United States v. George Ramirez, Jr.

MEMORANDUM

1. Even assuming that Defendant sufficiently raised the issue before the district court, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to instruct the jury on entrapment at the close of George Ramirez’s trial. A defendant is entitled to a theory-of-defense instruction only if it has some foundation in the evidence and is supported by law. United States v. Johnson, 459 F.3d 990, 992 (9th Cir.2006). Ramirez’s proposed entrapment defense lacked a foundation in the evidence because he failed to show that he was not otherwise predisposed to participate in the offense. See United States v. Spentz, 653 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir.2011).

2. In determining Ramirez’s offense level, the district court did not commit clear error by applying the two-level enhancement for use of a firearm under U.S.S.G. § 2Dl.l(b)(l). See United States v. Ortiz, 362 F.3d 1274, 1277-78 (9th Cir.2004). The government provided sufficient evidence for the district court to conclude that co-defendant David Figueroa’s use of a firearm was both reasonably foreseeable to Ramirez and in furtherance of their jointly undertaken criminal activity. Several times in the record, Ramirez mentioned the…