USA V. SALVADOR ARAGON, No. 18-50248 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 5 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-50248 D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00808-JAK-1 v. SALVADOR ARTEAGA ARAGON, AKA Chaka, AKA Ricky, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 3, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: HURWITZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge. Salvador Arteaga Aragon was convicted of conspiring to distribute * 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). *** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. We have jurisdiction over his appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the arresting officer’s identification of Aragon’s voice on recorded telephone calls. See United States v. Ortiz, 776 F.3d 1042, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating standard of review). The officer heard Aragon speak after his arrest. Familiarity with a voice based on post-arrest statements can satisfy the “low threshold for voice identifications” in Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5). Id. at 1044 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2. The district court did not err in finding that the government presented evidence sufficient to prove that Aragon participated in calls with a confidential informant. In addition to the arresting officer’s voice identification, the jury also heard evidence that the participant in the calls gave his “last names” as “Arteaga Aragon,” that Aragon identified himself to the arresting officer with those last names, and that Aragon admitted that he knew the confidential informant. A “rational trier of fact” could conclude that it was Aragon on the calls. United States v. Kimbrew, 944 F.3d 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3. The evidence was also sufficient to prove that Aragon conspired with and aided and abetted others to distribute narcotics. See id. (stating standard of review). Aragon’s co-conspirator promptly carried out Aragon’s instructions when 2 consummating a drug sale with the confidential informant. This was “strong circumstantial evidence of an agreement.” United States v. Hernandez, 876 F.2d 774, 778 (9th Cir. 1989). This evidence was also sufficient to show that Aragon offered “knowing aid to persons committing federal crimes, with the intent to facilitate the crime.” Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65, 71 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). 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.
