United States of America v. Guido Bravatti

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GUIDO BRAVATTI,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-10056
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00087-PMP-
LRL-2
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SCHROEDER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Guido Bravatti (“defendant”) was convicted by a jury of one count of
conspiracy to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 846 and one count of distribution of five grams or more
of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). He appeals arguing that
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the district court erred in admitting the methamphetamine and an analysis of it and
that he was entrapped by the authorities. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. United States
v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1205 (9th Cir. 2004). We review de novo an alleged
violation of the Confrontation Clause. United States v. Norwood, 603 F.3d 1063,
1067 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the
methamphetamine was authenticated because there was a reasonable probability
based on the testimony of three witnesses that the methamphetamine had not been
materially altered. See Gallego v. United States, 276 F.2d 914, 917 (9th Cir.
1960). Because the chain of custody was established by live testimony and not
out-of-court statements, defendant fails to show a Confrontation Clause violation.
Defendant fails to show that no reasonable jury could conclude that the
government disproved the elements of the entrapment defense. Because there is no
evidence that Stephen Corso induced defendant to sell narcotics or that defendant
was reluctant to sell narcotics, a reasonable jury could find that the government
disproved the entrapment defense. See United States v. Skarie, 971 F.2d 317, 320
(9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Simas, 937 F.2d 459, 462 (9th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --