Pearse

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Walter Pearse appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 , and possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) — (b)(1)(C). Pearse contends that some of the evidence introduced against him at trial was obtained pursuant to a constitutionally invalid search warrant. We affirm Pearse’s conviction on the basis that any evidence seized pursuant to the warrant and admitted at trial was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm on this basis not because we deem the warrant to be invalid, but because, regardless of its validity, the evidence *925 could not have affected the outcome of the trial. See Chapman v. California,, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).

A constitutional error by a district court is harmless when it appears “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 23-24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 ; United States v. Walters, 309 F.3d 589, 593 (9th Cir.2002), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 846 , 124 S.Ct. 121 , 157 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003). “Review…