Arechiga-Ramirez

MEMORANDUM **

In in camera confidential informant interview cases, the district court must “balanc[e] the public interest in protecting the flow” of confidential information with a defendant’s “right to prepare his defense,” Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957). The district court properly performed its balancing role in this case. After pleading guilty to methamphetamine drug offenses, 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 21 U.S.C. § 846 , and receiving an 87 month sentence, defendant-appellant, AreehigaRamirez, argues on appeal that the district court erred when it conducted an in camera interview with the confidential informant in the case outside the presence of defense counsel, thereby preventing counsel from formulating an entrapment defense. Because defense counsel knew the name of the informant, the general circumstances of the case, the nature of the informant’s plea agreement and debriefing reports, his criminal record, and the content of the informant’s telephone conversations with defendant, counsel could have called the informant to the stand at trial if he had chosen to do so. The informant himself purchased the…