United States of America v. Wendy Bedoya

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WENDY BEDOYA; SANDRA
GARNICA; KATERINA O.
SINCLAIR; WALTER E. STATON;
RYAN TOMBLESON; and RACHEL
L. WINCH
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 16-10053
D.C. No.
CR-14-02153-001-TUC-RM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Marquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 12, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and GLEASON,***
District Judge.
FILED
DEC 22 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 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 Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

page 2
Appellants appeal the district court’s order affirming their convictions for
violations of 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.390(b) and 41 C.F.R. § 102-74.385 following a
bench trial before a magistrate judge. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and we affirm.
1. Appellants contend the trial judge erred by precluding evidence
supporting a defense of entrapment by estoppel. A trial court’s decision to exclude
evidence of a particular defense is reviewed de novo, United States v. Schafer, 625
F.3d 629, 637 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Brebner, 951 F.2d 1017,
1024 (9th Cir. 1991)), and a trial court may exclude such evidence if the defendant
fails to make a prima facie showing that he is eligible for the defense, id. (citing
United States v. Moreno, 102 F.3d 994, 997-98 (9th Cir. 1996)). Appellants’
proffer here did not establish a prima facie case supporting the defense. The
allegations did not suggest that the AUSA “affirmatively told [the defendant] the
proscribed conduct was permissible,” id., and “vague or even contradictory”
comments are not sufficient to establish the defense, United States v. Hancock, 231
F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2000). The trial judge did not err in excluding this
evidence.

-- 2 of 3 --

page 3
2. Appellants also contend that the government failed to present
sufficient evidence of “actual notice” to support their convictions. The government
presented evidence that a uniformed federal officer advised each defendant that
they were in violation of federal law and that, if they left peacefully, they would
not be prosecuted. Appellants did not leave until three hours after this advisement.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, see Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), we conclude that a rational trier of fact could
have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Appellants had actual notice that their
conduct violated federal law. See United States v. Bichsel, 395 F.3d 1053, 1057
(9th Cir. 2005).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --