Summary
finding that any error in admitting testimony over evidentiary objection "would have been harmless because the government presented at trial additional identification evidence, including the eyewitness testimony of the teller who was robbed and bank surveillance photographs and video tape footage of the robbery"
Summary of this case from Helms v. StateOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, James M. Ideman, District Judge, Presiding.
Before BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Juan Trujillo Martinez appeals his conviction and 262-month sentence following his guilty plea to conspiracy to aid and abet the distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1956(a)(1)(2) and 1957(2). His attorney filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record.
Counsel identified numerous potential issues for review, one involving the guilty plea, another a request for substitute counsel and several sentencing claims. Martinez's guilty plea was valid because the district court properly complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 when it accepted his plea. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for substitute counsel after he informed the court he no longer had a complaint against his attorney. See United States v. Walker, 915 F.2d 480, 482 (9th Cir.1990) (noting that substitution of counsel appropriate if "the conflict between the defendant and his attorney resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense"). Lastly, the district court sentenced Martinez according to the appropriate offense level based on the factual basis of his plea, his role as a leader and his acceptance of responsibility. See U .S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1, 3B1.1(a), 3D1.2(b), 3D1.3(a), 3E1.1 (1995).
Martinez raised three issues in his two supplemental briefs. First, he contends his guilty plea to conspiracy to aid and abet the distribution of cocaine is not supported by an adequate factual basis. The factual basis of his plea, however, included admissions that he laundered profits of Colombian drug traffickers, and that his money laundering was linked to or facilitated the narcotics conspiracy. He argues that money laundering is not an activity that can aid and abet the distribution of narcotics. We previously have rejected similar arguments because this kind of money laundering provides a central service to drug trafficking as it facilitates movement of drug profits. See United States v. Dela Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir.1986).
Martinez raises two additional issues for the first time on appeal. He contends his sentence violates the terms of his extradition and that the government's cooperation agreements with certain informants violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(3), and cites a case from the Tenth Circuit reversed en banc to support his contention. See United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir.1998), rev'd en banc, 165 F.3d 1297 (10th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 2371 (1999). Because Martinez did not make these objection before the district court, we decline to review them on appeal. See United States v. Belden, 957 F.2d 671, 674-675 (9th Cir.1992). In any event, these contentions clearly lack merit. Martinez did not receive a sentence of death or life imprisonment, and "we have repeatedly approved of the government's use of incentives to elicit relevant testimony." United States v. Flores, 172 F.3d 695, 700 (9th Cir.1999).
Our examination of counsel's brief, Martinez's supplemental briefs and our independent review of the record under Pension v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), disclose no further issues requiring review. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw as appellant's counsel of record.
AFFIRMED.