United States v. Eduardo Ocegueda-Ruiz
663 F. App'x 560
9th Cir.2016Background
- Ocegueda-Ruiz was convicted by jury of conspiracy to distribute meth and related drug offenses, plus firearm charges.
- He appeals arguing the district court should have given a multiple conspiracies instruction.
- The government’s evidence shows only a single conspiracy; Ocegueda-Ruiz admits involvement with some co-conspirators and not others.
- The district court did not give a broader two-conspiracy instruction; court found no basis in the record.
- The court addressed variance concerns and held there was no prejudice from any broader-indictment allegations.
- The district court instructed on unanimity to prevent conviction based on different acts; sentence affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple conspiracies instruction was required | Ocegueda-Ruiz argues two conspiracies existed. | Ocegueda-Ruiz argues broader conspiracy evidence requires instruction. | No error; only a single conspiracy shown. |
| Whether unanimity instruction was plain error | Potential jury confusion from broader conspiracy evidence. | Instructions safeguarded unanimity with explicit language. | Not plain error; instruction adequate. |
| Whether ineffective assistance merits collateral relief | Counsel failed to raise or develop key issues. | Ineffective assistance claims belong on collateral review. | Not exceptional; unresolved on direct appeal. |
| Whether § 851(b) error was harmless | District court failed to inform cannot collaterally attack. | Any error harmless given prior convictions timing. | Harmless; sentencing would be same. |
| Whether constitutional challenges to the sentence have merit | Challenges to mandatory minimums and separation of powers. | Circuit precedent upholds mandatory minimums. | Not supported by circuit law; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moe, 781 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2015) (multi-conspiracy risks when defendant is not sole participant)
- United States v. Anguiano, 873 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1989) (precludes conspiracy spillover when no second conspiracy shown)
- United States v. Morse, 785 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1986) (variance between indictment and proof must not prejudice defendant)
- United States v. Lapier, 796 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2015) (unanimity instruction required where genuine confusion possible)
- United States v. Payseno, 782 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 1986) (unanimity concerns in multi-act cases)
- United States v. Harris, 592 F.2d 1058 (9th Cir. 1979) (§ 851(b) procedure and collateral attack limitation)
- United States v. Labrada-Bustamante, 428 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding mandatory minimum schemes against constitutional challenges)
- United States v. Major, 676 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting separation-of-powers and Eighth Amendment arguments)
- United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2009) (resolve ineffective-assistance claims on collateral review)