NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
CHRISTOPHER DELGADO, AKA Lil Glow, AKA Spoke,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 22

- 50070

D.C. No. 2:18

- cr
- 00758

- DSF

- 4

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 12, 2023 * * Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, LEE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Delgado appeals from his jury con viction for one count of
conspiracy , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and one count of distribution of
methamphetamine , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Delgado argues the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 21 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

distr ict court erred by admitting evidence of a firearm sale and an excerpt from
Delgado’s interrogation (“interrogation excerpt”)

. Delgado also cha llenges a

matter that is under seal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 129 1 , and we

affirm.

1. Delgado argues the district court erred by admi tting evidence of a

firearm sa le as “ inextricably intertwined ” with Delgado’s underlying drug offense

. According to Delgado, the evidence is inadmissible under Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b). “[W] e review d e novo the district court ’ s application of the

Federal Rules of Evidence to the other acts evidence. ” United States v. Wells , 879
F.3d 900, 925 (9th Cir. 2018).

“ Evidence of ‘ other acts ’ is not subject to Rule 404(b) analysis if it is

‘ inextricably intertwined ’ with the charged offense. ” United States v. Beckman , 298 F.3d 788, 793 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Vizcarra

- Martinez , 66
F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 1995)). The inextricably intertwined exception applies

when an act (1) “ constitutes a part of the transaction that serves as the basis for the
criminal charge” or (2) is “necessary” to “permit the prosecutor to offer a coherent
and comprehensible story regarding the commission of the crime.” Vizcarra

Martinez , 66 F.3d at 1012

– 13

. Here, t he drug sale underlying Delgado’s charge s and the firearm sale w ere clearly “part of

. . . a single criminal transaction.” Id. Delgado’s co

- conspirator3

and co
- defendant , Oscar Rodriguez, agreed to sell “drugs and a firearm ” to a

confidential informant ; Delgado stored his drugs and guns in the same location ; Delgado and Rodriguez stayed in contact after the drug sale to coordinate the

firearm sale ; the firearm sale occurred one hour after the drug sale ; and Rodriguez

received a broker’s fee from Delgado for arranging the drug and firearm sale. That
Delgado was charged only with drug

- related offense s and no firearm offense does

not render evidence of the firear m sale inadmissible

. See United States v. Warren , 25 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 1994) (“ Offenses committed in a single criminal episode
do not become inadmissible because the defendant is being tried for only some of

his acts.” ) ; see also United States v. Ri zk , 660 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011)

. Because the firearm sale was inextricably intertwined with the underlying charge,

t he district court did not err

.
2. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United States v. Alvirez , 831 F.3d
1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2016), we find no error in the dis trict court ’s admission of the
interrogation excerpt

. I dentity was a key issue at trial because the confidential
informant’s video recorded Delgado’s voice , but not his face

. Because t he
interrogation exce rpt concerned Delgado’s recognition of his voice , it was highly
probative in proving Delgado was the supplier in the confidential informant’s

video. The district court properly performed a Rule 403 balancing analysis and
reasonably concluded that the prob ative value of the interrogation excerpt was not4

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

3. Finally, Delgado challenges a matter that is filed under seal.
Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we affirm.

AFFIRMED

.