United States v. Claros

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 13, 2026
• Docket: 24-7288
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7288 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:23-cr-02276-LL-1 v. MEMORANDUM* JOSE WALTER CLAROS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Linda Lopez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 11, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.***

Jose Walter Claros challenges his jury conviction for illegal reentry after

removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

* 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 David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, sitting by designation. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision to exclude expert testimony for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1035 (9th Cir.

1997). In the context of an alleged Brady violation, we review questions of law de

novo, and findings of fact underlying those conclusions for clear error. United

States v. Cloud, 102 F.4th 968, 975 (9th Cir. 2024). We affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Claros’s

proposed expert. The court rationally concluded that her testimony was not

relevant because it would not help the jury understand Claros’s multiple sworn

admissions, as an adult, and over decades, that he was born in Mexico. See United

States v. Redlightning, 624 F.3d 1090, 1110–15 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that under

United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009), the district court did not

abuse its discretion by excluding expert testimony where “the district court’s line

of reasoning was plausible”).

But even if the district court erred in excluding the testimony, the error was

harmless because it “is more probable than not that the error did not materially

affect the verdict.” United States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir. 2015).

2. The government’s disclosure of its failed search for Claros’s Mexican

birth certificate did not violate Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The

relevant evidence was favorable to the defense, but there was no Brady violation

because the evidence was not suppressed and Claros was not prejudiced. See

2 24-7288 United States v. Bruce, 984 F.3d 884, 894–95 (9th Cir. 2021) (setting forth the

elements of a Brady claim). The evidence was not suppressed because the

government disclosed the favorable evidence to the defense as soon as it received

the reports from Mexican authorities. Claros was not prejudiced because he made

full use of the unsuccessful search and used it to try to cast doubt on the

government’s argument that he is an alien. For example, he elicited favorable

testimony in cross examining the government’s witness and, building on that

testimony, made strong arguments to the jury. The government’s disclosure was

not “so serious that there is a reasonable probability” that earlier disclosure or

additional testimony “would have produced a different verdict” or “undermined

confidence in the outcome” of the case. Id. at 894–900.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-7288