United States v. Rodrigo Alvarez-Quinonez ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 4 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-30161
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:20-cr-00093-RAJ-2
v.
RODRIGO ALVAREZ-QUINONEZ, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 14, 2023
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BAKER,** International
Trade Judge.
Rodrigo Alvarez-Quinonez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute
controlled substances and for possession of fentanyl with intent to distribute. He
argues that the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 by concluding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
that the lead DEA case agent established a proper foundation to identify and admit
statements in transcripts of intercepted phone calls and text messages. He further
argues that the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 701 by allowing
the agent to give lay opinion testimony identifying Alvarez-Quinonez as the user of
one of the intercepted phones. We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291and we affirm.
We apply de novo review to a district court’s construction of the Federal Rules
of Evidence. United States v. Seminole, 865 F.3d 1150, 1152 (9th Cir. 2017). We
review a district court’s finding that evidence had a proper foundation for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Pang, 362 F.3d 1187, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2004). We sim-
ilarly review a district court’s decision to admit lay opinion testimony for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1209 (9th Cir. 2014).
1. Alvarez-Quinonez contends that the lead DEA case agent could not authen-
ticate the transcripts because the agent was not familiar with his voice. The govern-
ment responds that Federal Rule of Evidence 901 permits authentication of tran-
scripts of audio recordings not only through familiarity with a speaker’s voice, see
Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(5), but also through other “evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is,” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Cf.
Gadson, 763 F.3d at 1204 (“Where the government offers a tape recording of the
defendant’s voice, it must also make a prima facie case that the voice on the tape is
2
in fact the defendant’s, whether by means of a witness who recognizes the voice or
by other extrinsic evidence.” (emphasis added)).
Rule 901(a) “allows the district court to admit evidence if sufficient proof has
been introduced so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or iden-
tification.” Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179, 1184 (9th Cir. 2007). “Once the of-
fering party meets this burden, ‘the probative value of the evidence is a matter for
the jury.’ ” United States v. Ortiz, 776 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting
United States v. Workinger, 90 F.3d 1409, 1415 (9th Cir. 1996)).
Alvarez-Quinonez admits that he “identified himself on January 22, 2020, as
the holder of [the] target telephone” during a phone call to associates in Mexico in
which he stated that he was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped and searched.
His self-identification, combined with the totality of the circumstances including the
matching of phone call transcripts with physical surveillance evidence, was suffi-
cient to clear the “low” threshold imposed by Rule 901, id. at 1044, so the district
court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the agent to authenticate the transcripts.
2. Alvarez-Quinonez asserts that the lead DEA case agent could not properly
give lay opinion testimony identifying him as the speaker on the transcribed phone
calls because the agent was not familiar with his voice. But as the government points
out, this ignores that information gleaned from the investigation—information with
3
which the agent was personally familiar—indicated that Alvarez-Quinonez was the
user of the phone in question.
Alvarez-Quinonez further contends that the lead DEA case agent could not
rely on the totality of the investigation to form his opinion because the agent did not
personally observe all aspects of that investigation. A law enforcement lay opinion
witness, however, may use his direct knowledge of the investigation, including facts
he learned as part of the investigation, in interpreting the evidence. United States v.
Freeman, 498 F.3d 893, 904–05 (9th Cir. 2007). By its very nature, lay opinion tes-
timony is based “on the witness’s own understanding, including a wealth of personal
information, experience, and education, that cannot be placed before the jury. If wit-
nesses cannot draw on their experience and knowledge, they are effectively limited
to presenting factual information. . . . Rule 701 does not impose such a limitation.”
Gadson, 763 F.3d at 1208. “[A]n investigator who has accumulated months or even
years of experience with the events, places, and individuals involved in an investi-
gation necessarily draws on that knowledge when testifying; indeed, it is those out-
of-court experiences that make the witness’s testimony helpful to the jury.” Id. at
1209.
We therefore find no error in the district court’s decision to allow the lead
DEA case agent to give lay opinion testimony identifying Alvarez-Quinonez as the
speaker on the transcribed phone calls based on the agent’s overall knowledge of the
4
investigation and the facts gleaned therefrom. Finally, as the government points out,
the significant testimony about code words used in drug transactions came not from
the lead DEA case agent, but rather from another agent who was admitted as an
expert witness to discuss drug terminology and code words, drug distribution quan-
tities, drug trafficking operations, and the use of cell phones in such operations.
Thus, Alvarez-Quinonez’s argument that the agent impermissibly relied upon spe-
cialized knowledge is unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
5