FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 13 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30278
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05351-BHS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
G. B. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2015**
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant G.B. Brown (Brown) challenges his convictions for possession of
oxycodone with intent to distribute and structuring of financial transactions to
avoid reporting requirements. Brown maintains that there was insufficient
*
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).
evidence to support his convictions and that he was entrapped into purchasing
approximately four thousand oxycodone pills. Brown also contends that the
district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal premised on
several pre-trial motions.
The government presented evidence that Brown had an extensive history of
purchasing large quantities of oxycodone pills, including the purchase of the four
thousand pills at issue in this case. See United States v. Johnson, 357 F.3d 980,
984 (9th Cir. 2004) (observing that “[a] jury can infer intent to distribute from
possession of a large quantity of drugs”) (citation omitted).
Brown’s extensive history of purchasing large quantities of oxycodone pills
constituted sufficient evidence that Brown was not induced to purchase four
thousand oxycodone pills and that he was predisposed to trafficking in controlled
substances. See United States v. Spentz, 653 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2001)
(articulating that “[t]he entrapment defense has two elements: (1) the defendant
was induced to commit the crime by a government agent, and (2) he was not
otherwise predisposed to commit the crime”) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Additionally, Brown failed to present any persuasive evidence that law
enforcement officers induced him to structure currency transactions to evade
2
reporting requirements. See id. (describing defendant’s obligation to present
evidence of entrapment).
Brown improperly challenged the district court’s denial of a litany of pre-
trial motions in his motion for judgment of acquittal. See United States v. Crowe,
563 F.3d 969, 972 n.5 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “[t]here is only one ground
for a motion for judgment of acquittal. This is that the evidence is insufficient to
sustain a conviction of one or more of the offenses charged in the indictment or
information.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In any event, the
district court properly held that no errors, cumulative or otherwise, warranted a
judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.
3