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. M AGDALENE FAITH DIXON,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-10229

D.C . No. 4:14-c r-01809-JGZ-C RP-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 Ariz o na Je nnife r G. Zipps, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 10, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB ER and M c KEOW

N, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd PETER SON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED AUG 12 2016 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble R osa nna M a louf Pe te rson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.M a gda le ne Dixon wa s c o nvic te d, a fte r a jury tria l, of tra

nsporta tion of a n ille g a l a lie n for profit, in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1324(a)(1). She c ha lle nge s the
a dm ission a

t tria l of the vide ota

pe d de position of a

m ate ria l witne ss, a dm itte d on the g round tha

t the de c la rant wa s una

va ila b le be c a use he wa s de porte d im m e diate ly following the

de position. Dixon a

rgue s tha t use of the prior re c orde d te stim ony pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1324(d) viola te s the C onfronta

tion C la use of the Sixth Am e ndm e nt. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo whe the r the C onfronta tion C la use wa s viola

te d
. Unite d State

s v . Bow man , 215 F.3d 951, 960 (9th C ir. 2000). Unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1324(d), “ [n] otwithsta nding a ny provision of the

Fe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e , the vide ota pe d . . . deposition of a

witne ss to a

viola tion of subse c tion (a ) of this se c tion who ha s be e n de porte d . . . m ay be a dm itte d

into
e vide nc e in a

n a c tion brought for tha

t viola tion if thewitne ss wa s a

va ila ble for
c ross e xam inat ion a

nd the de position othe

rwise c om

plie s with the Fe de ra l R

ule s of Evide n c e .” Adm ission of the de position c o m ports with the

Sixth Am e ndm e nt’ s C onfronta

tion C la use “ whe re the de c la

rant is una

v a i la ble , a n d only whe re the de fe nda n t ha s ha d a prior opportunity to c ross-e xam ine .” C

raw ford v . W ashington , 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004). “ A witne ss is c onside re d una va ila ble for purpose s of the C onfronta

tion C la use if the prose c utoria l a

uthoritie s have m a de a

good-fa ith e ffort
2to obta in his pre se nc e at tria l.” Forn v . Hornung , 343 F.3d 990, 995 n.3 (9th C ir.

2003) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). The le ngths to which a prose c utor m ust go to e sta blish good faith is a

que stion of re a sona

ble ne ss. Ohio v . Robe rts , 448 U.S. 56, 74 (1980), abrogate d on othe r grounds by C raw ford, 541 U.S. 36. The distric t c ourt prope rly found thewitne ss to beuna va ila ble be c a use the gove rnm e nt m a de good fa ith, re a sona ble e fforts to se c ure his a

tte nda nc e at tria l, inc l uding se nding two le tte rs via the witne s s’ s c ounse l a

nd offe ring to pa

y for the witne s s’ s e xpe nse s to a

ppe ar. D ixon doe s not c la im on a ppe a l tha t she didn’ t ha

ve an opportunity to c ross-e xam ine the witne ss a t the de position. The

distric t c ourt did not e rr in a dm itting the vide ota pe d de position unde

r 8 U.S.C . § 1324(d). AFFIRM E D.

3