United States v. Jorge Russell-Guerrero , 533 F. App'x 738 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-50181
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-03844-LAB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JORGE RUSSELL-GUERRERO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 10, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Jorge Russell-Guerrero appeals the district court’s entry of
criminal judgment against him. We affirm.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert
testimony of a special agent with the Department of Homeland Security.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
See United States v. Hayat, 710 F.3d 875, 900 (9th Cir. 2013) ("We review for
abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to admit or exclude expert
testimony."). The government provided adequate notice of its intention to call the
agent to testify about unknowing couriers. Because the government charged
Defendant with conspiracy and because Defendant claimed that he had no
knowledge of the drugs, the district court did not abuse its discretion under Federal
Rule of Evidence 403 by admitting the testimony. United States v. Sepulveda-
Barraza, 645 F.3d 1066, 1072–73 (9th Cir. 2011). Nor did the district court abuse
its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 704. United States v. Murillo, 255
F.3d 1169, 1178 (9th Cir. 2001), overruled on other grounds as recognized by
United States v. Mendez, 476 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by excluding questions pertaining to hearsay, and
those exclusions did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 703 or the Confrontation
Clause.
2. The district court neither abused its discretion nor committed plain error
by denying the motion for a new trial.
AFFIRMED.
2