United States v. Ernest Mancha , 427 F. App'x 601 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                APR 18 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 09-50481
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00284-AHM-12
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERNEST GEORGE MANCHA, AKA
    Chubby, AKA Chubs, AKA Ernie,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 14, 2011**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Ernest George Mancha appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess
    with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 846
    , 841(a)(1), and use of
    a communication facility in committing a felony drug offense, 
    21 U.S.C. § 843
    (b).
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case,
    we do not recount additional facts except as necessary to explain our decision. We
    affirm.
    The district court did not err in admitting Special Agent Schneider’s
    testimony. As to the testimony to which Mancha objected at trial, the district court
    properly allowed interpretations of encoded drug jargon, and exercised its
    discretion in striking those portions that were clearly improper. See United States
    v. Reed, 
    575 F.3d 900
    , 922–23 (9th Cir. 2009). To the extent Special Agent
    Schneider interpreted the meaning of ambiguous terms, such testimony is
    admissible if it is based on the witness’s knowledge of the particular case and
    defendants. 
    Id. at 922
    . Moreover, when viewed in the context of the properly
    admitted testimony, any error was harmless. See United States v. Freeman, 
    498 F.3d 893
    , 905–06 (9th Cir. 2007).
    As to the testimony to which Mancha did not object, there was no plain
    error. Even where the government concedes that Special Agent Schneider
    improperly interpreted clear statements, Mancha has not established that the
    testimony affected his “substantial rights,” that is, that it “‘affected the outcome of
    the district court proceedings.’” Puckett v. United States, 
    129 S.Ct. 1423
    , 1429
    (2009) (quoting United States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 734 (1993)).
    2
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-50481

Citation Numbers: 427 F. App'x 601

Judges: Bybee, Smith, Wardlaw

Filed Date: 4/18/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023