USA V. VICTORIA JIM, No. 11-30102 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 27 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-30102 D.C. No. 2:09-cr-02035-EFS-2 v. MEMORANDUM * VICTORIA M. JIM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 9, 2012 Seattle, Washington Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Victoria Jim argues that she was subject to custodial interrogation without being advised of her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), but she did not bring a motion to suppress on this basis prior to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. trial. Failure to bring a motion to suppress prior to trial waives the issue for appeal. United States v. Murillo, 288 F.3d 1126, 1135 (9th Cir. 2002). Although we may in our discretion address the Miranda issue for cause shown, id.; United States v. Restrepo-Rua, 815 F.2d 1327, 1329 (9th Cir. 1987), Jim has provided no explanation for her failure to bring the motion prior to trial. See United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000). In an opinion filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum, in the case of United States v. Wahchumwah, No. 11-30101, we determined that Counts 4 and 5 of the indictment involving Ricky Wahchumwah, Jim s co-defendant, are multiplicitous. Both Jim and Wahchumwah are named in Counts 4 and 5, and Jim challenged the counts as multiplicitous at trial. However, only Wahchumwah appealed the issue. We will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant's opening brief. United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986)). However, we may review an issue if the failure to raise the issue properly did not prejudice the defense of the opposing party. Id. Here, the government fully addressed the multiplicity issue in its answering brief to Wahchumwah and has not been prejudiced. Thus, for the reasons addressed in the Wahchumwah opinion, one of Jim s convictions on 2 Counts 4 and 5 must be vacated. We leave to the district court the decision of which count to vacate. AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED AND REMANDED in part. 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.