United States v. Marc Vogel

MEMORANDUM

Marc Sadi Vogel and We Lend More, Inc., appeal their convictions for unlawful transportation of hazardous waste, 42 U.S.C. § 6928 (d)(1), unlawful disposal of hazardous waste, 42 U.S.C. § 6928 (d)(2)(A), and transportation of hazardous waste without a manifest, 42 U.S.C. § 6928 (d)(5). We affirm.

The decision to exclude a particular piece of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Decoud, 456 F.3d 996, 1010 (9th Cir.2006). All of the evidence Vogel requested came in at trial except absent codefendant Raul Gonzalez-Lopez’s 1992 conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell. Given that conviction’s minimal relevance to the instant case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.

Vogel did not request a jury instruction on evidence of flight of a co-defendant, and so his challenge is subject to plain error review. United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir.2009). There was no plain error here. The Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions “generally recommend[] against giving specific inference instructions in such areas as flight or concealment of identity because the general…