NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-50093 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos. 3:19-cr-00244-AJB-1 v. 3:19-cr-00244-AJB ISRAEL GONZALEZ-VAZQUEZ, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 7, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: LIPEZ,*** TALLMAN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Israel Gonzalez-Vazquez appeals his conviction on two counts of bringing an alien into the United States for commercial advantage, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), * 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 Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, sitting by designation. and two counts of bringing an alien into the United States without presentation to an immigration official, id. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). Gonzalez-Vazquez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence offered to prove the financial gain element of the counts charged under 8 U.S.C § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), the exclusion of certain financial evidence offered by Gonzalez-Vazquez, the admission of expert testimony, the admission of "profile evidence," and the denial of his motion for a new trial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 1. The evidence in the record was sufficient to support the financial gain element of the two counts charged under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). Because the government proceeded with an aiding and abetting theory, it needed only to prove that a principal actor had a pecuniary motive to engage in smuggling, not Gonzalez- Vazquez himself. United States v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690, 697 (9th Cir. 2002). The individuals found in Gonzalez-Vazquez's trunk testified that they (or their family members) expected to pay a fee to "Snakeheads" for smuggling them into the United States. That testimony was sufficient to demonstrate that the Snakeheads, the principals, had a pecuniary motive. See United States v. Mejia-Luna, 562 F.3d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 2009); Tsai, 282 F.3d at 697. 2. The evidence of Gonzalez-Vazquez's $80,000 pension was properly excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403. First, the pension evidence was irrelevant, per Rule 401. The government did not cross-examine Gonzalez- 2 Vazquez about a pecuniary motive, nor did it adduce any evidence suggesting that Gonzalez-Vazquez participated in the smuggling operation for his own financial gain. As such, Gonzalez-Vazquez's financial motivation was not at issue. Cf. United States v. Whitman, 771 F.2d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1985) (noting that "[t]he district court has broad discretion to determine whether evidence is relevant" and that "the court has discretion to admit or deny motive evidence"). Moreover, even if we assume the pension evidence carried some relevance, the introduction of that evidence, as the district court noted, would have opened the door to an inquiry into the nature of the pension, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals