United States v. Juan Verdin , 474 F. App'x 632 ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50442
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00258-CAS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JUAN JESUS VERDIN, AKA Juan Jesus
Verdin Gomez, AKA Juan Verdin Gomez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 13, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: GILMAN ***, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior United States Circuit
Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Juan Jesus Verdin (“Verdin”) appeals his conviction for being an alien found
in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Verdin
alleges that the district court committed reversible error in two separate evidentiary
rulings during his jury trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
affirm.
Although we have recognized that evidence of prior convictions can be
unfairly prejudicial in some circumstances, see United States v. Bejar-Matrecios,
618 F.2d 81, 84 (9th Cir. 1980), the district court took care to reduce any potential
prejudice in this case. The court (1) redacted the prior criminal judgments to
eliminate all unnecessary information; (2) informed the jury upon admission of the
evidence that it could be considered only as to the issue of alienage; and (3)
reiterated after closing arguments that the evidence could be considered only as to
alienage. We have previously ruled that such measures adequately safeguard
against potential prejudice, see United States v. Higuera-Llamos, 574 F.3d 1206,
1210 (9th Cir. 2009), and we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion
here in admitting the evidence.
Because we hold that the prior convictions were properly admitted, any error
in admitting Verdin’s purported Mexican birth certificate was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986); see
2
also Dillard v. Roe, 244 F.3d 758, 767 (9th Cir. 2001) (failing to rule on alleged
trial error because any error would have been harmless). The birth certificate was
cumulative of other evidence of Verdin’s alienage, and Verdin himself admitted
that he was born in Tijuana in 1954, conceding the only material fact otherwise
provided by the birth certificate.
AFFIRMED.
3