United States of America v. Ryan McGuire

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RYAN MCGUIRE,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20-30210
D.C. No.
1:18-cr-00157-SPW-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 9, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: IKUTA and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,*** District
Judge.
FILED
JUN 17 2022
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 Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Ryan McGuire appeals from his convictions for (1) conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and § 841(a)(1), and
(2) distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Considering the evidence adduced at trial “in the light most favorable to the
prosecution,” the evidence that McGuire conspired to distribute methamphetamine
was “adequate to allow any rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158,
1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (cleaned up). The government presented evidence
that Angela Killen was engaged in the sale of controlled substances; that Killen
told the undercover agents she had a methamphetamine connection; that almost
immediately after McGuire entered Killen’s house, the agents received a phone call
regarding the methamphetamine; and that McGuire was present during the
transaction, where he pulled a package of methamphetamine from his pocket and
handed it to Killen, who then sold the methamphetamine to the agents. Based on
this evidence, a rational jury could conclude that McGuire had conspired to
distribute methamphetamine with Killen. See United States v. Vgeri, 51 F.3d 876,
879–80 (9th Cir. 1995).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

The district court did not plainly err in not providing a specific buyer-seller
instruction “focus[ing] specifically on the difference between a buyer-seller
relationship and a coconspirator relationship,” because the district court provided
other jury instructions that adequately conveyed that distinction. United States v.
Moe, 781 F.3d 1120, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015).
The district court did not violate McGuire’s due process rights by sustaining
the government’s hearsay objections to McGuire’s efforts to elicit Agent
Osborne’s recollection of Killen’s out-of-court statements. Such testimony was
not admissible under the state of mind hearsay exception, because Killen’s out-of-
court statements identifying someone other than McGuire as the methamphetamine
supplier were made years after the transaction, and were not spontaneous. See
United States v. Miller, 874 F.2d 1255, 1264 (9th Cir. 1989). Rather, Killen’s out-
of-court statements are more “statement[s] of memory or belief to prove the fact
remembered or believed,” which do not fall within the state of mind hearsay
exception. Fed. R. Evid. 803(3). Nor was such testimony admissible under Kyles
v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), as out-of-court statements shedding light on the
quality of a police investigation. Kyles establishes no such exception to relevant
hearsay rules.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

Further, the district court’s exclusion of Agent Osborne’s testimony as to
Killen’s out-of-court statements did not violate McGuire’s right to present a
complete defense under Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973). Given the
district court’s determination that Killen was available to testify, and that McGuire
could have called her as a witness and elicited her testimony directly, McGuire was
not deprived of the ability to present his defense adequately.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --