USA V. RAMONA GARCIA DE LOMAS, No. 16-10435 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 31 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 16-10435 D.C. No. 4:14-cr-01561-FRZ-EJM-1 v. RAMONA CLEMENCIA GARCIA DE LOMAS, AKA Ramona Garcia De Lomas, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 23, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Ramona Clemencia Garcia de Lomas appeals her bench-trial convictions for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens for the purpose of commercial advantage or * 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). private financial gain and bringing in an illegal alien for profit, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Garcia de Lomas contends that the district court erred by permitting the government to impeach her trial testimony with prior inconsistent statements she made at an earlier change of plea hearing. See Fed. R. Evid. 410(a). We need not decide this question because, even if the district court erred in permitting the government to question Garcia de Lomas concerning her prior testimony, any error was harmless given the amount of evidence supporting her convictions. See United States v. Sayakhom, 186 F.3d 928, 936 (9th Cir. 1999) (though admission of plea negotiation statements at trial violated Rule 410, the error was harmless given compelling evidence of defendant’s guilt); id. (“An error not of constitutional magnitude may be disregarded if the government shows that the prejudice resulting from the error was more probably than not harmless.”). AFFIRMED. 2

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.