USA v. Ernest Mancha, No. 09-50481 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 09-50481 D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00284-AHM-12 v. MEMORANDUM* ERNEST GEORGE MANCHA, AKA Chubby, AKA Chubs, AKA Ernie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 14, 2011** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ernest George Mancha appeals his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and use of a communication facility in committing a felony drug offense, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we do not recount additional facts except as necessary to explain our decision. We affirm. The district court did not err in admitting Special Agent Schneider s testimony. As to the testimony to which Mancha objected at trial, the district court properly allowed interpretations of encoded drug jargon, and exercised its discretion in striking those portions that were clearly improper. See United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 922 23 (9th Cir. 2009). To the extent Special Agent Schneider interpreted the meaning of ambiguous terms, such testimony is admissible if it is based on the witness s knowledge of the particular case and defendants. Id. at 922. Moreover, when viewed in the context of the properly admitted testimony, any error was harmless. See United States v. Freeman, 498 F.3d 893, 905 06 (9th Cir. 2007). As to the testimony to which Mancha did not object, there was no plain error. Even where the government concedes that Special Agent Schneider improperly interpreted clear statements, Mancha has not established that the testimony affected his substantial rights, that is, that it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Puckett v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009) (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993)). 2 AFFIRMED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.