ina l justic e sy ste m " tha t would pre ve n t the m

" from giving
e ithe r the gove rnm e nt or the de fe nda nt a fa ir tria l." Fina lly , a fte r e m p ane ling the jury , the distric t c ourt ga

v e spe c ific lim iting instruc tions a s to how the jury wa s to tre a t De fe nda

nt’ s prior fe lony

c onvic tions for e vide ntia ry purpose s. Those ste ps we re suffic ie n t

to e nsure De fe nda

nt ha d a fa ir tria l. Se e Unite d State s v. M e dina C a ste ne da , 511 F.3d 1246, 1250 (9th C ir. 2008) (holding tha t a distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in re fusing to a sk a propose d voir dire que stion be c a use the
c ourt a ske d " a m ore ge ne ra l que stion re ga rding the juror’ s a

bility to follow the

la w in a c c orda

nc e with thejudge ’ s instruc t ion" ). AFFIRM E D.

4