FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 03 2012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. 11-10072
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:10-CR-03580-RCC-
CRP-1
v.
MRP, JUVENILE MALE, MEMORANDUM *
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 15, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
MRP appeals his adjudication as a juvenile delinquent in a bench trial. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The government violated the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) by failing to
advise MRP of his rights immediately, United States v. Juvenile (RRA-A), 229 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
737, 744 (9th Cir. 2000), failing to advise MRP in a language he understood, 18
U.S.C. § 5033, and failing to demonstrate compliance with the parental notification
requirements, United States v. Doe, 862 F.2d 776, 779–80 (9th Cir. 1988). But
because the government did not introduce MRP’s statement as testimony at trial,
these errors did not violate due process. Doe, 862 F.2d at 781; cf. United States v.
Perez-Lopez, 348 F.3d 839, 849 (9th Cir. 2003) (reversing for failure to suppress
incriminating statements used against defendant at trial). Moreover, we find the
errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Even if the JDA violations caused
MRP to confess, the strong and ample circumstantial evidence shows that the
government did not charge MRP based on that confession. United States v. D.L.,
453 F.3d 1115, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006).
In addition, the district court did not err in allowing border patrol agents to
identify the seized evidence as marijuana. United States v. Almada-Aldama, 462
F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).
Finally, even if the district court erred in admitting the border patrol agent’s
testimony that he had never been mistaken in his field identifications of marijuana,
cf. Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., 557 U.S. 305, 320–21 (2009), MRP did not object at
trial, and he has not demonstrated plain error, United States v. Brigham, 447 F.3d
665, 669 (9th Cir. 2006).
2
AFFIRMED.
3