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 ERIC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DANIEL FLINT,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 19-50300

D.C . No. 2:17-c r-00697-SJO-1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 3, 2021 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, W ARDLAW , a

n d GOULD, C irc uit Judge s. Danie l Flint c ha lle nge s his c onvic tion for knowingly and willfully

e nte ring a ste rile a irport a

re a with theinte nt to e va de se c urity re quire m e nts unde r 49 U.S.C . § 46314(a), (b)(2). 

# FIL ED MAY20 2021 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.Flint a rgue s tha t ve nue in theC e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia wa s im prope r. The distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to instruc t the jury on ve nue wa s e rror, but be c a use no re a s ona ble jury c ould find tha

t ve nue in the C e ntra l Distric t wa s im prope r for the c rim e of e nte ring the Los Ange le s Inte rnationa l Airport in viola tion of se c urity re quire m e nts, the e rror wa s ha rm le ss. Se e Unite d

State s v . Moran-Garc ia , 966 F.3d 966, 971 (9th C ir. 2020). Flint furthe r argue s tha

t the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d insuffic ie nt e vide n c e to susta in his c o nvic tion. Spe c ific a lly , Flint a rgue s tha t he did not c om

m it a ny e le m e nt of thec rim e c ha

rge d be c a use he did not viola

te any of Los Ange le s Inte rnationa l Airport’ s se c urity proc e dure s. The re gula

tions, howe ve r, spe a

k ge ne ra lly of c om ply ing with proc e dure s use d to c o ntrol a c c e ss to sterile are a s, re ga rdle s s of whe the r those proc e dure s a re at the de pa

rture or a rriva l a irport. Se e

, e .g. , 49 C .F.R . § 1540.107(a ). R e ga rdle ss of wha

t oc c urre d in C hic a go, Flint wa s c ha rge d with a

nd c o nvic te d of c rim ina l c onduc t at Los Ange l e s Inte rnationa l Airport. Flint simila

rly c la im s tha

t he did not “knowingly

and willfully

e nte r” the Los Ange l e s Inte rnationa l Airport te rm ina l be c a use he wa s e sc orte d

off the pla

ne by 2la

w e nforc e m e nt. A re a s ona ble jury , howe ve r, c ould ha ve c o nc lude d tha

t Flint, having volunta

rily boa rde d a pla ne bound for Los Ange l e s Inte rnationa l Airport, inte nde d to e nte r that a irport, a n d did wha

t he inte n de d . It is ge ne ra lly pe rm issible to a s sum e one inte nds thenatura l c onse q ue nc e s of one ’ s a c tions. Unite d State s v . Loe ra , 923 F.2d 725, 728 (9th C ir. 1991). In this c a s e , Flint volunta rily boa rde d a pla n e bound for Los Ange le s Inte rnationa l Airport, a nd a re a sona

ble jury c ould have c o nc lude d

he inte nde d to e nte r the Los Ange le s Inte rnat iona l Airport in viola tion of theproc e dure s use d to se c ure that a re a upon a rriva l. Furthe rm ore , Flint doe s not dispute

tha t he phy sic a lly

e nte re d the a irport, a l be it unde r the watc hful e y e of la

w e nforc e m e nt. Flint a lso c l a im s tha

t the indic tm e nt wa s c onstruc tive ly am e nde d be c a

use the spe c ific re gula

tions in the

jury instruc tions we re not inc lude d in theindic tm e nt. The indic tm e nt, howe ve r, tra c k e d the sta tute of c onvic tion, a s did thejury instruc tions a

nd the judgm e nt of c onvic tion. Thus, the indic tm e nt wa s not substa ntia lly a lte re d at tria l, suc h “ that it wa s im possibleto know whe the r the gran d jury

would ha ve indic te d for the c rim e a c tua lly prove d.” S

e e Unite d State

s v . Dav is , 854 F.3d 601, 603 (9th C ir. 2017) (quoting Unite d State s v . Adamson , 291 F.3d 606, 615 (9th C ir. 2002)). Flint further c la im s tha t the jury instruc tions 3we re de fe c tive be c a use the re gula

tions do not a

ddre s s de pla

ning proc e dure s a

nd we re thus ina

pplic a ble . This c onte ntion, howe ve r, is ba s e d on Flint’ s e rrone ous c onte ntion tha

t the re le va

nt re gula tions do not a

pply at de stina t ion a irports. Se e

, e .g. , 49 C .F.R . § 1540.107(a ) (c onta ining no te xtua l lim ita tion to de pa rture a irports). Additionally , Flint a

rgue s tha t the prose c ution c om

m itte d re ve rsible m isc o nduc t by m isc onstruing te stim onia l a nd vide o e v ide nc e . Prose c utors, howe v e r, are a l lowe d to m ake re a sona ble infe re nc e s whe n a

rguing be fore the jury . Unite d State s v . Flore s , 802 F.3d 1028, 1035 (9th C ir. 2015) (c iting Unite d State s v . Say e tsitty , 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th C ir. 1997)). Furthe rm ore , c o ntrary to Flint’ s a sse rtions, theprose c ution did not c om m it c um ulative e rrors suffic ie nt to wa rrant re ve rsa l unde r pla in e rror re vie w. Se eid. at 1042. Fina lly , Flint a

rgue s tha t the gove rnm e nt m ay

hav e a lte re d a

n a udio c lip tha

t possibly c onta i ne d e xc ulpa

tory inform ation. This c la im , howe ve r, wa s in Flint’ s joint post-tria

l pe tition for a

writ of c oram nobis an d m otion for a ne w tria l. B e c a use Flint ha d not y e t be e n se nte nc e d, c oram nobisre lie f wa s not a v a ila ble to him . Te link

, Inc . v . Unite d State

s , 24 F.3d 42, 45 (9th C ir. 1994). Furthe rm ore ,

4be c a

use the a u dio re c ording wa s not ne w e vide n c e , the m otion for a ne w tria l wa s late . Fe d. R . C rim . P. 33(b). Thus, the distric t c o urt prope rly

de nie d this c la im

on proc e d ura l grounds.

AFFIRM E D.

5