U.S. v. Barreras-Velasquez

Full title: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isidro…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 28, 2001

13 F. App'x 587 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

13 Fed.Appx. 587 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isidro BARRERAS-VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-50332, 00-50376. D.C. No. CR-99-2561-JNK. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 28, 2001

Submitted June 7, 2001 ^*.

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Judith N. Keep, J., of distributing methamphetamine, and he appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) denial of defense motion to continue trial date was not arbitrary or unreasonable; (2) agents' testimony was sufficient to establish a chain of custody and, thus, admission of seized methamphetamine and photographs was not an abuse of discretion; and (3) 20-year sentence did not implicate Apprendi decision.

Affirmed.

Page 588.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Judith N. Keep, District Judge, Presiding.

Before KOZINSKI and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and WHYTE, ^** District Judge.

** The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ^***

*** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barreras' motion to continue the trial date. The district judge properly concluded that the proffered witness testimony was not necessary, and Barreras' general contention that he did not have enough time to investigate the witness' background is insufficient to establish that the denial was arbitrary or unreasonable. See United States v. Flynt, 756 F.2d 1352, 1358-59 (9th Cir.1985). Barreras' claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not appropriate for resolution on appeal because it requires development of facts outside of the record. See United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2000). The testimony of Agents Nelson and Essenberg was sufficient to establish a chain of custody under United States v. Harrington, 923 F.2d 1371 (9th Cir.1991), and the district court's admission of the seized methamphetamine and photographs thus did not constitute an abuse of discretion. See Fed.R.Evid. 901(a). Finally, the district court did not err under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), because Barreras' sentence--20 years--did not exceed the statutory maximum under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) for distribution of any quantity of methamphetamine. See United States v. Egge, 223 F.3d 1128, 1132 n. 1 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED.