United States of America v. Ricardo Olivas

* 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICARDO OLIVAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50650
D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00053-JLS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2010 **
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Olivas was convicted by a jury of importation of marijuana and
possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952
and 960 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He appeals, alleging that the government
FILED
DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
misled the jury during final argument with respect to what he told a government
agent and a police detective regarding how the marijuana found its way into the
secret compartments of the tires of his recently-purchased car without his
knowledge. The jury knew that Olivas had made an exculpatory statement, but
was not informed by either the prosecution or the defense of the details, just that he
denied knowledge of the marijuana.
We are not surprised that neither side saw fit to introduce into evidence
Olivas’s innocent explanation. His statement about lending in Mexico his recently-
purchased car to the prostitute “Susanna” is utterly implausible. Moreover, after
the story failed to thwart his arrest, he lamented that “he had been told that if he did
not admit to anything that nothing would happen” and that all charges would be
dropped.
After reviewing the evidentiary record and both counsels’ arguments, we
conclude that the district court’s response to Olivas’s objection to the
government’s closing argument was appropriate and correct. The court said,
“Again, I think it’s argument. You’ve both taken a little bit of liberties and I think
the jury understands this is argument, so you may proceed.” We agree. Under
these circumstances, we find no error, no misleading of the jury, and no
misconduct.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --