United States v. Cantu-Lopez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 15, 2025
• Docket: 24-2190
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-2190 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:22-cr-02041-SAB-2 v. MEMORANDUM* PAULA EULOJIA CANTU-LOPEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 13, 2025** Anchorage, Alaska

Before: GRABER, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

A jury convicted Paula Cantu-Lopez of carjacking, brandishing a firearm

during and in relation to a crime of violence, and assault resulting in serious bodily

injury in Indian country. We affirm.

* 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). 1. First, Cantu-Lopez argues that the United States failed to present

evidence of her non-Indian status and that the jury was not instructed to find

whether she is Indian. See 18 U.S.C. § 1152. Because she did not raise this

objection below, we review for plain error. United States v. Johnson, 979 F.3d

632, 636 (9th Cir. 2020). No reversible error occurred. The government was not

obligated to prove affirmatively that Cantu-Lopez was not Indian because she did

not assert non-Indian status as an affirmative defense. United States v. Bruce, 394

F.3d 1215, 1222–23 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hester, 719 F.2d 1041, 1043

(9th Cir. 1983).1

2. Second, Cantu-Lopez argues that no reasonable juror could have found

that the carjacked vehicle travelled in interstate commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 2119.

We review for plain error. See United States v. Lopez, 4 F.4th 706, 719 (9th Cir.

2021) (“We review forfeited challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for plain

error.”). Evidence of a single interstate crossing, including evidence that a car was

manufactured out of a state and shipped into it, satisfies the interstate nexus

requirement for carjacking. United States v. Newton, 65 F.3d 810, 811 (9th Cir.

1995) (per curiam). The jury could have reasonably inferred that the car was

manufactured outside of the state of Washington, satisfying the interstate nexus

1 We have no authority to discard our precedent characterizing non-Indian status as an affirmative defense. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 892–93 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

2 24-2190 requirement.

3. Third, Cantu-Lopez argues that the aiding-and-abetting instruction

constructively amended her indictment. We review for plain error. United States

v. Peterson, 538 F.3d 1064, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2008). The instruction passes

muster because it tracked the relevant statutory text and did not omit any required

element. See United States v. Armstrong, 909 F.2d 1238, 1244 (9th Cir. 1990)

(stating standard). And it was similar to jury instructions considered error-free by

this court. United States v. Ubaldo, 859 F.3d 690, 698–99, 706 (9th Cir. 2017).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-2190