United States of America v. Keith Francis Lamb

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KEITH FRANCIS LAMB,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50082
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-01255-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 April 13, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,
District Judge. **
Following his arrest for bringing in an illegal alien, appellant Keith Lamb
(Lamb) signed a stipulation that allowed for the release of the alien material
FILED
MAY 02 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
witness, but allowed the government to introduce hearsay statements of the witness
should Lamb decide to go to trial, which Lamb subsequently did. The district court
rejected Lamb’s argument that he was permitted to introduce hearsay statements of
the material witness. The district court also limited Lamb’s questioning of a
government witness regarding the nature of the witness’s drug conviction. Lamb
appeals these two rulings.
1. Because the stipulation unambiguously allowed only the government to
introduce the material witness’s statements, the district court did not err in
rejecting Lamb’s argument to the contrary. See United States v. Molina, 596 F.3d
1166, 1169 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Stipulations freely and voluntarily entered into in
criminal trials are as binding and enforceable as those entered into in civil actions. .
. .”) (citation and alteration omitted).
2. The district court committed no plain error pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 804(b)(3). See United States v. Jenkins, 633 F.3d 788, 803 (9th Cir.
2011) (explaining that an argument that was not raised in the district court is
reviewed for plain error).

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding further
questioning regarding the government witness’s drug conviction. See United
States v. Waters, 627 F.3d 345, 353 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (explaining that it
is entirely within the district court’s discretion whether to exclude evidence).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --