United States v. Miguel Ramirez

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 09 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50402
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00072-RGK-50
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MIGUEL AGUSTIN RAMIREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 6, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, W. FLETCHER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Ramirez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of
phone calls intercepted through a wiretap of Mher Darbinyan’s phone. Ramirez
also appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1), and his sentence. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the
wiretap of Mher Darbinyan’s phone was necessary as required by 18 U.S.C. §
2518(1)(c). See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1235–37 & n.23 (9th
Cir. 2004). Nor did any minor and immaterial omissions in the wiretap application
violate the “full and complete statement” requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c).
See United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891, 898–902 (9th Cir. 2008). Because any
omissions were immaterial, the district court did not err in declining to hold a
hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). See id. at 155–56.
2. The district court erred by allowing the government to introduce
substantial amounts of irrelevant evidence about the activities of the Armenian
Power gang. This error did not affect Ramirez’s substantial rights, however.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Police heard Ramirez say over
the wiretap that he had “a snub nose with no hammer,” i.e., a short-barrel firearm
without an external cocking device, and Darbinyan told an associate that Ramirez
would be bringing “a handheld thing, that’s missing the thing on the back” to a
dispensary in Hollywood. The day after officers saw Ramirez at the dispensary,
police recovered a firearm fitting this unusual description from a bag that they saw
carried out of the dispensary. Given the overwhelming evidence that Ramirez
possessed a firearm, the erroneous admission of gang-related evidence did not
2
affect Ramirez’s substantial rights. See United States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021,
1038–40, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). For the same reason, even if we assume that Agent
Stebbins inappropriately “vouched” for the government by testifying to Ramirez’s
guilt, Ramirez would not be entitled to reversal of his conviction.
3. The district court did not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.
466 (2000), and Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), because the
sentencing enhancements it imposed “affected neither the statutory maximum
sentence nor any mandatory minimum sentence.” United States v. Vallejos, 742
F.3d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 2014).
AFFIRMED.
3