FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2011
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. 08-10478
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00377-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
PETER REGINALD WRIGHT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 11, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Peter Reginald Wright appeals his jury conviction of possession with intent
to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii). The
district court denied Wright’s motion to suppress the evidence found in a search of
his vehicle after it was pulled over on a traffic stop. Although Wright challenged
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
every aspect of the stop and eventual search, the district court, after an evidentiary
hearing, credited the testimony of the trooper, who made the stop and conducted
the search. The trooper gave three valid reasons for stopping Wright: (1) he was
speeding; (2) he made an unsafe lane change; and (3) he failed to signal when
changing lanes. Thus, it is irrelevant whether the trooper had other, subjective
reasons for stopping Wright. The record supports the district court’s findings and
there was no legal error. We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to suppress.
There was no error in connection with the use of a demonstrative aid to the
fingerprint evidence. The aid was provided to defense counsel and was not
admitted into evidence. The fingerprint evidence itself was also provided to
defense counsel, as well as the summary of the expert’s testimony required under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(G).
Wright claims there was error in connection with the uninvited reference on
the part of the fingerprint expert to a reviewer. The government offered to make
the reviewer available for examination and cross-examination, but for whatever
reason the reviewer did not become a witness. It would have been good tactical
strategy in any event to decline to call an additional witness who could confirm the
defendant’s fingerprints were on the contraband.
2
In light of the overwhelming evidence of Wright’s guilt, to the extent there
was any error, it was harmless. United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th
Cir. 2007).
There was no error in the admission of the narcotics expert’s testimony. All
requirements of the relevant rules were observed, and the witness testified only to
relevant issues in the case. United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2001),
amended, 246 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001), is not on point because the expert here
did not testify concerning issues that were outside the scope of the case.
AFFIRMED.
3