United States v. Garcia

── United States v. Garcia ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-6667 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:20-cr-00197-RAJ-4 v. HUMBERTO GARCIA, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: TALLMAN, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Defendant-Appellant Humberto Garcia appeals several issues stemming from his jury trial and conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291 and affirm. We review a district court’s factual findings about whether the defendant’s attire was identifiable as prison clothing for clear error. United States v. Sarno, 73 F.3d 1470, 1499–1500 (9th Cir. 1995). We review preserved evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and reverse only if they are manifestly erroneous. United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302, 322– 23 (2022). This includes admitting evidence over an objection that it is unfairly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. United States v. Sullivan, 159 F.4th 579, 590 (9th Cir. 2025). We review a district court’s finding about whether the evidence is sufficient to support a buyer-seller or multiple-conspiracies instruction for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moe, 781 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Ocampo- Estrada, 873 F.3d 661, 665 (9th Cir. 2017). But we have also applied de novo review to this question, at least in the multiple-conspiracies context. See United States v. Job, 871 F.3d 852, 867 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting intra-circuit conflict). We review unpreserved objections to jury instructions for plain error. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 464–66 (1997). 1. Garcia argues that the district court “improperly forced [him] to appear for trial in prison garb,” and that he is thus entitled to a new trial. First, Garcia’s objection was untimely and unspecific. Garcia waited until jury selection was 2 24-6667 almost done to tell the court, “I’m still in prison uniform in front of the jury.” Since Garcia’s delay gave “the jury the opportunity to observe [him] in [prison]-issued clothing,” his objection was untimely. United States v. Martin, 964 F.2d 714, 719– 20 (7th Cir. 1992). And without a timely objection, his claim fails. See Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 512 (1976); Sarno, 73 F.3d at 1499. Second, Garcia fails to show that the court clearly erred in finding that his clothing did not identify him as a prisoner. See Sarno, 73 F.3d at 1499. The court observed that Garcia was dressed in an open-collar, long-sleeve white shirt with a dark colored t-shirt underneath tucked into pants that looked no different than khakis. Nothing indicates that Garcia’s clothes had any labels or writing identifying them as prison-issued. See Felts v. Estelle, 875 F.2d 785, 785–86