Full text
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Juan CALVILLO-REYES, aka Manuel Rodriguez-Reyes, Defendant—Appellant
MEMORANDUM ***
The government’s closing rebuttal argument was proper. The government’s statements regarding other individuals and a larger smuggling organization were based upon reasonable inferences from the evidence introduced at trial from both parties. United, States v. Ramirez-Lopez, 315 F.3d 1143, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).
Moreover, even if we were to assume it was improper, it was not “plain” error. The cases relied on by Calvillo-Reyes involve the presentation of expert testimony on the structure of drug trafficking organizations; 1 no case has yet applied this rationale to the alien-smuggling context, nor has any case suggested that the prosecution cannot allude to a larger organization in closing argument if the evidence supports such an argument.
We also cannot say that the government’s argument prejudiced CalvilloReyes. Nothing about the government’s argument contradicted Calvillo-Reyes’s theory of defense (that he was an unknowing pawn who had been duped by his female passenger); the jury heard Calvillo-Reyes’s explanation and obviously rejected it. There was also substantial circumstantial evidence of Calvillo-Reyes’s guilt, including the numerous lies he offered to officials at the port of entry, the implausibilty of much of his testimony, and the extreme unlikelihood a driver of a vehicle with a three-gallon gas tank, reeking of gas fumes, would not know that the vehicle had been altered. Any error did not affect Calvillo-Reyes’s substantial rights. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997).
AFFIRMED.
Footnotes
[***] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[1] United States v. Pineda-Torres, 287 F.3d 860 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Varela-Rivera, 279 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. McGowan, 274 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir.2001); and United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir.2001), amended by 246 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir.2001).