United States v. Jesus Ortega-Castellanos

453 F. App'x 675

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The agent’s background, training and explanation of the sources he relied on were sufficient to qualify him as an expert on the marijuana’s value. Cf. United States v. Mendoza-Paz, 286 F.3d 1104, 1112-13 (9th Cir.2002). The government didn’t introduce the vehicle transfer form to prove the truth of its contents, so the document wasn’t hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c). And Ortega-Castellanos still hasn’t shown that he would have found any additional information helpful to his defense had he been granted a continuance. See United States v. Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 314-15 (9th Cir.1995). Nor is there cumulative error requiring reversal.

The district court adequately addressed the arguments Ortega-Castellanos made for a lighter sentence; the sentence imposed was substantively and procedurally sound.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.