Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus ORTEGA-CASTELLANOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-16
Citations: 453 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 09-50572
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus ORTEGA-CASTELLANOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WARDLAW, Circuit Judge and SINGLETON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 675–675

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jesus ORTEGA-CASTELLANOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-50572.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Aug. 6, 2010.
Filed Aug. 16, 2010.
George Manahan, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
L. Marcel Stewart, Law Office of L. Marcel Stewart, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, WARDLAW, Circuit Judge and SINGLETON, District Judge.
The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The agent's background, training and explanation of the sources he relied on were sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the marijuana's value. Cf. United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1112-13 (9th Cir.2002). The government didn't introduce the vehicle transfer form to prove the truth of its contents, so the document wasn't hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). And Ortega-Castellanos still hasn't shown that he would have found any additional information helpful to his defense had he been granted a continuance. See United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 314-15 (9th Cir.1995). Nor is there cumulative error requiring reversal.
The district court adequately addressed the arguments Ortega-Castellanos made for a lighter sentence; the sentence imposed was substantively and procedurally sound.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.