United States v. Bounsou Vorasane

Good Law
583 F. App'x 709
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 21, 201412-10298, 12-10299California826 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Defendants Bounsou Vorasane and Kay Viengkham appeal their jury convictions for conspiracy to cultivate, distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 846.

(1) Defendants first argue that the district court erred in failing to require the disclosure of portions of a search warrant affidavit which were redacted to protect the identity of a confidential informant. We review the district court’s decision to protect the identity of the confidential informant for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Napier, 436 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir.2006), and affirm. The district court denied Defendants’ discovery motion for an unredacted copy of the search warrant affidavit, as well as Defendants’ “revised motion for [an] ex parte, in camera hearing to examine the informant and affiant,” concluding that Defendants’ failed to make a “substantial preliminary showing” of falsehood by the affiant, as required by United States v. Kiser, 716 F.2d 1268, 1271 (9th Cir.1983). On appeal, Defendants have failed to make any showing of falsehood by the affiant, let alone a “substantial preliminary showing.” We…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.