United States v. Lisa Sayamontry , 523 F. App'x 442 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 13 2013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. 12-10153
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00113-JAT-2
v.
MEMORANDUM *
LISA RAJAPHONE SAYAMONTRY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2013 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior
District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
Lisa Sayamontry was convicted after a bench trial of conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846,
possession with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii), and possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
1. The district court correctly denied Sayamontry’s motion to suppress. The
parties stipulated that probable cause existed to stop and search Sayamontry’s vehicle
for narcotics. The fact that the search was conducted after the conclusion of a traffic
stop did not extinguish the right of law enforcement to act on that probable cause,
which was independent of any justification for the traffic stop. See Wyoming v.
Houhgton, 526 U.S. 295, 300-02 (1999) (holding that a search of an automobile and
the containers within it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment if the officers have
probable cause to believe the automobile contains contraband).
2. Sufficient evidence supported Sayamontry’s possession and conspiracy
convictions. Sayamontry owned the vehicle in which the drugs were found, the drugs
were found under her seat, and she was observed driving the vehicle away from an
apparent drug transaction. See United States v. Lopez, 477 F.3d 1110, 1113 (9th Cir.
2
2007); United States v. Martinez, 514 F.2d 334, 338 & n.2 (9th Cir. 1975). There was
also evidence of coordination between Sayamontry and her co-conspirator. See
United States v. Iriarte-Ortega, 113 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997). Evidence that
Sayamontry was the owner of the vehicle in which the firearm was found, was the
registered owner of the firearm, and “the firearm was readily accessible during the
commission of the drug crime,” Lopez, 477 F.3d at 1115 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted), supported the firearm conviction. Sayamontry’s own statements,
and the inconsistencies between her statements and those of her co-conspirator,
provided further evidence of guilt on all charges. See United States v. Quintero-
Barraza, 78 F.3d 1344, 1352 (9th Cir. 1995).
3. The district court did not err in denying Sayamontry’s motion to remove her
counsel and to appoint new counsel before sentencing. The court’s investigation into
Sayamontry’s complaints was appropriate. See United States v. Lindsey, 634 F.3d
541, 554 (9th Cir. 2011). Sayamontry failed to demonstrate a “lack of communication
which prevented an adequate defense.” United States v. Schaff, 948 F.2d 501, 505
(9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). None of Sayamontry’s
complaints related to counsel’s potential performance at sentencing, and the dialogue
3
between Sayamontry, counsel, and the court demonstrated that Sayamontry and
counsel were communicating about matters relevant to sentencing.
AFFIRMED.
4