United States v. Bogar Agudo-Monroy ( 2017 )

  •                                                                               FILED
                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                                   DEC 11 2017
                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                                U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                         No.    16-50380
                    Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. No.
    BOGAR AGUDO-MONROY,                               MEMORANDUM*
                         Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the Southern District of California
                         Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
                           Argued and Submitted December 6, 2017
                                    Pasadena, California
    Before: CANBY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,** District Judge.
          Defendant-Appellant Bogar Agudo-Monroy argues on appeal that a number
    of mostly unpreserved trial errors deprived him of a fair trial, either individually or
                 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                 The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
          We conclude that the district court plainly erred by admitting irrelevant
    evidence regarding the deconfliction of phone numbers in a cell phone connected to
    Agudo-Monroy. The district court also abused its discretion by allowing unnoticed
    expert testimony interpreting the cell phone log. We find these errors harmless, both
    individually and cumulatively, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. See
    United States v. Whitehead, 
    200 F.3d 634
    , 639 (9th Cir. 2000); see also United
    States v. Karterman, 
    60 F.3d 576
    , 580 (9th Cir. 1995).
          The other grounds on which Agudo-Monroy appeals did not amount to error,
    but even if they did it would not affect our conclusion regarding harmlessness.