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. ER IK QUIR OZ R

AZO, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 20-10021

D.C . No. 1:19-c r-00015-DAD-B AM -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Da le A. Droz d, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 3, 2021 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , R AW LINSON, a

nd B Y B EE, C irc uit Judge s. At tria l, Appe l la

nt Erik Quiroz

R a z o (Quiroz ) wa s c onvic te d of a single c ount of c onspira c y

to a id a nd a be t Pa ulo Virge n

M e ndoz a ’ s (Pa

u lo) flight to a

void prose c ution. 18 U.S.C . §§ 2, 371, 1073. He now a ppe a ls on thre e grounds, a lle ging tha

t (1) the distric t c o urt m issta te d the jury

instruc tions a

nd fa ile d to 

# FIL ED

SEP 24 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.re quire the gove rnm e nt to provetha t Quiroz kne w Pa ulo inte nde d to c ross sta

te line s, (2) the prose c ution la c ke d suffic ie nt e v ide nc e to c onvic t for c onspira c y

to a id and a be t be c a use the unde rly i ng c rim e ne ve r transpire d, a nd (3) the prose c utor c om m itte d m isc onduc t. W e have a ppe lla te jurisdic t ion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm
. Whe n a de fe n da n t m o ve s for a c quitta l at the c lose of the gove rnm e nt’ s c a se , we re vie wde novo whe the r suffic ie nt e vide nc e e xists to support a guilty ve rdic t. Se e Unite d State

s v . Ste w art , 420 F.3d 1007, 1014 (9th C ir. 2005). Vie w ing the e vide nc e “ in the light m ost fa vora b le to the prose c ution,” we the n de te rm ine

“ whe the r any

rationa l trie r of fa c t c ould ha ve found thee sse ntia l e le m e nts of the c rim e be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt.” Unite

s State s v . Orozc o-Santillan , 903 F.2d 1262, 1264 (9th C ir. 1990) (quota tions a nd e m pha sis omitte d). Like wise , whe n prope rly

pre se rve d be low, a c la im tha t jury instruc tions
m issta te the e le m e nts of a

sta tutory c rim e is re vie we d

de novo. Unite d

State s v . C hriste nse n , 828 F.3d 763, 785 (9th C ir. 2015). Suc h e rrors a re ge ne ra l ly

subje c t to ha rm le ss e rror re v ie w . U

nite d State

s v . Thongsy , 577 F.3d 1036, 1040 (9th C ir. 2009).

2Whe n the de fe nda nt fa ils to obje c t to a prose c utor’ s sta te m e nt in re butta l, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Se e U nite d State

s v . Gome z , 725 F.3d 1121, 1131 (9th C ir. 2013) (c iting Unite d State s v . Hay at , 710 F.3d 875, 893 (9th C ir. 2013)). 1. The distric t c ourt’ s jury instruc tion a de quate ly

sta te d the knowle dge re quire m e nts for thec ha

rge d c onspira c y . The distric t c ourt liste d the two e le m e nts of flight to a

void prose c ution, na

m e ly , the c rossing of sta

te or inte rnat iona l bounda rie s a nd the inte nt to a

v oid prose c ution. 18 U.S.C . § 1073. Thedistric t c ourt inform e d the jury

tha t a i d ing a nd a be tting re quire s proof tha t the de fe nda

nt pa rtic i pate d in the“ c rim ina l ve nture with a dva nc e knowle dge of the c rim e ,” and that c onspira c y

re q uire s “ an a gre e m e nt be twe e n two or m ore pe rsons to [a c c om p lish this obje c t ] . ” Take n toge the r, this instruc tion re quire d the prose c ution to prove tha

t Quiroz kne w of Pa

ulo’ s inte nt to tra

v e l to M e xic o, sa

tisfy ing the sta nda rd for § 371 c onspira c y . Se e Unite d State s v . Fe ola , 420 U.S. 671, 695 (1975) (“ The jurisdic tiona l re quire m e nt is sa tisfie d by the e xiste nc e of fa c ts ty ing the p rosc ribe d c o nduc t to theare a of fe de ra l c onc e rn de line ate d by the sta tute .” ). 2. Appe lla

nt’ s a sse rtions tha

t c onspira c y to a id a

nd a be t fa i ls without the oc c urre nc e of the unde rly ing c rim e are una va iling. W e have c onsiste ntly he ld tha t a iding a nd a b e tting is sim

ply “ a diffe re n t m e ans of c om

m itting a singlec rim e ” and the re fore im

plie d in a nd inte rc ha

nge a ble with the substa

ntive offe nse . Unite d 3State

s v . Garc i a , 400 F.3d 816, 820 (9th C ir. 2005). Ac c ordingly , a c onspira c y

to a id a nd a be t m a y be susta i ne d e ve n whe n the unde rly ing offe nse ne ve r transpire s. Unite d State s v . Bosc h , 914 F.2d 1239, 1241 (9th C ir. 1990). Thejury c onside re d am ple e vide nc e , whe n

vie we d in the light m ost fa

vora ble to the prose c ution, tha t Quirozkne w Pa

ulo wa s wa

nte d by polic e for m

urde r, unde rstood Pa

ulo wa s atte m pting to fle e to M e xic o , and a c te d with a n inte nt to a id this flight from prose c ution. W e se e no re a s on in there c ord to disturb the se findings of fa c t or the judgm e nt of the jury
. 3. The prose c utor did not c om m it m isc onduc t, a

n d he r a c tions stra

y nowhe re c lose to pla in e rror. Quirozre sts his a rgum e nt on a

singlesta te m e nt m a de in c l osing re butta l: “ The la w a n d fa c ts in this c a se e sta

blish be y ond a re a sona

ble doubt, a ny doubt ba se d

on c om m on se nse , tha

t the de fe nda

nts a re a ll guilty

of the c rim e s c ha

rge d a ga inst the m . If y o u’ re going to fulfill y o ur role a s jurors, y ou ne e d to find e ve ry one guilty .” In c o nte xt, the sta te m e nt prope rly

instruc te d the jury of its dutie s provide d tha t the gove rnm e nt sa

tisfie d its burde n of proof be y ond a re a sona ble doubt. Se e Gome

z , 725 a t 1131 (holding tha

t sta ting thegove rnm e nt’ s burde n , tha

t the e vide nc e fulfille d tha t burde n, a

nd tha t the jury ha d a c orre sponding “ duty

to sa y tha t the de fe nda

nt is guilty” doe s not c onstitute e rror);
se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Tuan N

gocLuong , 965 F.3d 973, 988 (9th C ir. 2020)

4(holding tha

t c orre c t instruc tions from the distric t c o urt a nd the gove rnm e nt’ s own re fe re n c e s to thoseinstruc tions mitiga te pla in e rror). AFFIRM E D.

5