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. C HR ISTOPHER

R OLAND B R

ADLEY, De fe n da nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50113

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00389-DDP-3 M EM O R ANDUM *

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 De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

14, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW

and FISHER , C i rc u it Judge s. C hristophe r B ra dle y

a ppe a ls his se n te nc e for c onspira c y to distribute

and posse s s with intent to distribute oxy c odone and oxy

m orphone . W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in attributing the e ntire am ount of oxy c odone found a

t his c oc onspira

tors’ sta sh houseto B ra dle y for purpose s of de te rm i ning his offe nse le ve l. Se e Unite d State s v . Palafox -Mazon , 198 F.3d 1182,



# FIL E D JUN 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1184, 1186 (9th C ir. 2000). Unde r the Se nte nc ing Guide line s, B ra dle y “ is a c c ounta ble for a ll qua

ntitie s of c ontra

ba n d with whic h he wa s dire c tly involve d and . . . a ll re a sona

bly fore se e a b le qua ntitie s of c ontra

b and tha t we re within the sc ope o f the c rim ina l a c tivity ” tha t he “ a g re e d to jointly

unde rtake (i.e ., the sc ope of the spe c ific c onduc t a

nd obje c tive s e m

bra c e d by [his] a gre e m e nt).” Unite d Stat e s Se nte nc i ng Guide line s M anua l (U.S.S.G.) § 1B 1.3 c m t. n.2; se e Unite d State s v . Ortiz , 362 F.3d 1274, 1275-77 (9th C ir. 2004). A c ourt “ m ay c onside r any e xplic it a gre e m e nt or im

plic it a g re e m e nt fa i rly

infe rre d from

the c onduc t of the de fe nda n t a nd othe rs” t o de te rm ine “ the sc ope of the spe c ific c onduc t a nd obje c tive s e m

bra c e d by the de fe nda

nt’ s a gre e m e nt.” U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3 c m t. n.2. He re , the distric t c ourt a

p plie d the c orre c t le ga l sta nda rd and m a de an

“ individualiz e d e va luation” of the am ount of c ontra ba nd tha t should be

attribute d to B ra dle y unde r the Guide l ine s. Unite d State s v . Garc ia-Sanc he

z , 189 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th C ir. 1999). B a se d on the “ tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s a nd the c ourse of de a lings ove r a

bout a y e ar or so be twe e n the pa rtie s,” inc luding the

“ ove rwhe lm ingly suspic ious” m a ilings, the c ourt found tha

t the qua ntity of re le va nt drugs re c ove re d from

the sta sh housewa s both in furtheranc e of, a nd re a s ona bly fore se e a ble in c onne c tion with, the c rim ina l a c t ivity jointly

unde rtake n by B ra dle y . U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3 c m t. n.2. Thedistric t c ourt did not hold B ra d le y 2a c c ounta

ble for se ve ra l othe r qua

ntitie s of c ontra

ba nd tha t we re pa rt of the c onspira c y , or a

fire arm tha t wa s found a

t his c oc o nspira

tors’ re side n c e . Ta

ke n a s a whole , the se findings a

re not c le arly e rrone ous. AFFIRM E D .

3