United States v. Garcia-Martinez

FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 12, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 15-1432 (D. Colo.) (D.C. No. 1:13-CR-00302-CMA-2) EDGAR LEOPOLDO GARCIA-MARTINEZ, Defendant - Appellant. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HOLMES, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. Following a three-day trial, a federal jury convicted Defendant-Appellant Edgar Leopoldo Garcia-Martinez (“Garcia-Martinez”) of conspiracy to possess and possession with the intent to distribute over a kilogram of heroin and 500 * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(f); 10 TH C IR . R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. grams of methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him to 121 months’ imprisonment. Garcia-Martinez challenges his conviction, arguing (1) that the government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), by failing to disclose certain impeachment information concerning two confidential informants, 1 and (2) that the district court erred by permitting an expert witness to offer an opinion on Garcia- Martinez’s “mental state,” in contravention of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b). Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s judgment. I2 This drug-trafficking case arises from a confidential sting operation involving the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) and two confidential informants, Roberto and Juan (together, the “CIs”). A The undercover operation began in July 2013, when the DEA received information that Javier Garcia (“Garcia”)—a co-defendant in the underlying 1 As explicated infra, the disclosure obligations that the Supreme Court established in Giglio with respect to impeachment information fall under Brady’s general rubric. For shorthand purposes only, this order and judgment frequently refers only to the name “Brady” when discussing materials that the government is constitutionally obliged to disclose; such references should be understood to include the impeachment materials that the Supreme Court addressed in Giglio. 2 We include as background only those limited aspects of the factual and procedural history that relate to the issues we address. 2 criminal case—claimed an ability to deliver “pound” and “multiple ounce” quantities of methamphetamine and heroin from Oregon to Denver. R., Vol. III, at 277 (Trial Tr., dated July 20, 2015). Roberto told the DEA that Garcia drives a black BMW convertible and gave the agency a phone number for him. Pretending to be a drug buyer, Roberto met Garcia in Oregon on July 12, 2013, and arranged for Garcia to deliver drugs to Colorado. During these negotiations, Roberto recognized Garcia-Martinez sitting “[m]aybe 10[ or] 15 feet” away. Id. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals