UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DARLIN JANETT HERNANDEZ (2017)

MEMORANDUM*

1. The district court did not err in rejecting Darlin Hernandez's vindictive prosecution claim. At the time the government filed the original charge against her, the evidence supporting the bail jumping charge did not exist. Thus, although the government added the bail jumping charge after Hernandez exercised her constitutional right to go to trial, no presumption of vindictiveness arose here. See United States v. Gallegos-Curiel, 681 F.2d 1164, 1168–69 (9th Cir. 1982). That the government sought a default judgment on Hernandez's bond the same day the district court set the date for trial does not give rise to an inference of vindictiveness given that the prosecutor acted on new information providing a basis for the additional charge. See United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 381–82 (1982).

2. The district court did not err in finding that Hernandez was subject to a twenty-year maximum sentence for importing methamphetamine. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(3). The government was not required to prove that Hernandez knew the precise type or quantity of the drug she imported. See United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir. 2002). Our precedent on this point is not clearly irreconcilable with any of the Supreme Court decisions cited by Hernandez.

AFFIRMED.