United States v. Omar Lopez-Zamoran

MEMORANDUM

Omar Lopez-Zamoran pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). After a jury trial, he was found guilty of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He appeals his conviction and sentence, raising three issues. We address each in turn, and affirm.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 .

I.

Lopez-Zamoran claims that several statements introduced at his trial violated his Confrontation Clause rights. Because he failed to raise these claims until appeal, we review for plain error. Fed R.Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Allen, 425 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir.2005). Plain error exists when there is 1) an error 2) plain under current law 3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights — normally by being prejudicial. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-35 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). The burden of showing prejudice lies on the defendant. Id. at 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 . If he meets that…