Court Opinion

ID: 9876515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 23:00:32.434303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:45.949469
License: Public Domain

FILED
                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                                  SEP 26 2023
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                              U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No.    22-50212

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                 D.C. No.
                                                  3:21-cr-01056-DMS-1
 v.

MARCOS VALENZUELA,                                MEMORANDUM*

              Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                  Dana M. Sabraw, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                     Argued and Submitted September 14, 2023
                               Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Marcos Valenzuela, a former Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) officer,

appeals his jury conviction for deprivation of rights under color of law, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 242, and falsification of records in a federal investigation, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      It was not plain error to enter judgment in accordance with the jury’s

convictions of Valenzuela on both counts. The evidence was sufficient to support

both convictions. The video footage and the testimony of the CBP officers

provided sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Valenzuela’s force was

excessive and violated Lopez’s rights. Nothing in the video footage suggests that

Lopez’s behavior justified Valenzuela’s tackling him to the ground. A rational

juror also could have concluded that Valenzuela falsified his report and that he

knew or believed that his actions would result in false government records.

Valenzuela’s falsifications went beyond the kind of innocent mistakes attributable

to a faulty memory. Valenzuela claimed in his report, for example, that Lopez was

repeatedly waving his arms around and throwing things, but the video footage

shows Valenzuela almost immediately pulled Lopez from the car and tackled him,

with no arm waving or throwing preceding those actions. The sheer number of

discrepancies also suggests that they were not mistakes.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Lopez’s Facebook

post. This court reviews “challenged evidentiary rulings for an abuse of

discretion.” United States v. Lopez, 4 F.4th 706, 714 (9th Cir. 2021). None of the

limited objectives authorized by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) apply. The

post was made after the border incident took place and had no bearing on

                                          2
Valenzuela’s conduct at the time of the incident. The post also was not relevant to

Valenzuela’s state of mind while writing his report, as nothing in the post would

have affected his ability to recall what had occurred during the incident hours

earlier.

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the government’s

objection to Valenzuela’s opening statement’s reference to Lopez’s racial epithets.

The epithets were directed at the motorcyclist and occurred while Lopez and the

motorcyclist were in pre-primary, before the confrontation between Lopez and

Valenzuela. Any resulting perception of Lopez as dangerous also would not have

justified the force Valenzuela used on Lopez while he was physically compliant.

       AFFIRMED.

                                           3