United States of America v. Cesar Mascorro

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
CESAR MASCORRO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 10-50554
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00410-JAH-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 10, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER,
Circuit Judges.
1. Mascorro’s own admission of his prior bad act provides sufficient proof
under Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 690 (1988), for admission of the
prior bad act into evidence. Admitting the evidence didn’t violate Federal Rule of
Evidence 404(b) because the prior bad act indicated both Mascorro’s knowledge
FILED
FEB 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
that his passengers were in the United States unlawfully and his purpose to help
them remain. See United States v. Longoria, 624 F.2d 66, 69 (9th Cir. 1980). The
district court didn’t abuse its discretion in finding that the prejudicial effect of
admitting the prior bad act didn’t substantially outweigh its probative value. See
United States v. Ramirez-Jiminez, 967 F.2d 1321, 1327 (9th Cir. 1992).
2. The grand jury instructions Mascorro challenges are indistinguishable
from those we’ve previously held not to be constitutionally defective. See United
States v. Caruto, 663 F.3d 394, 398–99 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Cortez-
Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Navarro-Vargas,
408 F.3d 1184, 1187 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --