United States v. Guevara

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 24-5722
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 6 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5722 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:19-cr-00001-SPW-2 v. MEMORANDUM*

DAWN MARIE GUEVARA, AKA Dawn Marie Owen,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted October 22, 2025 Portland, Oregon

Before: W. FLETCHER, CHRISTEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Dawn Marie Guevara appeals her conviction for one count of Conspiracy to

Possess With Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

846. Guevara challenges the admission at trial of certain evidence. Because the

parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Guevara’s challenges involve alleged evidentiary errors (the admission of

oral testimony of agents summarizing historical postal records and border crossing

data) and an alleged Confrontation Clause violation arising from a postal

inspector’s testimony about his conversation with a technical surveillance

specialist who helped him obtain two postal surveillance videos. “[W]e review de

novo the district court’s interpretation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, but once

we determine that the evidence does fall within the given rule, we review the

district court’s decision to admit it for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Lopez,

762 F.3d 852, 859 (9th Cir. 2014). “We review alleged violations of the

Confrontation Clause de novo.” United States v. Brooks, 772 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th

Cir. 2014). “[W]e apply the harmless error standard for nonconstitutional error”

and “must reverse unless there is a ‘fair assurance’ of harmlessness, or, stated

otherwise, unless it is more probable than not that the error did not materially

affect the verdict.” United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th Cir. 1997)

(citation omitted). “This standard requires that the Government show a ‘fair

assurance’ that the verdict was not substantially swayed by error.” United States v.

Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002). “When the district court admits

evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause, we must reverse the conviction

unless the government can show that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable

2 24-5722 doubt.” United States v. Morales, 720 F.3d 1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2013).

Any error in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless because there

was overwhelming evidence of Guevara’s guilt. The government’s extensive

evidence included the testimony of three witnesses describing seven controlled

buys, text messages between Guevara and an undercover agent, text messages

between Guevara and a cooperating witness, and a recorded phone call between

Guevara and an undercover agent. The alleged errors pertain to the admission of

border crossing data, postal records, and videos that were not necessary to secure

Guevara’s conviction.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-5722