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 and 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. BE NJ AM I N O CHOA - RAM I RE Z, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50020 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 00 16 37 -W Q H -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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m Q . H a y e s , 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 r8, 2009

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , T R O T T an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B e n ja m in O c h o a - R a m ir e z ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n f o rv io la tin g 2 1 U .S .C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) , 952, a nd 960, pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e a nd i m port a t i on of m a r iju a n a , a n d ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s im p o s itio n o f ath irty - th r e e m o n th s e n t e n c e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

JU L 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A l tho ug h the di stri ctcourt ’ s grand j ury i nstruct i on thatthe U ni t ed S t at es A tt orne y i s duty bound t o pr e s e nte xc ul pa t orye vi de nc e w a s i nc orr e c t , thi s e rr or d o es n o treq u i re rev ersal b ecau se th e erro r w as n o tstru ctu ral an d w as h arm l ess e rr orgi ve n O c hoa - R a m i r e z ’ s c onvi c t i on. S e e N a va rr o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , N o. 08- 5 0 3 6 5 , ___F .3 d ___, 2 0 1 0 W L 2 3 3 1 4 6 1 , a t * 6

– 8 ( 9 th C ir . J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 1 0 ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence (“ F R E ”) 40 4(b) w hen i tadm i tt ed evi dence thatO choa-R am i re z c ross ed the bo rder o n tw o p rio r o cc as io n s b ec au se (1 ) th is ev id en ce is p ro b ativ e o f O ch o a- R am irez ’s know l e dge tha tm a r i

j ua naw a s i n the ve hi c l e he w a s dr i vi ng, a nd ( 2) af i ve - ors i xda y t i m e di f

f e r e nc e i s nott oo r e m ot e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A r a m bul a - R ui z , 987 F . 2d 599, 602–04 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R a m i r e z - J i m i ne z , 967 F . 2d 1 3 2 1 , 1 3 2 6

– 2 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . S im ila r ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its di sc re t i on w hen i tdet erm i ned thatthi s e vi dence w as no tun fa i rl y pre j ud i ci al un der F R E 403. T he e vi de nc e w a s r e l e va ntt o O c hoa - R a m i r e z ’ s know l e dge , a nd the d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o v id e d to th e ju ry alim itin g in s tru c tio n th a t m itig a te d a n yu n f a ir prej ud i ce thatm ayhave otherw i se occurr ed. S ee A ra m bu l a- R ui z, 98 7 F . 2d at 602–04; R a m i r e z - J i m i ne z , 967 F . 2d a t1326–27. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tdeni ed O choaR a m i r e z ’ s r e que s tt o gi ve the j urya“ m e r e pr e s e nc e ” i ns truc t i on be c aus e the3

gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e w a s notba s e d s ol e l yon O c hoa - R a m i r e z ’ s pr oxi m i tyt o the m ar ij u an a. In stea d , th e g o v ern m en t relied o n p ro v in g O ch o a- R am irez ’s kn ow l edge thatm ar i

j uana w as i n the van h e drove acr oss the U . S . bo rder . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. N egre t e- G on za l es , 96 6 F . 2d 12 77 , 12 82 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tcl earl y err w h en i td en i ed O ch o a-R am i rez’s req u est f oradow nw a r d de pa rtur e t o hi s gui de l i ne l e ve l , ba s e d on a c c e pt a nc e of re sp o n sib il ity u n d erU .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 , b ec au se th e e v id en ce o f O ch o a- R am irez ’s a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty i s l i m i t e d t o one pos t - c onvi c t i on e xpr e s s i on of r e m o r s e . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . R e s tr e p o , 9 3 0 F .2 d 7 0 5 , 7 1 0

– 1 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n i m po si ng the thi rty- three m onth s e nt e nc e . O c hoa - R a m i r e z ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s s ubs t a nt i ve l yr e a s onabl e unde r18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) because the di stri ctcourtadequat el y c on si dere d the i m po rt ance of O c hoa - R a m i r e z ’ s pe r s ona l a nd f a m i l yhi s t oryunde r§ 3553( a ) ( 1) a nd det erm i ned thatthese fa ct ors w er e i nsuffi ci entt o o utw ei gh the other § 35 53 (a ) f a c to r s . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . C a n tr e ll, 4 3 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e xpl a na t i on, a l be i tbr i e f , w a s a de qua t e gi ve n the s tr a i ght f orw a r d na tur e of

the a r gum e nt s a ti s s ue . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a rt e r , 560 F . 3d 11 07 , 11 16 –1 9 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). A F F I R M E D .4