FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30169
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00131-MJP-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DREW YIM,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30179
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00131-MJP-9
v.
HOANG LAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-30211
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00131-MJP-10
v.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
REUBEN CAMACHO-CONTRERAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 10, 2013
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD, M. SMITH, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The district court did not err in denying Yim’s and Camacho’s motions to
suppress. The affidavits in support of the wiretap applications contained “a full
and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures ha[d]
been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear[ed] to be unlikely to succeed if
tried or to be too dangerous.” 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c). Among the specific reasons
that the affidavits were sufficient are the descriptions of the successful use of
confidential informants, and the reasons why further use of those informants was
not feasible. Among other things, the affidavits also described evidence of the
organization’s sophistication, several instances of counter surveillance efforts by
2
the targets, and a financial investigation that revealed large cash deposits by
individuals without any evidence of legitimate employment. The issuing court’s
finding that the wiretaps were necessary was not an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Garcia-Villalba, 585 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir. 2009).
The district court did not err in denying Yim’s motion for a Franks hearing
because Yim failed to “make a substantial showing that supports a finding of intent
or recklessness.” United States v. Gonzalez, Inc., 412 F.3d 1102, 1111 (9th Cir.
2005). The district court found no misstatements or omissions in the affidavits that
were recklessly or intentionally made. This finding was not clear error. United
States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 716 (9th Cir. 2004) (“We review de novo a district
court’s denial of a Franks hearing, and review for clear error the district court’s
underlying finding that the government did not intentionally or recklessly make
false statements.”).
There is no support in the record for Lam’s contention that the district court
did not understand its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85
(2007). Absent some contrary indication in the record, we assume that district
judges understand the law. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
3
2008) (en banc). Here, the district court explained why it declined to apply a
different standard than the Sentencing Guidelines for MDMA.
AFFIRMED.
4