United States v. Miguel Jimenez

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30265

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00343-JLR-

v.

MEMORANDUM *

MIGUEL ANGEL JIMENEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30282

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00343-JLR-

v.

NIVALDO RIASCOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-30283

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00233-JLR-

v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NIVALDO RIASCOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30028

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00343-JLR-

v.

HECTOR FABIO ZAPATA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 6,…

MEMORANDUM *

A jury convicted Defendants Ríaseos, Zapata, and Jimenez of conspiracy to import a controlled substance to the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 (a), 960(b)(l)(B)(i), and 963, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The jury also found Defendant Jimenez guilty of conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 (a)(2)(A) and 1956(h), and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 (a)(2)(A) and 2. The defendants appeal their convictions, and Defendant Zapata appeals his sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we largely affirm.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The defendants claim there was insufficient evidence to convict. We review these claims de novo. United States v. Garcia, 497 F.3d 964, 966-67 (9th Cir.2007). Because Defendant Jimenez did not properly preserve this objection with respect to his money laundering charges, we review that claim for plain error. United States v. Eriksen, 639 F.3d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 2011). When reviewing a sufficiency claim, we must “view the evidence in the light most favorable…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the conclusions of the majority disposition that sufficient evidence supported the convictions, that admission of the expert and lay testimony was within the district court’s discretion, that the custodial statement of Defendant Miguel Jimenez was voluntary, that the guilty plea statements made by Defendant Nivaldo Ríaseos were admissible, that the sentencing information complied with 21 U.S.C. § 851 , and that the sentence imposed upon Defendant Hector Zapata was procedurally and substantively reasonable.

I do not concur in the conclusion that the revocation of Ríaseos’ supervised release was improper.

Ríaseos’ supervised release was revoked due to his violation of the standard condition that he not commit any federal, state or local crime while on supervised release. Ríaseos maintains that because he had no notice of this standard condition, it cannot serve as the basis for revocation of supervised release. However, Ríaseos’ judgment of conviction gives notice of this condition immediately below the heading of SUPERVISED RELEASE. In addition, our precedent permits us to impute knowledge of a prohibition on further…