United States v. Herrera-Rivera, No. 15-50141 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and his 120-month sentence. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress, denying his Batson challenge without conducting an appropriate Batson analysis, and denying a minor-role reduction. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the government withheld evidence, resulting in prejudice both at trial and at sentencing. The court agreed with defendant, however, that the district court plainly erred by applying an obstruction of justice enhancement to his sentence without making the express findings required by United States v. Castro-Ponce. Finally, the court concluded that there is no basis to reverse on direct appeal where counsel opted to chose not to raise a valid objection regarding defendant’s contention that the government failed to disclose its suspicion that the defendant was a longtime pedestrian narcotics smuggler, resulting in prejudice at trial and at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed a conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, vacated the sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s motion to suppress, where the motion was not supported by a declaration from someone with knowledge who was available for cross-examination at a hearing on the motion, as required by the Southern District of California’s Local Criminal Rule 47.1. The panel held that the defendant’s contention that the district court erred in applying Batson’s framework on his challenge to the government’s striking the only African- American juror is not supported by the record. The panel held that the district court did not clearly err in denying a minor-role reduction at sentencing. The panel held that the district court’s failure, in applying an obstruction of justice enhancement, to explicitly find that the defendant’s testimony was willful and material is plain error affecting the defendant’s substantial rights. UNITED STATES V. HERRERA-RIVERA 3 Regarding the defendant’s contention that the government failed to disclose its suspicion that the defendant was a long- time pedestrian narcotics smuggler, resulting in prejudice at trial and at sentencing, the panel held that there was no basis for reversal where counsel chose not to raise a valid objection on this purely factual question. Judge Graber concurred in all respects except that she would affirm the enhancement for obstruction of justice because the defendant has not satisfied the requirements of plain error review.
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.