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. JOHN PAUL FRISB Y,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10324

D.C . No. 4:16-c r-01779-DC B -JR -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 David C . B ury , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 12, 2018 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge , a nd OLGUIN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
APR 16 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Fe rnando M . Olguin, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e n tra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.John Pa u l Frisby (“ Frisby ” ) a

ppe a l s c onvic tions following a jury tria l. W e
a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the history

of the c a se , we ne e d not
re c o unt it he re . I The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in giving a “ de libe ra te ignora nc e ” jury instruc tion nor in failing to give a spe c ific inte nt instruc tion. A W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to give a de libe ra te ignora

nc e instruc tion for a

buse of disc re tion, a

nd we c onside r the suffic ie nc y of the supporting e vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the re que sting pa

rty . Unite d State s v . He re dia , 483 F.3d 913, 921-22 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ). A de libe ra te ignora

nc e instruc tion is not c ontra ry to la w . Se e Unite d State

s
v . J e w e l l , 532 F.2d 697, 700-03 (9th C ir. 1976) (e n ba nc ). “ The J

e w e ll sta nda rd
e lim inat e s the ne e d to e sta blish . . . positive

knowle dge to obta in a

c onspira c y
c onvic tion.” Unite d State s v . Ramos-Atondo , 732 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th C i r. 2013) (quoting Unite d State

s v . N i c holson , 677 F.2d 706, 711 (9th C ir. 1982)). A distric t
c ourt m ay give a de libe ra te ignora

nc e instruc tion if it de te rm ine s tha t a jury c ould
ra tiona lly find de libe rate ignora

nc e . He re dia , 483 F.3d a t 922.

2He re , the jury c ould ra t iona lly find de libe ra t e ignora

nc e . Diona sis He rnande z -M argilla

n (“ H e rnande z ” ) a ske d Frisby to drive him

to a de se rte d a

re a
ne ar the U.S.-M e xic o borde r fe nc e on two oc c a sions la te at night. On the se c ond
oc c a sion, He rnande z offe re d Frisby $400 for the ride , e v e n though the ride wa s a
ve ry short dista

nc e . He rnande z a lso a s ke d Frisby to turn off his va n’ s he a dlights whe n the y

a pproa c he d the borde r. Frisby ne ve r a ske d He rnande z why he wa nte d to be drive n to the are a

ne a r the borde r fe nc e , why

he wa s offe ring $400 for the ride , or why

he wa n te d to turn off the

va n’ s he a dlights. Even a fte r Frisby “ kne w
som e thing wa s going on,” a c c o rding to his te s tim ony , he c o ntinue d to c la im tha t he did not know wha

t wa s insidethe bundle while he wa s driving towa rds it. Give n the s e fa c t s, a

jury c ould ra tiona lly find de libe rate ignora

nc e . B The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to give Frisby ’ s propose d “ spe c i fic inte nt” instruc tion wa s a lso not a n a buse of disc re tion. Theinstruc tion give n a de quate ly
a dvise d the jury

on the re quisitee le m e nts of the offe n se . II The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to instruct the jury on the le sse r-inc l u de d o ffe nse of sim ple posse ssion. W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a

jury instruc tion on a

le sse r-inc lude d offe nse using a two-pa rt a na ly sis.
3Se e Unite d State s v . Riv e ra-Alonzo , 584 F.3d 829, 832 (9th C ir. 2009) (c i ting Unite d State s v . He rnande

z , 476 F.3d 791, 797 (9th C ir. 2007)). “ First, we re vie w de nov o whe the r the offe nse on whic h instruc t ion is sought is a le sse r-inc lude d offe nse of tha

t c ha rge d.” Id. (c ita

tions omitte d). Se c ond, if the instruc t ion sought is a le sse r-inc lude d

offe n se , we re v ie w for a

buse of disc re tion whe the r a jury c ould
ra tiona lly c onc lude tha

t t he de fe nda

n t wa s guilty of the le sse r but not the gre a te r
c rim e . Id. (c ita

tion omi tte d). He re , the pa rtie s only dispute whe the r the jury

c ould
ra tiona lly c onc lude tha

t t he de fe nda

n t wa s guilty of the le sse r but not the gre a te r offe nse . A jury c ould not ra

tiona lly c onc lude that Frisby

wa s guilty

of the le sse r offe nse of sim

ple posse ssion. Thequa

ntity of m arijua

na in the bundle is strong
e vide nc e tha

t the m arijua

na wa s inte nde d for distribution. The am ount of
m arijua na at issue

— 59 kilogra

m s, with a

m arke t va lue of $106,400— wa s fa r m ore tha n a ra tiona l jury

c ould c onc l ude wa s for pe rsona l use
. C f. Unite d State

s v . He rnande z , 476 F.3d 791, 798 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ Drugs by the m s e lve s, in qua

ntitie s that c ould ra t iona l ly be thought by

the jury to be for pe rsona l use , without other
e vide nc e of inte nt to distribute , a re not e nough to e xc l ude a jury instruc t ion on a le sse r inc lude d offe nse .” ). Frisby ’ s c ounse l e ve n c o nc e de d in his c losing a rgum e n t

4that

posse ssion of tha

t a m o unt of m arijua

na “ is c l e arly posse ssion with inte nt to distribute .” Frisby argue s tha

t he did not posse ss the m arijua na with a n inte nt to distributeit, but only

with a n inte nt to tra

n sport it to Hernande z ’ s hom e . The re is no support in the

re c o rd for Frisby ’ s a c c ount. Frisby ne v e r e xplic itly

te stifie d that he inte nde d to pic k

up the bundle at a ll, e ve n for m e re posse ssion. Hete stifie d that whe n he pulle d his va

n forwa rd, he wa s “ going to pic k [He rnande z ] up, ta ke him hom e , e ithe r not ta lk to him a ga in or just be a t his a ss right the re . ” Whe n a ske d what he wa s going to do with the bundle , he sa id, “ I wa sn’ t going to do a ny thing. I
wa sn’ t going to do a

nything with tha

t tube . Nothing a

t a ll.” W he n a s ke d whe the r he drove towa

rds the bundle , Frisby

c la rifie d tha t he only drove towa

rds He rnande z . Frisby ’ s lite ra l te stim ony doe s not support a

c onc lusion tha

t he wa s guilty of sim ple posse ssion; it sugge s ts tha t he wa s not guilty

of a ny offe nse . A jury c ould not ra

tiona lly c onc lude tha

t Frisby wa s guilty

of the le sse r offe n se of sim ple posse ssion. Thus, the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of the le sse r-inc l ude d instruc tion wa s not a

n a buse of disc re t ion.

III The distric t c ourt’ s instruc tions on c onspira c y , P i nk e rton , a nd a iding a

nd
a be tting, ta ke n a s a whole , we re not im

prope r. W e re vie wa distric t c ourt’ s
5form

ulat ion of jury

instruc tions for a

buse of disc re tion. “ The re le v an t inquiry is whe the r the instruc tions a s a whole are m isle a ding or ina d e q uate to guidethe jury ’ s de libe ra t ion.” Unite d State s v . Hofus , 598 F.3d 1171, 1174 (9th C ir. 2010) (quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). The distric t c ourt’ s c onspira c y instruc tion did not im

prope rly a llow the jury to pre sum e an inte nt to c onspire . Nor did thedistric t c ourt e rr by de c l ining to instruc t the jury that it c o u ld only c onvic t on the c onspira c y c ha rge if Frisby

a gre e d to “ the e ntire sc o pe of the c onspira c y .” Frisby ’ s re l ia nc e on U nite d State

s v . Lov e land, 825 F.3d 555 (9th C ir. 2016), for the s e propositions is m ispla c e d. Lov e land m e re l y c la rifie d tha t, in thec o nte xt of a lle ge d buy e r-se lle r c o nspira c ie s, the a gre e m e nt e le m e nt ne e de d to be satisfie d by som e thing m o re tha n the fa c t of the b uy e r-se lle r re lationship or sim p le knowle d ge tha

t a buy e r wa s re se lling drugs. Id. at 562. Lov e l

and did not m ake a

broa d holding tha

t a de fe nda nt m ust a gre e to

“ the e ntire sc o pe of the c onspira c y ,” nor did it sugge st tha t de libe ra te ignora

nc e
c annot sa tisfy the me ns re a e le m e nt of the c o nspira c y sta tute unde r c e rta in
c irc um s ta nc e s . Frisby ’ s c ha lle n ge s to the Pink e rton and a iding a

nd a be tting instruc tions a lso la c k m e rit. His c ha l le nge to the Pink e rton instruc tion is de rivative of his c ha lle nge to the de libe rate ignora

nc e instruc tion on the c onspira c y c ha rge . As disc usse d, a
6de libe ra t e ignora nc e i nstruc tion in the

c onte xt of a

c onspira c y

c ha rge is not
c ontra ry to la w. Aiding a

n d a be tting lia bility c an a lso be ba se d on de libe ra te ignora nc e . Unite d State

s v . N osal , 844 F.3d 1024, 1039-40 (9th C ir. 2016). Ne ithe r the Pink

e r ton instruc t ion nor the a iding a nd a be tting instruc tion wa s a

n
a buse o f disc re tion.

AFFIRM E D.

7