United States v. Chi Yang

facts, we only recount them here as necessary to provide context. We affirm.

1. Yang argues that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on

his entrapment and entrapment-by-estoppel defenses to the manufacturing charge.

We review the district court’s denial of Yang’s proposed instructions for abuse of

discretion. See United States v. Heredia, 483 F.3d 913, 921 (9th Cir. 2007) (en

banc).

A standard “entrapment defense has two elements: ‘(1) the defendant was

induced to commit the crime by a government agent, and (2) he was not otherwise

predisposed to commit the crime.’” United States v. Spentz, 653 F.3d 815, 818 (9th

Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Barry, 814 F.2d 1400, 1401 (9th Cir. 1987)).

“A defendant is not entitled to have the issue of entrapment submitted to the jury in

the absence of evidence showing some inducement by a government agent and a

lack of predisposition.” Id. (cleaned up).

Here, Yang presented no evidence tending to show that Sheriff Lopey induced

him to manufacture the 300 marijuana plants he stipulated to having on his property.

Instead, all that Yang offered on the issue of inducement was (1) his testimony that

the…