United States v. Ernest Mancha

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50481
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00284-AHM-12
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERNEST GEORGE MANCHA, AKA
Chubby, AKA Chubs, AKA Ernie,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 14, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ernest George Mancha appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and use of
a communication facility in committing a felony drug offense, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case,
we do not recount additional facts except as necessary to explain our decision. We
affirm.
The district court did not err in admitting Special Agent Schneider’s
testimony. As to the testimony to which Mancha objected at trial, the district court
properly allowed interpretations of encoded drug jargon, and exercised its
discretion in striking those portions that were clearly improper. See United States
v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2009). To the extent Special Agent
Schneider interpreted the meaning of ambiguous terms, such testimony is
admissible if it is based on the witness’s knowledge of the particular case and
defendants. Id. at 922. Moreover, when viewed in the context of the properly
admitted testimony, any error was harmless. See United States v. Freeman, 498
F.3d 893, 905–06 (9th Cir. 2007).
As to the testimony to which Mancha did not object, there was no plain
error. Even where the government concedes that Special Agent Schneider
improperly interpreted clear statements, Mancha has not established that the
testimony affected his “substantial rights,” that is, that it “‘affected the outcome of
the district court proceedings.’” Puckett v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429
(2009) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)).
2
AFFIRMED.
3