Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Francis LAMB, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-02
Citations: 472 F. App'x 830
Docket Number: No. 11-50082
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Francis LAMB, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 830–831

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Francis LAMB, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-50082.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2012.
Filed May 2, 2012.
Tara K. McGrath, Bruce R. Castetter, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert Evans Boyce, Boyce & Schaefer, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, District Judge.
The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Following his arrest for bringing in an illegal alien, appellant Keith Lamb (Lamb) signed a stipulation that allowed for the release of the alien material witness, but allowed the government to introduce hearsay statements of the witness should Lamb decide to go to trial, which Lamb subsequently did. The district court rejected Lamb's argument that he was permitted to introduce hearsay statements of the material witness. The district court also limited Lamb's questioning of a government witness regarding the nature of the witness's drug conviction. Lamb appeals these two rulings.
1. Because the stipulation unambiguously allowed only the government to introduce the material witness's statements, the district court did not err in rejecting Lamb's argument to the contrary. See United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir.2010) ("Stipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions .") (citation and alteration omitted).
2. The district court committed no plain error pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3). See United States v. Jenkins, 633 F.3d 788, 803 (9th Cir.2011) (explaining that an argument that was not raised in the district court is reviewed for plain error).
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding further questioning regarding the government witness's drug conviction. See United States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 353 (9th Cir.2010), as amended (explaining that it is entirely within the district court's discretion whether to exclude evidence).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.