N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. M AL CO L M B RO O K S, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30261

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00015-TM B -2 M E M O RANDUM *

UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. CO RE Y G RE SH A M , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30300

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00015-TM B DM S-1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska Tim othy M . B urge ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 13, 2013 Anc hora ge , Ala ska 

# FIL ED SEP 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.pa ge 2

B e fore : K O Z INSKI , C hie f Judge , B E RZ O N and IKUT A , C irc uit Judge s. 1. Eve n a ssum ing tha

t Appe lla nt M a lc olm B rooks isn’ t bound by his wa ive r of a ppe lla te rights, c f. Unite d State s v. B ible r, 495 F.3d 621, 623–24 (9th C ir. 2007), he ha s fa ile d to e sta b lish e ligibility for sa fe ty va lve re lie f by

a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e . Se e Unite d Stat e s v. M e

jia -Pim e nta l, 477 F.3d 1100, 1104 (9th C ir. 2007). The distric t judge found tha t B rooks fa ile d to “ truthfully provide [] to the Gove rnm e nt a ll inform ation a nd e vide nc e ” c onc e rning thec rim e prior to his se nte nc ing he aring. 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(5). He note d inc onsiste nc ie s in two of B rooks’ s te stim onie s a

nd found tha

t B rooks fa i le d to provide an e xpla nation for the d isc re pa

nc i e s. The c ourt m a de no finding tha t B rooks m a de a

truthful or c om ple t e disc losure in e i the r te stim ony . B e c a use the e vide nc e indic ate s m uc h gre ate r involve m e nt by

Gre sha m tha n B rooks disc lose d, we c annot find tha t the distric t c o urt c le a

rly e rre d in c onc luding tha

t B rooks fa ile d to “provide , prior to se nte nc ing, a l l inform ation a t his disposa

l whic h is re l e va

n t to theoffe nse , whe the r or not it is re le va

nt or use ful to thegove rnm e n t’ s inve stiga tion.” Unite d State s v. Shre stha , 86 F.3d 935, 939 (9th C ir. 1996).pa ge 3

B rooks a l so fa i le d to e sta blish tha t he did not “

p osse ss a fire arm . . . in c onne c tion with the

offe n se .” 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(2). Although it’ s unc l e ar whe the r the distric t c ourt a p plie d the prope r burde n of proof, be c a use B rooks fa ile d to ra ise this issue

be low, he m

u st de m onstra

te pla in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v. R osa s, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 n.3 (9th C ir. 2010). Thedistric t c ourt did not pla inly e rr in c onc luding tha

t B rooks’ s fa ilure to c om

ply with thetruthful disc losure re quire m e nt disqual ifie s him from sa fe ty va lve re lie f re ga

rdle ss of whe the r he satisfie d the fire arm s prong. Eve n a ssum ing the distric t c ourt e rrone ously re quire d B rooks to show tha

t it wa s “ c le arly

im proba ble ” tha t he posse s se d the fire arm s in c onne c tion with the

offe n se , give n the a c c e ssibility of two loa de d we a

pons to any one e n te ring one of the growing a re a s, B rooks is unlike ly

to c arry his burde n unde r the pre ponde ra

nc e -of-the -e vide nc e sta

nda rd. B rooks wa s the re fore not pre j udic e d by

any m ista ke c onc e rning theburde n of proof. 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion whe n it dism isse d the first indic tm e nt a ga inst C ore y

Gre sha m without pre

judic e . Se e Unite d

State s v. Ta

y lor, 487 U.S. 326, 332–33 (1988). Proba b le c a use for the se arc h of 1100 Fa irvie w Loop e x iste d e ve n if the sta te troope rs inte ntiona lly

or ne glige ntly

om itte d from the se arc h wa

rrant a ffidavit tha

tpa ge 4

the re we re ne gat ive sm e l l te sts a nd tha t a nothe r struc ture wa s ne arby , be c a use the othe r e vide nc e wa s suffic ie nt to show “the kind of ‘ fa ir proba bility ’ on whic h

‘ re a sona ble and prude nt [pe ople ,] not le g a l te c hnic ia n s, a c t .” Florida

v. Ha rris, 133 S. C t. 1050, 1055 (2013) (a lte ra tion in origina

l). The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to c re d it the sta

te troope r’ s te stim ony

tha t Gre sha m prope rly wa ive d his M iranda rights— and to e xpre s sly

disc re dit Gre sha

m ’ s te stim ony

to the c ontra

ry — wa s not c le arly e rrone ous. Se e Unite d

State s v. C la

wson, 831 F.2d 909, 914 (9th C i r. 1987). B e c a

use Gre sha

m ’ s a rgum e nt c h a lle nging thesuffic i e nc y of the e vide nc e re sts on his errone ous pre m ise tha t the fore g oing e vide nc e is ina d m issible , it m

ust fa il. Fina lly , the jury ’ s spe c i a l ve rdic t finding tha t Gre sha m m anufa c ture d or posse s se d at le a st 100 m arijua na pla nts wa s supporte d

by the re c ord. The re fore the distric t c o urt did not err by im posing them andatory

m inim um se nte nc e of five y e ars. AFFIRM E D.Unite d

State s v . Brook s , No. 12-30261 B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: I disa gre e with them a

j ority a s to one point: The distric t c ourt a

p plie d a n e rrone ous sta

nda rd with re ga

rd to one sa fe ty va lve fa c t or, 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(5). The distric t c ourt c o n side re d only the truth of the i nform ation provide d at Gre sha m ’ s tria l. B ut unde r U

nite d State

s v . Shre stha , 86 F.3d 935, 939–40 (9th C ir. 1996), theque stion is whethe r c om ple te and truthful inform at ion wa s e ve r provide d prior to se nte n c ing, not whe the r the de fe nda nt subse q ue ntly provide d fa lse inform ation. I a gre e , howe ve r, tha

t on a pla in e rror sta

nda rd, B rooks c annot pre va il a s to anothe r sa fe ty

va lve fa c tor, 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(2), c onc e rning posse sse d fire arm s in c o nne c tion with the

offe nse . I the re fore a g re e tha t we m ust a ffirm the de nia l of sa fe ty va l ve re lie f to B rooks. 

# FIL ED SEP 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS