United States of America v. Jose Luis Murillo Espinosa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE LUIS MURILLO ESPINOSA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-30197
D.C. No. 3:13-cr-05569-MJP-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2016**
Seattle, Washington
Before: RAWLINSON, CALLAHAN, and GILMAN*** Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Jose Luis Murillo Espinosa was found guilty by a jury
of 1) conspiracy to possess heroin and morphine with intent to distribute and,
FILED
APR 07 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

2) possession of heroin or morphine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. He now appeals his convictions.
The district court did not plainly err when it allowed a Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA) agent to provide expert testimony about the structure and methods
of drug-trafficking organizations, because the testimony was relevant and more
probative than prejudicial. See United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza, 645 F.3d
1066, 1071 (9th Cir. 2011), as amended. The DEA agent’s expert testimony was
directly relevant to the charge of conspiracy and rebutted Espinosa’s assertion that,
although he was discovered in a drug stash house with heroin in his suitcase, he
had nothing to do with the drug-distribution activities that occurred there. Further,
the DEA agent’s testimony helped the jury understand Espinosa’s role in the
conspiracy, including comments made by Espinosa to other co-conspirators, and
the significance of evidence found in Espinosa’s room. In any event, Espinosa has
not shown that admission of the testimony affected the fairness of the proceedings
against him. See United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --