N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. JUAN GAB R IEL ANGULO-C AB RER A, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50451

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00889-GHK-2
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. SER GIO M ER C A D O-VAZQUEZ,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50496

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00889-GHK-3

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia G e orge H. King, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED N OV 15 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Subm itte d Nove m be r 9, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s , a nd SM ITH, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. De fe nda

nts in this c onsolida

te d c a se we re both se nte nc e d for the ir re s pe c t ive role s in a thirty -pound m e t

ham phe tam ine tra

nsa c tion. De fe nda

nt Angulo-C a

bre ra a ppe a ls his se nte nc e on the ground tha t he re c e ive d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of
c ounse l (“ IAC ” ) during these nte nc ing proc e e dings. De fe nda nt M e rc a do-Va z que z c ha lle nge s the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of sa fe ty -va lve re lie f from m andatory m inim um se nte nc ing unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f) a s we l l a s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision not to sua sponte orde r an e vide ntia ry he aring to judge

his c re dibility during thoseproc e e dings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, dism iss Angulo’ s IAC c la im

with pre judic e , a nd a ffirm M e rc a d o’ s se nte nc e . A. Angulo-C

a b re ra Angulo c la im s tha

t it wa s de fic ie nt for his c ounse l to “unne c e ssa rily c onc e de that the re we re m ore m e m

be rs in the c rim ina l c onspira c y ” be c a use doing so unde rm ine d the Probation Offic e ’ s re c om m e nde d downwa

rd va rianc e . Unde r

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, Unite d

Stat e s C hie f Distric t Judge for the Distric t of R

hode Isla nd, sitting by de signa

tion. 2Stric k

land v . W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the re is a two-prong te st for
e sta blishing a n IAC c la im : (1) de fic ie nt a s sista nc e of c ounse l and (2) pre judic e a s a re s ult. Id. at 687. B e c a

u s e Angulo fa ile d to e s ta

blish thefirst prong, wene e d not
re a c h the se c ond. W e ge ne ra lly

do not re vie w c ha lle nge s to the e ffe c tive ne s s of de fe nse c ounse l on dire c t a

ppe a l a nd inste a d pre fe r c ha l le nge s in ha be a s proc e e dings. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Mc Gow an , 668 F.3d 601, 605 (9th C ir. 2012). The re are two

“ e x tra ordina

ry e x c e ptions to this ge

ne ra l rule : (1) whe re the re c ord on a ppe a l is suffic i e ntly

de v e lope d to pe rm it de te rm ination of theissue , or (2) whe re the le ga l
re pre se ntation is so ina

de quat e tha

t it obviously

de nie s a de fe nda nt his Sixth Am e ndm e nt right to c ounse l.” Id. (quoting Unite d State s v . J e ronimo , 398 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th C ir. 2005)). Thepre se nt c a se fa lls unde r the first e xc e ption. Unde r a “ m ost de fe re ntia l” sta

nda rd, sta rting with the

“ ‘ strong pre sum

ption’ that [Angulo’ s] c o unse l’ s re pre se ntat ion wa s within the ‘ w ide range ’ of re a sona

ble profe s siona l a ssista

n c e ,” we find tha

t Angulo’ s c ounse l ’ s re pre se ntation did not

“ am ount[] to inc om

pe te nc e .” Harrington v. Ric hte r , 562 U.S. 86, 104–05 (2011) (quoting Stric k

land, 466 U.S. a

t 689). Inste a d, it is c le ar from the re c ord tha

t Angulo’ s c ounse l wa s pursuing a re a sona ble strat e gy

de signe d to m inim iz e Angulo’ s role i n the c onspira c y by pa inting him a s a

m inion of higher-ups, rathe r 3tha

n a s a drug kingpin for whom

a ha rsh se nte nc e m a

y be wa rrante d. S

e eMile s v . Ry an , 713 F.3d 477, 487 (9th C ir. 2013) (de ny ing a n IAC c l a im

be c a use de fe nse c ounse l’ s se nte nc ing a

rgum e nt “ a

ppe ar[e d] to ha

ve be e n m otiva te d by re a s ona ble strate gic c onc e rns” ). B e c a use Angulo’ s c ounse l followe d a va l id litiga

tion strate gy , we dism iss his IAC c la im with pre judic e . B
. Me rc ado-Vazque

z M e rc a do a

ppe a ls his 120-month se nte nc e on the grounds tha t he wa s im prope rly de nie d sa fe t

y -va lve re lie f and tha

t the distric t c ourt should ha v e sua sponte grante d a n e v ide ntia ry he aring to judge

his c re dibility

be fore ruling tha

t his
sa fe ty -va lve proffe rs we re untruthful a nd inc om ple te . To be e ligiblefor sa fe ty -va lve re lie f unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f), a de fe nda nt be ars the burde n of proving by a pre ponde ran c e of the e vide nc e tha t he m e e ts five
c rite ria
. U

nite d State s v . Diaz-C

arde nas , 351 F.3d 404, 408–09 (9th C ir. 2003). The distric t c ourt he ld tha t M e rc a do fa ile d the la st c rite rion to “truthfully provide [] to the Gove rnm e nt a ll inform ation a nd e vide nc e the de fe nda

nt ha s c onc e rning the offe nse .” 18 U.S.C
. § 3553(f)(5). This fa c tua l de te rm inat ion is re vie we d for c le ar e rror. Unite d State

s v . Shre s tha , 86 F.3d 935, 938 (9th C ir. 1996). The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in m aking this fa c tua l de te rm ination a nd de ny ing sa fe ty -va lve re lie f. The distric t c ourt ba se d its de c ision on the prova ble
4fa lsity

of M e rc a do’ s e xpla

nation for why

he did not he a

r or se e anything a

t the drug m e e ting in que stion in c om bina tion with logic a l infe re nc e s dra wn from an a ge nt’ s sta

t e m e nts tha

t M e rc a do pa

rtic ipate d a

nd the proxim ity

of M e rc a do to the transa c tion. This wa s not c le ar e rror. Se eUnite d State s v . Hie ng , 679 F.3d 1131, 1145 (9th C ir. 2012) (finding a re a sona ble infe re nc e tha

t the de fe nda

nt m ust ha ve known m ore tha

n he sha re d with thegove rnm e nt a pe rm issibleground to de ny re lie f). M e rc a do furthe r c la im s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by not sua sponte orde ring a

n e vide ntia

ry he aring to judge

his c re dibility . This de c ision is re vie we d for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . Be r ry , 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th C ir. 2001). B e c a use the d istric t c o urt’ s findings were ba se d on theobje c tive fa lse hood of M e rc a do’ s sta te m e nt a nd M e rc a do wa s give n am ple opportunity

to c onte st the distric t

c ourt’ s findings, the

distric t c ourt did not pla

inly e rr. Se eUnite d State

s v . Re a lHe rnande z , 90 F.3d 356, 362 (9th C ir. 1996) (noting tha t whe n a fa c tua l issueis in disputein a

sa fe ty -va lve a

pplic ation, the distric t c ourt ne e d only “ provide the pa rtie s a ‘ re a sona ble opportunity ’ to pre se nt inform ation to the c ourt” (quoting Fe d. R . C rim . P. 32(c )(3)(A))). * * *

5Angulo-C a bre ra ’ s IAC c la im

is DISM ISSE D W IT H PRE JUDICE , and M e rc a do-Va z que z ’ s se nte n c e is AFFIRM E D.

6