United States v. Angel Iturbe-Gonzalez, 679 F. App'x 531

Angel Iturbe-Gonzalez was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and sentenced to 151 months.
At trial the government introduced evidence of a 2012 arrest (other-act evidence) and a 2015 arrest (events intertwined with charged conduct).
The indictment alleged conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute both methamphetamine and heroin (pled conjunctively).
The district court instructed the jury it could convict if the government proved the offense as to either methamphetamine or heroin.
At sentencing Iturbe-Gonzalez sought "safety valve" relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)/U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2; the court denied relief based on his refusal to fully disclose information about a co-participant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of 2012 arrest evidence	2012 arrest was prejudicial and should have been excluded under Rule 404(b)/403	Evidence was admissible under Rule 404(b) as probative of material issues; court limited prejudicial aspects	Court affirmed admission: 404(b) criteria met and district court conducted a Rule 403 balancing; any error harmless
Admission of 2015 arrest evidence	2015 arrest was improper other-act evidence	2015 arrest was inextricably intertwined with charged conduct and admissible under Rule 402	Court affirmed: 2015 arrest was part of the same narrative, not subject to 404(b); admission proper (harmless even if error)
Jury instruction allowing conviction for either methamphetamine or heroin	Instruction substituted elements by allowing conviction on either drug despite indictment charging both	Drug type/quantity are not elements of §841 offenses; allowing alternative drug findings is permissible	Court affirmed: instruction proper because drug type/quantity are sentencing facets, not elements; any error harmless since jury found both quantities
Denial of safety-valve relief	Iturbe-Gonzalez argued he met all five §3553(f) criteria and deserved relief	Government argued he failed requirement (5) by not truthfully providing all information about co-participant(s)	Court affirmed: clear no error—he refused to answer questions about a potential participant and therefore failed requirement (5)

United States v. Romero, 282 F.3d 683 (9th Cir.) (standards for admitting other-acts evidence under Rule 404(b))
United States v. Williams, 291 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir.) (evidence inextricably intertwined with charged conduct may be admitted outside Rule 404(b))
United States v. Toliver, 351 F.3d 423 (9th Cir.) (drug type/quantity in indictment are not elements of §841 offense)
United States v. Vera, 770 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing elements from sentencing facts; drug type/quantity affect sentencing)
United States v. Gonzales, 506 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. en banc) (noting overruling on other grounds; cited regarding precedent boundaries)