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 intiff - Appe lle e ,
v. M AR C O ANTONIO NAR ANJO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10141

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00146-LKK-1

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia La wre n c e K. Ka

rlton, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 14, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge a nd R EINHAR DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . De fe nda nt M a rc o Antonio Na ra njo a

ppe a ls h is 130-m on t h s e nte nc e for posse s sion with inte nt to distribute m e tha m p he ta m ine unde r 21 U.S.C

. § 841(a )(1),

c onten d i n g tha t se nte nc e wa s p roc e dura lly unre a sona ble

. Spe c ific a lly , he c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt fa ile d to provide a n e xpla na tion of the s e nt en ce an d announc e



# FIL ED

APR 25 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.the Se nte nc ing Guide line s R a nge . B e c a use Na ra njo did not ra ise his a rgum e nt be low tha t the se nte nc e wa s proc e dura lly unre a sona b le , we re vie w the re a sona ble ne ss of the

se nte nc e for pla in e rror. U nite d State

s v . V a l en ci a-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010). 1. Na ra njo a rgue s tha t the distric t judge c om m i tte d e rror b y fa iling to provide

a n a d e q ua te e xpla

na tion of the se nte nc e . Unde r 18 U.S.C

. § 3553(c ), “ [t] he c ourt, a t the tim e of se nte nc i ng, sha ll sta te in ope n c ourt the re a sons for i ts i m p o s i t ion of the pa rtic u la r se nte nc e .” In pa

rticu l ar , w h en a de fe nda

n t a rgue s tha t a s pe c ific se nte nc e outside t he S ente n c ing G uide line s ra nge is wa rra nte d, the judge m ust provide a n

a de qua te e xpla

na t ion o f why he did n o t im pose t he de fe nda

nt’ s re que s te d se nte nc e . Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008). He re , Na ra njo a s ke d for a fifte e n-m o nth downwa rd v a ria nc e to the sta

tutory

m inim um of 120 m onths in his se nte nc ing m e m ora ndum to the distric t judge

. During the se nte nc ing h e a ring, the distric t judge origina lly sugge ste d tha t the 120-m onth
sta tutory m inim

um wa s e xc e ssive but the n e xpre sse d doubts whe n we ighing Na ra njo’ s y outh a t the t im e of t he cr i m e a ga inst the a m o unt of drugs i nvolve d. The c ourt the n be ga n to a nnounc e the se nte nc e , sta ting t ha t “ [t] he C ourt find s tha t a downwa rd de pa rture to the m a nda tory -- . ” T h e judge , howe ve r, did not finish his se nte nc e be c a use h e re a liz e d tha t he n e e de d to provide Na ra njo with the opportunity t o s pe a k

Pa ge 2 of 5on h is own be ha lf. O nc e Na ra njo spoke , the distric t judge the n se nte nc e d h im to 130

m onths without providing a ny e xpla nation of how he a

rrive d a t tha t pa

rtic ula r

se nte nc e a nd why h e re

je c te d the 120-m onth se nte nc e . Inde e d, the only c om m e nt the distric t judge m a d e a fte r i m p osing the se nte nc e wa s tha t “ a ll o f [Na ra njo’ s] e xpe rie nc e will b e with pe o ple who a re -- we ll, c a n’ t b e he lpe d.” Although the di s t r i ct j u d ge

c onside re d va

rious fa c tors, inc luding N a ra n jo’ s y ou t h an d the a

m o unt of drugs involve d in the c rim e , he ne ve r e xpla ine d h ow he a rrive d a t the 130-m on t h se nte nc e

on the ba s is of those fa c tors. Unite d State s v . Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1010 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [T] he Rita instruc tion i s c onc e rne d w ith e x planation , not m e re l y

c onside ration .” ). The distric t c ourt the re fore e rre d. 2. Na ra njo ne xt a rgue s tha t this e rror a ffe c te d his sub s t an t i al rights a nd the fa irnes s o f t he proc e e ding be c a use the re is a re a sona

b le proba b ility tha t the distric t judge e i the r m a de a m ista k e by se nte nc ing h i m to 130 m onths or would ha v e c ha nge d the s e nte n c e ha d he e xpla ine d his re a soning. W e a gre e . To s how tha t a n e rr o r s u b s ta ntia l ly a ffe c te d his rights, N a ra n jo m ust

“ de m onstra

te a re a sona

ble p r o b ability t

ha t [he ] would ha ve re c e ive d a diffe re nt

se nte nc e if the distric t c ourt ha d not e rre d.” Unite d State s v . J ose ph , 716 F.3d 1273, 1280 (9th C ir. 2013) (a lte ra tion in origina l) (c ita tions a nd quota

tions om itte d )

. “ A

‘ re a sona ble p r oba bility ’ is, o f c ourse , l e ss tha n a c e rta inty , o r e ve n a like lihood.”

Pa ge 3 of 5Unite d State s v . Tapia, 665 F.3d 1059, 1061 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2011) (c iting Unite d State s v . Domingue

z Be nite z , 542 U.S. 74, 86 (2004) (Sc a lia , J ., c o nc urring)). W he re a c ourt’ s

e rror “ m ay h av e l e d to a se nte nc e tha t wa s one m onth longe r tha n ne c e ssa ry , e v e n within the Se n te nc ing Guide line s, tha t e rror ‘ a ffe c ts s ubsta n t ia l rights.’ ” J

ose ph , 716 F.3d a t 1 280 (c iting Unite d S t ate s v . Hammons , 558 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th C i r. 2009)). W e ha ve re gula

rly de e m e d the f

ai r ne ss of a proc e e ding a lso to h a ve be e n a ffe c te d whe re “ the se nte nc ing c ourt c om m itte d a le ga l e rror tha t m a y h a ve inc re a se d the le ngth of a

de fe nda nt’ s se nte nc e .” Tapia , 665 F.3d a t 1063. He re , the re is a t le a st a re a sona ble proba b ility t ha t t he distric t judge m ista

ke nly g av e a 130-m onth ra t

he r tha n a 120-m onth se nte n c e . The distric t c ourt initia lly sugge s te d tha t a 120 - m onth se nte nc e wa s e xc e ssive

. Howe ve r, w ithout e xpla ining its

c ha nge in position, the distric t c ourt ult i m a te ly se nte nc e d Na ra njo to 1 30 m onths. B e c a use the distric t judge e rre d a nd suc h e rror a ffe c te d Na ra njo’ s s ubsta n ti al rights

a nd the fa irne ss o f the proc e e ding by pote ntia lly i nc re a sing the le ngth of the se nte nc e ,
we hold tha t the d i stric t c ourt p la inly e rre d a nd re m a nd for re se nte nc ing. Se e Puc k e t t

v . Unite d State s , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). 1

1 B e c a use we re m a nd for re se n te nc ing on this ground, we do not ne e d to re a c h Na ra njo’ s a lte rna tive the o ry

tha t the distric t c ourt pla inly e rre d by fa iling to a nnounc e the Se n te nc ing Guide line s ra n g e . Pa ge 4 of 53. Na ra njo a l so c onte n ds that t h e r e fe re nc e to a p a rtic u la r ga ng in Spe c ia l C ondition 8 of the pre se nte nc e re port should be de le te d in c o nform a n c e with the distric t judge ’ s orde r to re m ove a ny re fe re nce t o a spe c ific ga ng. The gove rnm e nt

a gre e s. On re m a

nd, tha t re fe re nc e should be re m ove d. 4. Na ra njo la st a rgue s tha t we should re m a nd for re se nte n c ing ba se d o n Am e ndm e nt 782 to the Se nte nc ing Guide line s. Altho u g h A m e ndm e nt 7 82 is not a n inde pe nde nt ba sis for re m a nd, Unite d State s v . Boy k in , 785 F.3d 1352, 1364 n. 9 (9th C ir. 2015), the distric t c ourt m a y c onside r it a

t the tim e of re se n te n c ing. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

Pa ge 5 of 5