Graciano-Cabanilla

United States v. Graciano-Cabanilla

Good Law
113 F. App'x 761
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 26, 2004Nos. 03-50196, 03-50225California1,017 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Jose Ramon Graciano-Cabanilla appeals his conviction for (1) conspiracy to possess *762 with intent to distribute marijuana and to distribute marijuana and (2) possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He contends that the pay/owe ledger, which was seized from an alleged co-conspirator, was hearsay and that the district court erred in admitting it. The government cross-appeals the district court’s sentence arguing that the court erred by failing to impose the obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement under § 3C1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (b) and affirm the conviction and the sentence.

I.

Graciano-Cabanilla contends that the pay/owe drug ledger was inadmissible hearsay under Rule 802 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We disagree.

“A statement is not hearsay if ... [t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). In order to admit a co-conspirator statement for the truth of its contents, the court must find that the preliminary…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.