The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Jose Balmore Romero, also known as Porky, on charges of conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. The court ruled on October 27, 2026, affirming the decisions made by the lower court during Romero's trial. This ruling impacts Romero, who faces a lengthy prison sentence, and reinforces the legal standards surrounding expert testimony and drug conspiracy cases.

Romero was convicted on two counts: conspiracy to participate in a racketeering enterprise under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 846. The case was heard in the Central District of California, presided over by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. The Ninth Circuit's decision is significant as it addresses key issues regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and the calculation of drug quantities in conspiracy cases.

The dispute began when Romero challenged the district court's handling of expert testimony and the calculation of drug amounts attributed to him during sentencing. He argued that the court failed to properly assess the reliability of expert testimony provided by Agent Call, who had extensive experience with the MS-13 gang. Romero also contested the method used to determine the amount of drugs attributed to him, claiming it was erroneous.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling focused on two main arguments presented by Romero. First, he contended that the district court did not fulfill its responsibility to ensure the reliability of Agent Call's expert testimony. The court noted that while the district court should ideally have made its reliability finding outside the jury's presence, any potential error was harmless. The court stated, "Agent Call possessed extensive law enforcement experience and a history of casework concerning MS-13, which formed a 'reliable basis for [his] expert testimony regarding gang structure and activities.'" This indicates that the court found sufficient grounds for Agent Call's qualifications as an expert.

Secondly, Romero argued that the district court made a mistake in attributing the amount of drugs distributed by his co-conspirator, Melgar, to him during sentencing. The court found that the evidence presented at trial showed that the drug trafficking activities were foreseeable to Romero, given his leadership role in MS-13. The court explained that the government demonstrated that the gang operated in a coordinated fashion and that Romero was aware of the drug trafficking involved in the conspiracy. The ruling emphasized that the district court's estimation of drug quantity was supported by reliable testimony and was conservative in nature.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the district court's decisions, stating that the evidence supported the reliability of Agent Call's testimony and that the drug quantity attributed to Romero was calculated appropriately. The court concluded that Romero's arguments did not warrant a reversal of his conviction.

This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving gang-related drug conspiracies. It reinforces the importance of expert testimony in establishing the structure and operations of criminal enterprises like MS-13. Additionally, the decision highlights the standards that courts may apply when determining drug quantities in conspiracy cases, potentially influencing how similar cases are prosecuted in the future.

Going forward, Romero's conviction remains intact, and he faces the consequences of his actions as determined by the lower court. The Ninth Circuit's ruling does not appear to leave room for an appeal, as it upheld the lower court's findings and decisions. However, details regarding any related cases or further legal actions were not available in the court filing.