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. GILB ER T LEE M EDINA,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10159

D.C . No. 1:13-c r-01039-HG-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 Ha

wa ii He le n W . Gillm or, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2018 * * Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : O’ SC A

N NLAIN, C L IFTON, a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Afte r a jury tria l, Gilbe rt M e dina wa s found guilty of m

ultipleoffe nse s a

nd se nte nc e d to lifeim

prisonm e nt. M e dina argue s tha t the distric t c ourt a llowe d



# FIL ED FEB 14 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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.

* * The pa

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

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

prope r witne ss te stim ony and tha t his se nte nc e viola

te s the Eighth Ame ndm e nt. W e a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it a llowe d te stim ony a bout a n e ffort to c olle c t M e dina ’ s drug debt. Se e Unite d State s v . Pre ston , 873 F.3d 829, 835 (9th C ir. 2017). W hile the pe rsona l knowle dge re quire m e nt of Fe d. R . Evid. 602 doe s not a llow a witne ss to “ spe c ulate , gue ss, or voic e suspic ions,” it doe s a l low “ o pinions a

nd infe re nc e s grounde d in obse rvations a nd e xpe rie nc e .” Unite d State s v . W hitte more , 776 F.3d 1074, 1082 (9th C i r. 2015) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d); se ealso Fe d. R . Evid. 602. At tria l, a c oc onspira

tor te stifie d a

bout he r knowle dge of and involvem e nt with the drug c onspira c y , inc luding de l i ve ring na rc otic s to M e dina

and he r atte m

pt to c olle c t m one y from him for prior drug tra

nsa c t ions. He r te stim o ny wa s ba se d upon

“ infe re n c e s grounde d in obse rvations a n d e xpe rie nc e ,” and wa s not im prope r. Se e W hitte more , 776 F.3d a

t 1082 (c ita

tion omitte d) . M ore o v e r, be c a u se the te s tim ony wa s “ offe re d a ga inst a

n opposing pa

rty and . . . wa s m a d e by

the pa rty ’ s c oc onspira

tor during a

nd in furthe ranc e of the c onspira c y ,” it wa s not he arsay . Fe d. R . Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Nor did the distric t c ourt a buse its disc re t ion whe n it a dm itte d te stim ony a bout drugs found a

t a nothe r c oc onspira

tor’ s house . Along with M e dina ’ s writte n 2c onfe s sion, up to nine pa c ka ge s se nt be twe e n M e d ina and the c oc onspira

tor from De c e m b e r 2012 to M arc h 2013, a nd othe r e vide nc e in there c ord, the te s tim ony wa s re le va

nt to whe the r the c oc onspira t or wa s M e dina ’ s drug sourc e . Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 401. The

c oc onspira

tor did not ne e d to be nam e d in M e dina ’ s indic tm e nt in orde r for the te stim ony

a bout thedrugs to bea d

m itte d. Se eUnite d State

s v . Sangme i ste r , 685 F.2d 1124, 1126-27 (9th C ir. 1982). Fina lly , a ny im prope r te stim ony

wa s ha rm le ss e rror. S

e eUnite d State

s v . Edw ards , 235 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th C i r. 2000) (“ Suc h de c isions will be re ve rse d for an a buse of disc re tion only

if suc h nonc onstitutiona

l e rror m ore like ly

tha n not a ffe c te d the ve rdic t.” ). The jury he ard te s tim ony

from six c oc onspira

tors, te stim ony a bout M e dina ’ s signe d c onfe ssion, a nd a re c ording of M e dina

pla nning a drug tra nsa c tion. It is c le ar that a ny e rror did not a ffe c t the ve rdic t. 2. M e dina ’ s c ha lle nge s to his life se nte nc e a lso fa il. At e ve ry sta ge of the proc e e dings theGove rnm e nt e xpla ine d tha t it would se e k a

21 U.S.C . § 851 e nha nc e m e nt if it ha d the ne c e s sa ry sta te c ourt doc um e nts, a

nd it upda te d M e dina and the distric t c ourt on its progre ss in a c quiring thedoc um e nts. The Gove rnm e nt’ s e ffort to se e k the e nha n c e d se nte nc e wa s not vindic tive or re ta lia tory .

3M e dina ’ s c la im tha t his se nte nc e viola

te s the Eighth Ame ndm e nt is fore c lose d by

our pre c e de nt. Se eUnite d State s v . J e nse n , 425 F.3d 698, 708 (9th C ir. 2005) (a ffirm ing a

se nte nc e of life im

prisonm e nt without the

possibility

of pa role for a drug c onvic tion); se ealso Mille r v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba

nc ) (holding tha

t a thre e -judge pa

ne l is bound by

c i rc uit pre c e de nt unle ss “ the re a soning or the ory of our prior c irc u it a

uthority is c le arly irre c onc i la

ble with there a soning or the ory of inte rve ning higher a

uthority ” ). AFFIRM E D.

4