Opinion ID: 3064941
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Presentation of Specific Evidence

Text: George, Shino, and Zazueta contend that the district court erred in allowing the prosecution to introduce certain evidence that they claim was prejudicial to them. Each defendant raises one such claim. George alleges that the prosecution improperly presented evidence that he previously had been arrested for shoplifting. Regardless of whether George may have had a legitimate objection to the admissibility of this evidence, his concern on appeal is solely with alleged misconUNITED STATES v. NOBARI 9673 duct by the prosecutor in asking a potentially objectionable question of George’s pretrial services officer. There is no authority to suggest that this rises to the level of error under the circumstances here. [9] For his part, Shino claims that the prosecution, by way of its questions to George in cross-examination, improperly introduced otherwise inadmissible evidence about Shino’s alleged associations with other drug traffickers. We agree. As in United States v. Sanchez, the prosecutor’s questions here assumed facts not in evidence, there was no indication that the prosecutor could have proven the facts insinuated in her questions, and the questions reflected negatively on Shino. 176 F.3d at 1223. We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion in overruling Shino’s objections to these questions at trial. Finally, Zazueta argues that by asking a testifying DEA agent questions about Zazueta’s brother, the prosecution acted “in direct defiance” of the district court’s pretrial ruling that certain evidence was inadmissible in the prosecution’s casein-chief. Zazueta’s claim has no merit. The record makes plain that the court’s ruling applied only to the prosecution’s attempt to present evidence that Zazueta had been present at his brother’s meth lab. The prosecution respected this ruling, as it never sought to introduce such evidence. Accordingly, we find no misconduct. 6. Sufficiency of Evidence to Convict Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) Count Three of the indictment charged the defendants with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). On appeal, only Nobari challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented to convict him on this count. [10] To prove that Nobari violated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), the government must show the following: 9674 UNITED STATES v. NOBARI (1) Nobari participated in a drug trafficking crime; (2) he possessed a firearm; and (3) his possession of the firearm was “in furtherance” of the drug trafficking crime. See United States v. Hector, 474 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). Nobari claims that the government failed to show that he had access to the gun during the drug transaction and that the gun was possessed “in furtherance” of the crimes for which he was convicted. We disagree. The government presented sufficient evidence to show that Nobari “possessed the weapon to promote or facilitate the underlying crime,” in other words, to “further” the offense. United States v. Krouse, 370 F.3d 965, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The evidence reveals a sufficient “nexus” between the gun and the underlying offense to uphold Nobari’s conviction on this count. Id. at 968; see also United States v. Lopez, 477 F.3d 1110, 1115 (9th Cir. 2007). 7. Jury Instructions The defendants present two challenges to the district court’s jury instructions. Nobari and Zazueta challenge the instructions given on Count Three, concerning violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and George challenges the instructions on his entrapment defense. Our review of both sets of jury instructions is for plain error, since the defendants failed to object at trial, as they concede. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d) (“Failure to object in accordance with this rule precludes appellate review, except as permitted under Rule 52(b) [plain error review].”). Nobari and Zazueta argue that the district court misstated the elements of § 924(c). The defendants are correct. The court repeatedly confused two separate clauses of § 924(c), one that refers to an offender who “uses or carries a firearm” ”during and in relation to any . . . drug trafficking crime” and a second that criminalizes possession of a firearm “in furtherance of any such crime.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). UNITED STATES v. NOBARI 9675 [11] Nevertheless, while we have acknowledged that there are relevant distinctions between these two clauses, see, e.g., United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 879-80 (9th Cir. 2004), we also have described the “during and in relation to” and “in furtherance of” clauses of § 924(c) as “difficult to distinguish conceptually,” in part because similar proof is required for each, United States v. Arreola, 467 F.3d 1153, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006). Indeed, we held in Arreola that § 924(c) defines just one offense, not two. Id. at 1161. Given the conceptual similarity between the two statutory clauses, the district court’s error in conflating the clauses in its jury instructions did not “seriously affect[ ] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of” the trial. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (quoting Young, 470 U.S. at 15). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not commit plain error in its instructions on Count Three.2 [12] We also reject George’s allegation that he should have received a specific unanimity instruction on his entrapment defense. George’s reliance on United States v. Southwell, 432 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005), is misguided. Although we held in Southwell that unanimity is required for a jury to reject an affirmative defense, we did not hold, as George suggests, that district courts are required to give a specific unanimity instruction on all affirmative defenses. See id. at 1053-55. 2 The defendants claim that the district court’s erroneous instructions “constituted an impermissible amendment of the indictment by the court,” in violation of the Grand Jury Clause. Nobari and Zazueta cite two cases, United States v. Castano, 543 F.3d 826 (6th Cir. 2008), and United States v. Combs, 369 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2004), in which the Sixth Circuit reversed each defendant’s conviction after he received incorrect jury instructions on § 924(c). These cases are distinguishable from the present case, however, because the judgment entered in each of the Sixth Circuit cases indicated that the jury had convicted the defendant under a different prong of § 924(c) than the one under which he was indicted. See Castano, 543 F.3d at 834; Combs, 369 F.3d at 936. Copies of the judgments against Nobari and Zazueta and their respective verdict forms show that no such error occurred here. We therefore hold that the indictment was not constructively amended. Arreola, 467 F.3d at 1162. 9676 UNITED STATES v. NOBARI Indeed, such an instruction is not required in most cases. Jazzabi v. Allstate Ins. Co., 278 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir. 2002). The present case does not present the unusual circumstances that might have warranted a specific unanimity instruction, and thus we find no error. See id.; see also United States v. Kim, 196 F.3d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1999) (“In the ordinary case, a general unanimity instruction suffices to instruct the jury that they must be unanimous on whatever specifications form the basis of the guilty verdict.”). 8. “Outrageous” Government Conduct George contends that the government engaged in outrageous conduct by failing to monitor its confidential informant, by denying the Informant’s involvement in the pseudoephedrine transaction, and by allowing the Informant to engage in other allegedly offensive behavior. We disagree. To secure the dismissal of an indictment on due process grounds, “a defendant must meet an extremely high standard.” United States v. Smith, 924 F.2d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 1991). George cannot meet this standard, as the government’s alleged conduct plainly would not “violate the universal sense of justice,” as required for dismissal, even were we to assume the truth of George’s allegations, which he offers without citation to the record. See id. 9. Entrapment Next, George asserts that the government had insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not entrapped. Although we review this claim de novo, we will not overturn the jury’s verdict “unless ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no reasonable jury could have concluded that the defendant[ ]’ was neither induced nor predisposed to commit the charged offenses.” United States v. Si, 343 F.3d 1116, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Davis, 36 F.3d 1424, 1430 (9th Cir. UNITED STATES v. NOBARI 9677 1994)) (alteration in original). George cannot meet this highly deferential standard. [13] George alleges inducement in the government’s (successful) efforts to persuade him to reenter the drug transaction after he voluntarily had “withdrawn.” Even if the jury could have found inducement on these facts, a matter on which we express no opinion, there was not “undisputed evidence” that George was induced to commit the offenses. Davis, 36 F.3d at 1430. That is, a “reasonable jury” also could have concluded that his initial contact with the government, via the DEA Witness, negated any claim of inducement. Id. Similarly, we conclude that the government’s evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that George was predisposed to commit the crimes. See id. Accordingly, George is not entitled to a finding of entrapment as a matter of law.