United States v. Edwin Moreno, United States of America v. Mauricio Ceballos

26 F.3d 134 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Edwin MORENO, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mauricio CEBALLOS, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 93-50480, 93-50589. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 5, 1994. * Decided June 9, 1994. 1 Before: BROWNING and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, District Judge ** . 2 MEMORANDUM *** 3 * Admission of the testimony of Agent Gonzales concerning the profits, structure and operations of drug trafficking organizations was not plain error. See United States v. Armijo, 5 F.3d 1229, 1233 (9th Cir.1993). Evidence of profits was relevant to show a motive for the crime with which Moreno was charged. While there was other testimony showing the particular profits expected in this case, testimony concerning profits generally was relevant to show the reasonableness of these expectations. Gonzales's testimony…