NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FEB 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50538
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:10-cr-04786-JAH-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
FRANCISCO ALEJANDRO CARRILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 12, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: GOODWIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Carrillo appeals his conviction for importing 59.6 kilograms of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We affirm.
*
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).
Carrillo argues that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to a
public trial by excluding his sister, Monica Lopez, and baby nephew from trial
after she testified for the defense. However, a defendant can forfeit a Sixth
Amendment claim by not promptly objecting or requesting that the individuals be
allowed to stay. United States v. Rivera, 682 F.3d 1223, 1232-34 (9th Cir. 2012).
Carrillo raised no objection when the district judge excluded Lopez and the infant
from the courtroom. Carrillo forfeited his claim by not promptly objecting or
asking that Lopez and her baby be allowed to stay. By the time, later in the day,
that Carrillo objected to the exclusion order, an order the district court modified in
response to the objection, Lopez had already left.
Carrillo also claims that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a
mechanic to testify as an expert about the effect of the drug-filled containers
hidden in the tires on the truck’s performance. This claim fails because although
foundation for the mechanic’s opinions was arguable, foundation was not so
lacking as to make admission of the testimony an abuse of discretion. He had 36
years of experience as a mechanic, mounting and balancing tires and diagnosing
and repairing tire and balance problems with cars and Dodge Ram trucks.
Furthermore, the witness had personally inspected Carrillo’s truck and the drug
containers. The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Carrillo’s
2
objections went to the weight of the testimony, not its admissibility. See United
States v. Garcia, 7 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
3