United States v. Enrique Mendoza

15 F.3d 1093 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enrique MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-10089. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Jan. 18, 1994. * Decided Jan. 25, 1994. Before: REINHARDT, O'SCANNLAIN, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Enrique Mendoza appeals his conviction following jury trial for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a)(1). Mendoza contends (1) the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on his theory of the defense and (2) the government's loss of certain evidence necessitates a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 * Theory of Defense Instruction 4 We review de novo whether other jury instructions adequately cover the defense theory of the case. United States v. Gomez-Osorio, 957 F.2d 636, 642 (9th Cir.1992). "It is not error, ..., to reject a…