United States v. Cecilio Caicedo-Cuero
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecilio CAICEDO-CUERO, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Caicedo-Rengifo, Defendant-Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Fletcher (author), Jay S. Bybee, Settle
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 03 2014 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50252 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-02550-DMS-4 v. MEMORANDUM* CECILIO CAICEDO-CUERO, Defendant - Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50264 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-02550-DMS-3 v.
JUAN CAICEDO-RENGIFO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted November 18, 2014 Pasadena, California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Before: W. FLETCHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SETTLE, District Judge.** Appellants Cecilio Caicedo-Cuero and Juan Caicedo-Rengifo appeal their convictions under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. § 70503. Appellants argue that the district court erred when it determined that there was a sufficient nexus to support constitutional jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s determination of constitutional jurisdiction under the MDLEA. United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149, 1160 n.13 (9th Cir. 2006). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error.
United States v. Khan, 35 F.3d 426, 430 (9th Cir. 1994).
The parties disagree over which standard of review should apply to the district court’s finding that the cocaine was destined for the United States. Under any standard of review, the district court correctly found that the cocaine was destined for the United States. The district court properly relied on the testimony of the Government’s expert witness, Agent Michael Wasser. That testimony established by a preponderance of the evidence that the cocaine was intended for distribution in the United States.
** The Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
2 The district court’s finding that the cocaine was destined for the United States “provides a sufficient nexus between the defendants’ activities and the United States to satisfy the nexus requirement.” United States v. Klimavicius- Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1259 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, the district court correctly concluded that there was constitutional jurisdiction in this case.
AFFIRMED.