Court Opinion

ID: 2770089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-14 22:01:52.811557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:26.147548
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JAN 14 2015
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 12-10290

        Plaintiff - Appellee,                    D.C. No. 4:09-cr-02623-BCC-
                                                 GEE-1
  v.

MARIO RUIZ-PALMA,                                MEMORANDUM*

        Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                  Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted January 12, 2015**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

       Mario Ruiz-Palma appeals from his conviction following a jury trial for

possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The Government concedes error

with regard to certain testimony and statements in closing argument that referred to

Ruiz-Palma’s post-arrest silence, but it contends such error was harmless. We

             *
                          This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is
not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
             **
                          The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
assume that Ruiz-Palma’s claim of error was preserved but conclude that it is

“beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the

verdict obtained.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). The evidence

overwhelmingly established Ruiz-Palma’s guilt. Cf. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S.
119, 124-25 (2000) (unprovoked, headlong flight upon noticing law enforcement

suggests wrongdoing); Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 373 (2003) (drug

activity in a car is an enterprise to which a guilty person “would be unlikely to

admit an innocent person with the potential to furnish evidence against him”).

      AFFIRMED.