NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-10509 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01114-GMS-3
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JUAN CARRENO-GUTIERREZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 19, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Juan Carreno-Gutierrez appeals his convictions for conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 846; distribution and possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; and possession of a firearm in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We affirm.
1. Sufficient evidence supported the convictions. See United States v.
Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150, 1163 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing the analytical
framework). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government,
Defendant conducted a counter-surveillance technique known as a "heat run" soon
before the drugs were delivered; he rode in a surveillance car during the drug
transaction, with two firearms in his car; and he admitted to the police that he knew
that he was going to a drug transaction and that the firearms were for protection.
2. No impermissible vouching occurred. See United States v.
Weatherspoon, 410 F.3d 1142, 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) (describing impermissible
vouching). The prosecutor asked a percipient witness about his recollection of an
event that took place in his presence, not about his assessment of the credibility of
another witness. Moreover, even if the form of the question was imperfect, the
witness’ answer did not constitute vouching, because it referred to the specifics of
the event in question and did not agree completely with the other witness’ account.
3. We assume, without deciding, that in the circumstances of this case, the
district court erred by failing to apply mitigating procedures to the dual fact-and-
expert testimony of some of the government’s witnesses, and that this error was
plain. See United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893, 903–04 (9th Cir. 2007)
2
(describing the dangers of dual testimony). The assumed error did not affect
Defendant’s substantial rights, however, because he has not shown "a reasonable
probability that, but for the error claimed, the result of the proceeding would have
been different." United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 81–82 (2004)
(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). The evidence of Defendant’s guilt
was overwhelming, and the allegedly impermissible expert testimony affected only
minor topics.
We carefully have considered Defendant’s other arguments concerning other
alleged plain errors by the district court concerning expert testimony, and we find
no reversible error.
4. The district court did not err—let alone plainly err—by admitting the
"prior acts" evidence relevant to two co-defendants. The district court gave a
limiting instruction, and Defendant cites no support for his argument that the
district court sua sponte must deny admission of relevant evidence simply because
it may have some small prejudicial effect on a co-defendant.
5. Defendant waived the argument that the district court should have
severed his trial, by failing to raise the argument before the district court. United
States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3
4