United States v. Ventura, 010919 FED9, 17-10347

Docket Nº:17-10347
Party Name:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANGELA LORRAINE VENTURA Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, District Judge.
Case Date:January 09, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANGELA LORRAINE VENTURA Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10347

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 9, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted December 19, 2018 San Francisco, California

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 4:16-cr-01544-RCC-LCK-1 for the District of Arizona Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, [**] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Angela Lorraine Ventura appeals her convictions and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(D), and high speed flight from a checkpoint in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 758. Prior to trial, Ventura filed an unsuccessful motion to suppress, in which she asked the trial court to dismiss all charges or alternatively, suppress all evidence obtained as fruits of an illegal investigatory stop. After the government rested and again after the jury rendered its verdict, Ventura unsuccessfully moved for acquittal on the marijuana charges, arguing that there was insufficient evidence tying her to the drugs recovered by the border patrol. Ventura appeals the denial of the suppression motion and the motion for acquittal. We affirm.

First, the district court did not err in denying her motion to suppress. See United States v. Kim, 25 F.3d 1426, 1430 (9th Cir. 1994) ("Whether an encounter between an individual and law enforcement authorities constitutes an investigatory stop is a mixed question of law and fact subject to de novo review."). Ventura concedes that her five-minute interaction with a border patrol agent began consensually. After she responded to the agent's initial question, the agent got out of his car and as she continued walking, asked her more questions. He did not instruct Ventura to stop or otherwise manifest a show of authority. See Nelson v. City of Davis, 685 F.3d 867, 875 (9th Cir. 2012) ("A person is seized by the police and thus entitled to challenge the government's action under the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP