FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 17 2012
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. 11-50249
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:96-cr-02085-LAB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JESSE BENUTO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2012 **
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,
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 John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Jesse Benuto appeals his jury conviction and sentencing for importation of
marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960, and possession of marijuana
with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).
I.
Benuto contends that the prosecutor’s structural comments during closing
argument warrant reversal. When reviewing for prosecutorial misconduct, an
appellate court considers in the context of the entire trial “whether it is more
probable than not that the prosecutor’s conduct materially affected the fairness of
the trial.” United States v. McKoy, 771 F.2d 1207, 1212 (9th Cir. 1985).
Although generally testimony and argument regarding the structure and
operation of a drug trafficking organization is inadmissible where the defendant is
not charged with a conspiracy to import drugs, United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d
1008, 1012 (9th Cir.), amended 246 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001), it may be
admissible if the defendant introduces evidence that the prosecution did not
attempt to find the defendant’s fingerprints on the drugs, United States v. Pineda
Torres, 287 F.3d 860, 865 (9th Cir. 2002). Because Benuto’s counsel introduced
evidence about the absence of fingerprint analysis, Vallejo’s prohibition on
structure testimony and argument is inapplicable.
2
Benuto contends that the remarks about the chain of distribution were also
improper because they “did not constitute evidence and prosecutors may not
supply facts not in evidence as they may be given undue weight.” United States v.
Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524, 538 (9th Cir. 2011). We conclude that the prosecutor’s
arguments were based on common knowledge or were reasonable inferences from
facts and testimony in evidence. See United States v. Bracy, 67 F.3d 1421, 1431
(9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, the prosecutor did not suggest that the testimony of
government witnesses was supported by outside information. See United States v.
Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 610 (9th Cir. 2010) (describing improper vouching).
II.
Benuto argues that the prosecutor’s comments regarding his silence or
inability to answer questions was improper and that the district court erred in
admitting the comments because they were more prejudicial than probative. We
disagree. See Berghuis v. Thompkins, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2259-60 (2010) (holding
that police may continue questioning a suspect until he unambiguously invokes his
right to remain silent).
We review the district court’s evidentiary ruling that the probative value of
the evidence exceeds its potential for unfair prejudice for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Curtin, 489 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir. 2007). We conclude that the
3
district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to comment on
Benuto’s failure to answer some of the custom agent’s questions. See United
States v. Caruto, 532 F.3d 822, 829 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v.
Lorenzo, 570 F.2d 294 (9th Cir. 1978)).
III.
Benuto contends that the district court procedurally erred by misapplying
U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 and by failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing
factors. First, because Benuto is a United States citizen, U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 is
inapplicable; the section applies if the “defendant was deported or unlawfully
remained in the United States” after a conviction. Second, the record reflects that
the district court properly considered the sentencing factors and explained its
rationale for selecting the sentence. United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d
1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010).
Benuto also contends that the twelve-month sentence is substantively
unreasonable. In light of the totality of the circumstances and the § 3553(a)
sentencing factors, we hold that a sentence more than twenty-five months below
the bottom of the Guideline range was not substantively unreasonable. See Gall v.
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
4