United States v. Jose D. Raygoza-Rocha, United States of America v. Dina Lillibeth Garcia

29 F.3d 637 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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. Jose D. RAYGOZA-ROCHA, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dina Lillibeth GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 93-10435, 93-10436. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 12, 1994. Decided July 21, 1994. * Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Jose D. Raygoza-Rocha and Dina Lillibeth Garcia appeal their convictions, following a jury trial, of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841 (a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 ; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742 , and we affirm. 3 * Raygoza argues that the district court committed plain error by failing to conduct a hearing in accordance with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), after the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to strike venireman Zaragoza. The record…