United States v. Jose Contreras-Rangel ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 17 2011
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. 09-10466
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00520-JAT-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JOSE CONTRERAS-RANGEL, AKA
Jose Antonio Contreras,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2011 **
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District
Judge.***
*
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 Mark W. Bennett, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Northern Iowa, Sioux City, sitting by designation.
Jose Contreras-Rangel appeals his criminal convictions for conspiring to
harbor illegal aliens and harboring illegal aliens. We affirm. Because the parties
are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.
Contreras-Rangel argues that the district court erred by admitting hearsay
testimony and violating his rights under the Confrontation Clause. However, prior
to trial, Contreras-Rangel and the government entered a joint stipulation allowing
for the use of the testimony.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the third-party
statement under the stipulation. Contreras-Rangel engaged in a lengthy colloquy
with the magistrate judge where he made clear that he entered the Joint Stipulation
voluntarily. See United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010)
(holding that stipulations will be enforced unless one of the parties’ consent was
involuntary or uninformed). The plain language of the Joint Stipulation made the
third-party statement admissible. As a result, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by admitting the statement under the Joint Stipulation.
Nor did the district court violate Contreras-Rangel’s confrontation rights.
Contreras-Rangel knowingly and voluntarily waived his confrontation rights as to
statements made by the material witnesses. If a defendant stipulates to the use of a
statement against him, the defendant waives his right to confront the person
-2-
making the statement. United States v. Gamba, 541 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citing Wilson v. Gray, 345 F.2d 282, 286 (9th Cir. 1965)).
AFFIRMED.
-3-