Court Opinion

ID: 2809901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-06-18 20:02:04.334305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:08.746818
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               JUN 18 2015

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 13-10530

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 4:13-cr-00213-FRZ-
                                                 LAB-1
 v.

PACIANO LIZARRAGA-TIRADO,                        MEMORANDUM*
AKA Pasiano Lizarraga-Tirado,

              Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                 Frank R. Zapata, Senior District Judge, Presiding

                       Argued and Submitted April 14, 2015
                            San Francisco, California

Before:       KOZINSKI and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and PONSOR,** Senior
              District Judge.

      1. Defendant didn’t object to the alleged instances of prosecutorial

misconduct, so we review for plain error. Any error was not “plain” because the

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
       **
             The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
                                                                                  page 2
prosecutor’s passing reference to his interview with Agent Nunez and his statement

that the case was “memorable” for Agent Garcia weren’t “clear or obvious”

prosecutorial misconduct. United States v. Anguiano-Morfin, 713 F.3d 1208, 1211

(9th Cir. 2013).

      2. The district court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of

multiple prior removals. “[P]roving that the defendant has been previously

removed is an essential element” of a section 1326 conviction, and the government

may introduce evidence of multiple removals “to hedge the risk that the jury may

reject the offered proof of one [removal], but not the other.” United States v.

Martinez-Rodriguez, 472 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).

      AFFIRMED.