NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-10041

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:21-cr-00010-MMD-CLB-1 v.

JAIME COLLAZO MUNOZ, AKA Chivo, MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2024 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: GRABER, DESAI, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Defendant Jaime Collazo Munoz appeals his convictions for two counts of

fentanyl distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vi), and his

sentence of 60 months’ imprisonment. We affirm.

1. The district court neither manifestly erred nor abused its discretion in

striking a prospective juror for cause. See United States v. Kechedzian, 902 F.3d

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1023, 1027 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review). The prospective juror

stated several times during voir dire that he likely could not be impartial because of

a past encounter with law enforcement. See United States v. Padilla-Mendoza, 157

F.3d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The central inquiry in determining whether a juror

should be removed for cause is whether that juror holds a particular belief or

opinion that will prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a

juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

2. The district court did not err in allowing the government to use a

peremptory challenge against a different prospective juror. See Tolbert v. Page,

182 F.3d 677, 680 n.5 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (stating that we review de novo

whether the government’s justification is an adequate, race-neutral explanation).

We hold that the government’s proffered reason for dismissing the prospective

juror—that he expressed that he felt he was biased against law enforcement—was

an adequate, race-neutral explanation. See Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810, 821

(9th Cir. 2010) (stating that, when the government plans to call several law

enforcement witnesses, a juror’s response that “reflects outright bias against law

enforcement witnesses” is a legitimate justification for striking that juror).

3. Nor did the district court err in denying Defendant’s motion for acquittal

premised on alleged entrapment. See United States v. Lorenzo, 43 F.3d 1303, 1305

2 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that we review de novo the district court’s ruling on

entrapment, as a matter of law); see also United States v. Jones, 231 F.3d 508, 516

(9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that we “should not disturb the jury’s finding unless,

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no reasonable

jury could have concluded that the government had disproved either of the

elements of the entrapment defense”).

A reasonable jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the

government did not induce Defendant to distribute fentanyl. See United States v.

Gomez, 6 F.4th 992, 1001 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that the affirmative defense of

entrapment requires both inducement and absence of predisposition). Although

Defendant was friends with the confidential informant (“CI”) who was involved in

the incidents when Defendant distributed fentanyl, evidence at trial—including a

recorded conversation between Defendant and the CI, and Defendant’s

testimony—supports the conclusion that there was no inducement. For instance,

Defendant stated that, if the CI’s buyer “has the money[,] I can get whatever he

wants.”

In addition, a reasonable jury could have found that Defendant was

predisposed to distribute fentanyl. Defendant testified that he “was always

buying” drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, for himself and his friends before

the CI approached him about providing fentanyl, and the recorded conversation

3 shows that Defendant expressed little, if any, reluctance when the CI approached

him. See id. at 1004 (stating that the most important factors in analyzing

predisposition are the defendant’s character or reputation and whether the

defendant showed any reluctance).

4. The district court correctly applied the sentencing enhancement for

possession of a firearm, pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline

§ 2D1.1(b)(1), because it properly determined that Defendant possessed an AR-15

rifle in connection with the offenses. See United States v. Scheu, 83 F.4th 1124,

1126 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that we review de novo the district court’s legal

interpretation of the Guidelines, its application of the Guidelines to the facts for

abuse of discretion, and its factual findings for clear error). Defendant’s argument

that we must presume that his possession of the AR-15 rifle was lawful is not

pertinent, because the enhancement applies to both lawfully and unlawfully

possessed firearms. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(b)(1) (“If a

dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed, increase [offense level] by

2 levels.”).

5. Finally, the district court properly denied safety-valve relief under 18

U.S.C. § 3553(f). See United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th

Cir. 2007) (stating that we review for clear error the factual determination that a

defendant is eligible for safety-valve relief). Defendant failed to meet his burden

4 of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not possess a firearm in

connection with the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2). Furthermore, the district

court did not clearly err in concluding that Defendant was ineligible for an

additional reason; he had not truthfully provided to the government all information

and evidence he had concerning the offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5); see also

United States v. Ferryman, 444 F.3d 1183, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that, in the

context of safety-valve relief, appellate courts “pay special deference to a trial

court’s credibility findings”).

AFFIRMED.

5