In United States v. Jimenez-Chaidez, --- F.4th ---, No. 22-50069 (9th Cir. 2024), a divided panel affirmed Jose Jimenez-Chaidez’s jury conviction for knowingly importing cocaine and methamphetamine, vacated his sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
This was a border-bust case with lack-of-knowledge as the defense.
First, the Court held that the district court properly admitted evidence of Jimenez’s prior drug transports, including the testimony of a cooperating witness. The Court concluded this prior-act evidence was admitted for the proper purpose of showing knowledge and intent under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2), and the evidence was not unduly prejudicial under Rule 403.
Second, the majority held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an FBI agent to testify about the Cellebrite extraction of data from a cellphone as a lay witness rather than an expert witness because the agent’s testimony did not require specialized knowledge. The dissent disagreed, explaining this was plainly unnoticed expert testimony.
Third, the Court held that the district court erred by not making an explicit reliability finding related to an expert’s testimony about the value of the drugs found in Jimenez’s vehicle when he was arrested, but this error was harmless.
Finally, the Court vacated Jimenez’s sentence and remanded for resentencing because of recent authority clarifying the process for conducting a mitigating role inquiry under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
