United States of America v. THEODORE MANDY JOSE, Jr.

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.
THEODORE MANDY JOSE, Jr.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 08-10474
D.C. No. 4:07-cr-00377-FRZ-JJM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2009
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Theodore Mandy Jose, Jr. (Jose) challenges his conviction and
sentence of fifty-one months’ imprisonment.
FILED
DEC 11 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
1. The district court did not plainly err when it allowed the government
to cross-examine Jose regarding his guilty plea in tribal court. Plain-error analysis
applies because the district court’s ruling on Jose’s motion in limine was not
“explicit and definitive,” and Jose failed to raise a contemporaneous objection
during trial. Palmerin v. City of Riverside, 794 F.2d 1409, 1413 (9th Cir. 1986).
When Jose testified that he was in tribal custody, the government could
permissibly use that opening to present evidence favorable to its case. See United
States v. Sine, 493 F.3d 1021, 1037 (9th Cir. 2007), as amended. The guilty plea
was an admission by a party-opponent of his having assaulted the victim. See Fed.
R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A).
2. The district court did not err when it denied Jose’s motion to suppress
statements made to Detective Rosales. Detective Rosales warned Jose that his
statements could be used against him in court. She was not required to specifically
warn Jose that his statements could be used against him in a federal prosecution.
See United States v. Male Juvenile, 280 F.3d 1008, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2002).

-- 2 of 3 --

Jose does not contend that the sentencing calculation was procedurally1
defective. See United States v. Grissom, 525 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 2008).
Page 3 of 3
3. The district court’s imposition of fifty-one months’ imprisonment was
substantively reasonable. Considering the totality of circumstances, the district1
court imposed a sentence within the applicable sentencing range and adequately
explained its reasoning. See United States v. Bendtzen, 542 F.3d 722, 729 (9th Cir.
2008) (holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range is
usually reasonable).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --