T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. W EN D ELL D EA N K O PP, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 30310 D . C . N o. 1: 08 -c r- 00 15 3-R F C -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na R i c ha r d F . C e bul l , C hi e f D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r6, 2011

S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: T A S H IM A , M cK E O W N , an d T A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W e n d e ll D e a n K o p p ( “K o p p ” ) ap p e a ls h is ju ry c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a nd di s tr i but i on of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on o f 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 6 a n d 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2, a nd



# FI LED JAN 03 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

p o s s e s s io n o f

f ir e a r m s u s e d in f

u r th e r a n c e o f

th e d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e s , in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 924( c ) ( 1) a nd ( 2) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f ir m . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng K opp’ s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s . T he t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s s up po rt ed K op p’ s s t op and d et ent i on . T he st op w as ju stified b y a rticu lab le fa cts w h ich , co m b in ed w ith O ff icerM ich ae l G il lu ly’s tr a i ni ng a nd e xpe r i e nc e a s a pol i c e of f i c e r , c r e a t e d a r e a s onabl e s us pi c i on of c r im in a l a c tiv ity . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . J

ohns on , 58 1 F . 3d 99 4, 99 9 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T h e d istrict co u rt’s d ec isio n to w ith h o ldce rtain p ag es o f K risty C o ta’s i nf or m a ntf i l e s a f t e rc onduc t i ng a n i n c am e r a re vi ew di d n otconst i tut e c l ea r e rr or. W e ha ve i nde pe nde nt l y r e vi e w e d the tw o i nf or m a ntf i l e s a nd a gr e e tha tthe w i thh el d p ages cont ai ned i m m at er i al i nform at i on thati s unrel at ed t o the al l eged c o n s p ir a c y . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . V

an B r andy , 7 2 6 F .2 d 5 4 8 , 5 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . T here w as no vi ol at i on of B r ady v . M ar y land , 37 3 U . S . 83 (196 3), or G i gl i o v. U ni ted Stat es , 4 0 5 U .S . 1 5 0 ( 1 9 7 2 ) . T he di stri ctcourtaddres se d the approp ri at e f ac t ors a nd corr ec t l y w ei gh ed the po t ent i al for pre

j ud i ce w hen i tprov i ded a l i m i t i ng i nstruct i on and adm i tt ed e vi de nc e unde rF e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 404( b) tha tK opp w a s a rr e s t e d f or pos s e s s i on of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd drug pa r aphe rna l i a appr oxi m a t e l y f i ve w e e ks3

b e f o r e th e b e g in n in g o f

th e c h a r g e d c o n s p ir a c y . U n ite d S ta te s v . C a s tillo , 181 F . 3d 1 1 2 9 , 1 1 3 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i tpl a i n e rr ori n a l l ow i ng D E A S pe c i a l A ge nt D a ni e l D unl ap t o t e s t i f

y tha tthe i t e m s s e i z e d f r om K opp dur i ng the S e pt e m be ra nd N ove m be r2008 a rr e s t s w e r e t ool s of the tr a de of

a m e tha m phe t a m i ne drug di s tr i but orbe c a us e the t e s t i m ony ne i the ra f f e c t e d K opp’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s northe f a irn e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic r e p u ta tio n o f th e tr ia l. U

ni ted Stat es v. G om ez - N

or e na , 908 F . 2d 497, 500- 02 ( 9th C i r . 1990) . A ge ntD unl ap’ s t e s t i m ony c ons t i tut e d a s m a l l port i on of a n othe rw i s e s tr ong c a s e a ga i ns tK opp. F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i tpl a i n e rr ori n f a i l i ng t o i ns truc tthe j u ry s u a s

p o n te tha tw i thdr a w a l i s a de f e ns e t o P i nke r ton liab ility . P i nker ton v. U ni ted Stat es , 32 8 U . S . 64 0 (19 46 ). K op p h ad the i ni t i al bu rden of show i ng that h is a c tio n s w a rr a n te d a w ith d r a w a l in s tru c tio n , U ni te d State s v . L othi an , 976 F . 2d 1257, 1261 ( 9th C i r . 1992) , a nd the e vi de nc e a ttr i a l di d noti ndi c a t e tha tK opp di s a vow e d the unl a w f

ul goa l of

the c ons pi r a c y , a f

f i r m a t i ve l y a c t e d t o de f

e a tthe p u rp o s e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y , o rto o k d e f in ite , d e c is iv e , a n d p o s itiv e s te p s to d is a s s o c ia te h im s e lf

f r o m th e c o n s p ir a c y . U

ni te d State s v . Ki lby , 443 F . 3d 1135, 11 39 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). In l i gh tof K op p’ s f ai l ure t o w i thd ra w fr om the conspi ra cy a nd the t e s t i m ony a ttr i a l r e ga r di ng the e xt e ns i ve na tur e of the drug di s tr i but i on4

ent erpri se , K op p’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e notaf fe ct ed by the di stri ctcourt ’ s f ai l ure t o i nstructthe j ury on the w i thd ra w al defe nse. AF F I RME D.