United States v. Carlos Herrera-Rivera
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14856
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Border Patrol agents referred an Intercalifornias bus to secondary inspection and found an unclaimed backpack with over one kilogram of methamphetamine; Herrera‑Rivera was seated a few rows back and arrested.
- Agents, with consent, searched Herrera‑Rivera and two phones; they noted black marks on his stomach and recovered text messages suggesting coordination and payment.
- Herrera‑Rivera gave post‑arrest statements to agents admitting limited knowledge of a friend’s involvement; he later testified at trial denying possession and claiming innocuous explanations for marks and texts.
- District court denied Herrera‑Rivera’s motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing under local rule requirements; found he was not in custody during Border Patrol questioning.
- The government used a peremptory strike on the only African‑American male juror; the district court denied Herrera‑Rivera’s Batson challenge after accepting the prosecutor’s race‑neutral reasons.
- At sentencing the court denied a minor‑role reduction and applied a two‑level obstruction enhancement for perjury; Herrera‑Rivera received 120 months. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence because the district court failed to make Castro‑Ponce findings supporting the obstruction enhancement, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of evidentiary hearing on suppression motion | Herrera‑Rivera: hearing required to resolve custody/interrogation dispute (Seibert/Williams issues) | Gov’t: defense failed to file a declaration from a knowledgeable declarant as required by local rule | No abuse of discretion; local rule unmet so court properly denied hearing |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike | Herrera‑Rivera: strike of only Black male juror was racially motivated | Gov’t: struck juror for race‑neutral reasons (criminal history, family drug use); district court should complete step three analysis | Affirmed; court made explicit credibility determination and found no pretextual discrimination |
| Minor‑role reduction at sentencing | Herrera‑Rivera: was substantially less culpable, likely an intermediate transporter | Gov’t: defendant bears burden and failed to prove minor role; argued defendant had prior lookout history | Affirmed; clear‑error review — insufficient evidence presented to meet burden |
| Obstruction enhancement for perjury | Herrera‑Rivera: enhancement improper because court did not make express findings on falsity, materiality, and willfulness (Castro‑Ponce) | Gov’t: enhancement supported by trial record; argued any error harmless because sentence below Guidelines | Vacated enhancement and remanded for resentencing; Ninth Circuit found plain error because district court failed to make Castro‑Ponce findings and error affected substantial rights (Molina‑Martinez applies) |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (two‑step interrogation/Miranda analysis)
- United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2006) (two‑step interrogation application)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (three‑step framework for peremptory strikes)
- United States v. Castro‑Ponce, 770 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court must make express findings of falsity, materiality, willfulness for §3C1.1 perjury enhancement)
- Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (incorrect Guidelines range can establish reasonable probability of different outcome)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain‑error review requirements)
- United States v. Alvarez‑Ulloa, 784 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2015) (Batson step‑three requires explicit district court determination)
- United States v. Wardlow, 951 F.2d 1115 (9th Cir. 1991) (local‑rule declaration requirement for suppression hearings)
- United States v. Rodriguez‑Castro, 641 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2011) (burden and standard for minor‑role reduction)