United States v. Garza

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 25-2794
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 25 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2794 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:22-cr-00062-JLT-SKO-4 v. MEMORANDUM* ALMA GARZA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2026 San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW, District Judge.** Dissent by Judge Lefkow. Defendant-Appellant Alma Garza appeals her jury conviction and sentence

for drug conspiracy and possession charges. Because the parties are familiar with

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our

ruling. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court did nor err in denying Garza’s motion to suppress. We

review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo, the district court’s underlying

factual findings for clear error, and the decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156, 1159,

1163 (9th Cir. 2007). “[T]he main Fourth Amendment interest in a mailed package

attaches to the privacy of its contents, not the speed with which it is

delivered.” United States v. Gill, 280 F.3d 923, 929 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United

States v. Hillison, 733 F.2d 692, 696 (9th Cir. 1984)). Once probable cause is

established, a longer warrantless detention is permitted to apply for and receive a

search warrant. See United States v. Lozano, 623 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2010)

(“Probable cause is sufficient to support the subsequent detention of the package.”

(cleaned up)).

Garza has not put forth any evidence that the investigators here were

“leisurely” in seeking the warrant. See Gill, 280 F.3d at 929. The less-than-three-

day warrantless detention period here is shorter than the six-day period deemed

permissible in Gill, where the evidence showed that investigators acted

diligently. See id. at 929; see also United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 252–

53 (1970) (29-hour warrantless detention of the packages during the investigation

2 25-2794 was justifiable based on clerk’s and officer’s reasonable suspicions). Nor was an

evidentiary hearing necessary where Garza failed to “allege facts with sufficient

definiteness, clarity, and specificity to enable the trial court to conclude that

contested issues of fact exist.” Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d at 1163 (cleaned up).

2. The district court did not err in giving the deliberate ignorance jury

instruction. We review the decision to give a deliberate ignorance instruction for

abuse of discretion, but the instruction’s substance de novo. United States v. Yi, 704

F.3d 800, 804 (9th Cir. 2013). “An instruction is appropriate if it is supported by

law and has foundation in the evidence.” Id. (cleaned up).

Here, the deliberate ignorance instruction was appropriately given because

Garza argued she lacked actual knowledge of the package’s contents and trial

evidence supported a deliberate avoidance mens rea argument. See id. at 804; United

States v. Ramos-Atondo, 732 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2013). Nor was the substance

of the instruction deficient. We have previously upheld the use of the model

instruction at issue here. See, e.g., Yi, 704 F.3d at 805. The only drugs at issue in

Garza’s trial were federally controlled substances, so the district court did not err in

using the word “drugs” to stand in for federally controlled substances.

3. The district court did not err in denying Garza’s motions for acquittal and

for a new trial. We review a motion for acquittal based on insufficiency of the

evidence de novo and the district court’s denial of a motion for a new trial for abuse

3 25-2794 of discretion. See United States v. Chhun, 744 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2014).

Given Garza’s admissions regarding her suspicions about the package and her more

general knowledge of JR’s criminal activities, it was not irrational for the jury to

convict. See id. at 1117–18.

4. The district court did not err in overruling Garza’s sentencing objections.

We review “the district court’s identification of the correct legal standard [regarding

a sentencing issue] de novo and the district court’s factual findings for clear error,”

while “a district court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts of a

given case [is] reviewed for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852

F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We also review the substantive

reasonableness of a sentence for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Carty, 520

F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

As to Garza’s argument that the district could erred in not granting a minor-

role reduction, she failed to show she was “substantially less culpable than the

average participant in the charged criminal activity” as compared to her “co-

participants.” United States v. Diaz, 884 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 2018) (cleaned up).

Nor was the district court required to “tick off sentencing factors to show that it

considered them.” Id. at 914–15.

The district court similarly did not err in denying Garza’s requested downward

departure for acceptance of responsibility, as the reduction “is not intended to apply

4 25-2794 to a defendant who puts the government to its burden of proof at trial by denying the

essential factual elements of guilt, is convicted, and only then admits guilt and

expresses remorse.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.2. This is not the rare circumstance

where the defendant put on a defense so minimal that she might still qualify for the

reduction.

Nor did the district court err by not independently addressing Garza’s

methamphetamine purity objection. See Carty, 520 F.3d at 992 (9th Cir. 2008); cf.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007) (“[W]hen a judge decides simply to

apply the Guidelines to a particular case, doing so will not necessarily require

lengthy explanation.”). It suffices that the district court read and considered the

presentence report, Garza’s objections to that report, and the sentencing memoranda.

Finally, the district court did not err in denying Garza’s request for a

downward departure based on her age and rehabilitation. The below-Guidelines

sentence reflected the district court’s review of the relevant papers and

understanding of the relevant facts, including the “very large amount of drugs at

issue.” Indeed, the sentence was below guidelines in part because the district court

“var[ied] downward for [Garza’s] age.”

AFFIRMED.

5 25-2794 FILED MAR 25 2026 United States of America v. Garza, No. 25-2794 LEFKOW, District Judge, dissenting: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court

correctly denied Garza’s motion to suppress. The majority does not engage with

how the facts of Garza differ from most of the Fourth Amendment mailed-

packages cases, in which packages are detained for further investigation based on

reasonable suspicion. See, e.g., United States v. Gill, 280 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2002);

United States v. Aldaz, 921 F.2d 227 (9th Cir.1990). Garza’s package was detained,

the government admits, with sufficient evidence to seek a judicial finding of

probable cause, meaning there was no investigatory need to continue detaining the

package. It was held for almost three days for the government’s convenience. The

majority at once acknowledges that probable cause is different from reasonable

suspicion by citing United States v. Lozano, 623 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2010), for the

proposition that a package may continue to be held even after establishing probable

cause, but it proceeds to analyze the delay using Gill, a reasonable suspicion case.

The majority holds that, “[o]nce probable cause is established, a longer

warrantless detention is permitted to apply for and receive a search warrant.”

Majority at 2 (citing Lozano, 623 F.3d at 1061 (“[P]robable cause is sufficient to

support the subsequent detention of the package.” (cleaned up))). Neither the

majority nor Lozano provides any reasoning to support their unequivocal

statements and neither expresses any limiting principles. In Lozano, it is not even 1 clear to what extent, if at all, the agents detained the package after they had

evidence of probable cause before applying for the warrant. Lozano, 623 F.3d at

1059. Instead, Lozano relies on the same statement made in a footnote in United

States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156, 1160 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007) (where there

was a 2.5 hour delay between obtaining probable cause and issuing a warrant),

which in turn offers no reasoning but a citation to United States v. Hernandez, 313

F.3d 1206, 1213, 1208 (9th Cir. 2002) (where there was a 20-hour delay between

obtaining probable cause and issuing a warrant). The cited portion of Hernandez

mentions probable cause only obliquely to note that in another case, United States

v. Aldaz, 921 F.2d 227 (9th Cir.1990), we held a five-hour delay between probable

cause and executing a warrant was not unreasonable because it was due to the

administrative hurdles of securing a warrant. Hernandez, 313 F.3d at 1213 (citing

Aldaz, 921 F.2d at 1231). Simply put, neither the majority nor any of the cases it

relies on has articulated a principled reason for why a “longer warrantless

detention” of almost three days after probable cause has been established “is

permitted.” Majority at 2; compare United States v. Dass, 849 F.2d 414, 415 (9th

Cir. 1988) (citing United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 253 (1970)) (“[W]e

are reluctant to extend the Van Leeuwen outer boundary of 29 hours [from

reasonable suspicion to warrant execution] to a period not measured in hours, but

rather in days[.]”).

2 The majority goes on to reason that because the six-day delay between

package detention and search warrant execution in Gill was reasonable, Garza

should be treated the same. But comparing the six days in Gill to the almost-three

days in Garza is comparing apples to oranges. Finding the comparable time period

in Gill requires assessing when probable cause was established in that case. In Gill,

the package was detained under reasonable suspicion on Thursday to investigate it,

which the officer diligently did over the next several days. Gill, 280 F.3d at 925–

26. By Monday, the investigating officer still had not developed probable cause.

See Gill, 280 F.3d at 926. The officer then continued his investigation, gathered

more information, and completed his search warrant application on Tuesday. Gill,

280 F.3d at 926–27. The warrant was signed on Wednesday, as the magistrate judge

was unavailable on Tuesday. Gill, 280 F.3d at 927. Therefore, the comparable time

period in Gill—the delay between obtaining probable cause and executing a

warrant—was about 24 hours. This makes Gill similar to Aldaz or Hernandez,

where the probable cause-to-warrant delay was a matter of hours, rather than a

period of days as it was here and in United States v. Dass, 849 F.2d 414 (9th Cir.

1988).

Garza should be compared to Dass, the Ninth Circuit case that grapples with

the effect on a sender’s Fourth Amendment rights when investigators purposefully

delay a package after obtaining sufficient evidence for probable cause. In Dass, we

3 recognized that “short delays in obtaining a search warrant for mailed packages”

may be reasonable, citing United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249 (1970), but

we held that the circumstances did not justify delays of seven and more days where

dog sniffs provided the immediate basis for probable cause. Dass, 849 F.2d at 415–

16. Van Leeuwen and Dass require us to assess the reasonableness of the delay

under the facts presented.

The difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion matters

because it informs the reasonableness of a package’s delay. See Aldaz, 921 F.2d at

230. If a package is delayed for diligent investigation, courts often find such a

delay reasonable and therefore not a Fourth Amendment violation. See, e.g., Gill,

280 F.3d at 929. If a package is delayed not because of an investigatory need or an

unavoidable administrative delay, but for the investigators’ convenience, as it was

here, the delay should be held unreasonable and thus a Fourth Amendment

violation.1

In Dass, we relied on two fundamental principles grounding the Fourth

Amendment: deterring unreasonable police behavior and requiring judicial

determination of probable cause. Dass, 849 F.2d at 416. We rejected the

government’s argument that the delay was acceptable because it did not benefit

1 Moreover, unlike our guiding cases, we are in an age of electronic communication. This

counsels for allowing less than the 29 hours accepted in Van Leeuwen, rather than more. 4 from the delay, stating, “The government’s theory would allow an unlimited period

of seizure without judicial intervention; to accept its argument would nullify the

seizure portion of the search and seizure clause of the fourth amendment.” Id. at

416 (citing Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 215, 212 (1981)). We should

be guided by the principles articulated in Dass. Instead, we stretch the unsupported

language of Lozano towards their erosion. The holding today is contrary to Dass; it

allows investigators to pursue a warrant at their leisure after they have established

probable cause; and it opens the door to the very misconduct the Fourth

Amendment exists to prevent.

I respectfully dissent.