United States of America v. Valentino Bol Majak

* 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
VALENTINO BOL MAJAK,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10386
D.C. No. 4:10-cr-03004-RCC-
BPV-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2012 **
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN, CALLAHAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Valentino Bol Majak appeals his convictions for possession of marijuana
with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(vii), and fleeing from an
FILED
OCT 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration checkpoint, 18 U.S.C. § 758. He argues that the district court erred in
admitting expert testimony to show that he knowingly possessed the marijuana.
Majak was apprehended after fleeing from a Border Patrol checkpoint at
high speed; approximately 400 pounds of marijuana was found in the trunk of his
car. Majak testified that he did not know how the marijuana got there and
suggested that Border Patrol agents must have placed it there after his arrest. An
expert in drug trafficking testified for the Government that drug traffickers do not
typically use unknowing couriers to transport drugs.
We review a district court’s decision admitting drug-courier expert
testimony for abuse of discretion. United States v. Sepulveda-Barraza, 645 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2011). The district court did not abuse its discretion in this
case. Expert drug-courier testimony “is admissible when relevant, probative of a
defendant's knowledge, and not unfairly prejudicial.” Id. at 1072. The testimony
here was relevant because Majak disavowed knowledge as to how the marijuana
got into his trunk. Majak’s suggestion that the Border Patrol agents may have
placed the marijuana there did not render the expert testimony irrelevant. See
United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 229 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that expert
testimony about unknowing couriers is generally probative of the defendant’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
knowledge of possession (citing United States v. Castro, 972 F.2d 1107, 1111 (9th
Cir. 1992)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --