NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A, ) No. 16-10407 ) Pla intiff-Appe lle e , ) D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00513-DGC -4 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) M IC HAEL HIGGINS, AKA ) M ic ha e l A. Higgins, AKA M i c ha e l ) Andre w Higgins, ) ) De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt. ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A, ) No. 16-10424 ) Pla intiff-Appe lle e , ) D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00480-GM S-2 ) v. ) ) M IC HAEL A. HIGGINS, AKA ) M ic ha e l Andre w Higgins, ) ) De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt. ) ) 

# FIL ED AUG 03 2017 M O LLYC. 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.Appe a l from the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 12, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, FER NANDEZ, a

n d WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l Higgins a

ppe a ls the de c isions of the distric t c o urt dism issing his
m otions for se nte nc e re duc tions in two se pa rate judgm e nts a ga inst him for posse s sion of m e t

ham phe tam ine with inte nt to distribute . Those judgm e nts we re for an offe n se c om

m itte d o n or a bout June8, 2010, whic h is the subje c t of Appe a l Num be r 16-10407, 1 and for a

n offe nse c om

m i tte d on or a

bout June 29, 2010, whic h is the subje c t of Appe a l Num be r 16-10424. 2 W e a ffirm a s to the form e r and
va c a te and re m and a s to the latte r. (1) Appe a l Num

be r 16-10407. Judge

C am p be l l de nie d a

re d u c tion of
se nte nc e be c a

use , a s he indic a te d, the drug qua ntity am e n dm e nt 3 to the Se n te nc ing

1 The se n te nc ing a

nd re d uc tion de c isions for this offe nse we re m a de by

Judge C am p be ll.
2 The se n te nc ing a

nd re d uc tion de c isions for this offe nse we re m a de by

Judge Snow. 3 Se e USSG Supp. App. C , am e nd. 782 (he re a fte r Am e ndm e nt 782). Tha t am e nde d the drug qua

ntity ta ble
. Se e USSG § 2D1.1(c ) (2014).

2Guide line s 4 m a de by the Unite d

State s Se nte nc ing C om

m ission, e ve n though
re troa c tive , 5 did not a ffe c t the a pplic a ble Guide line ran ge 6 an d, the re fore , no re duc t ion wa s ava ila

ble . W e a gre e . Whe n Higgins wa s se nte nc e d, the drug qua ntity ta b le pla c e d

his offe nse le ve l at 32, 7 but be c a use it wa s at tha

t le ve l a nd he
wa s e ntitle d to a

m itiga ting role a djustm e nt, 8 his ba se offe nse le ve l unde r the drug offe nse guide line wa s itse lf re duc e d by two le ve ls, 9 for a

re sult of 30. Under Am e ndm e nt 782, thedrug qua ntity ta ble pla c e d his offe nse le ve l at 30, 1 0 but be c a use it wa s at tha

t le ve l he wa s not e ligibleto ha ve his ba se offe nse le ve l unde r the d rug offe nse guide l ine re duc e d by two le ve ls, 1 1 so the re sult re m a ine d 30. Thus, theam e ndm e nt did “not ha ve the e ffe c t

of lowe ring the de fe nda

nt’ s

4 He re a fte r, a ll re fe re nc e s to the Se nte nc ing Guide l ine s a re to the Nove m

be r 1, 2015 ve rsion the re o f, unle s s othe rwise sta te d.
5 Se e USSG § 1B 1.10(a )(1), (d), p.s. 6 Id . at (a )(2)(B ).
7 USSG § 2D1.1(c )(4) (2011). 8 Id. § 3B 1.2(b) (2011). 9 Se e id . § 2D1.1(a )(5)(B )(i) (2011).
1 0 USSG § 2D1.1(c )(5).
1 1 Id. a t (a )(5). 3a

pplic a ble guide line range ,” 1 2 and a re duc tion wa s not a

va ila ble
. 1 3 Whe n a

p ply ing
an am e ndm e nt to the Guide l ine s, the c ourt m u st “ de te rm ine the am e nde d guide line
range that would ha

ve be e n a pplic a ble to the de fe nda

nt if the am e n dm e nt(s) . . . ha d be e n in e ffe c t at the tim e the de fe nda n t wa s se nte nc e d
. ” USSG § 1B 1 .10(b)(1); s e e also United State s v . W ate rs , 648 F.3d 1114, 1117–18 (9th C ir. 2011). (2) Appe a l Num

be r 16-10424. Judge

Snow de nie d a

re duc tion of se nte nc e , but did not indic a te his re a sons the re for. That le ft the pa rtie s a nd us to spe c ulate a s to the ba sis of his de c ision. W e de c line to do so be c a use a distric t c ourt m

u st give
som e suffic ie nt re a son for its de c ision be fore we c an re vie w it. Se e Unite d State s
v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992–93 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ); se e also Unite d

State s v . Emme tt , 749 F.3d 817, 820–21 (9th C i r. 2014); Unite d State s v . Trujillo , 713 F.3d 1003, 1008–09 (9th C ir. 2013). Thus, we va c ate and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. AFFIR M ED a s to Num

be r 16-10407; VAC ATED AND R EM ANDED a s to Num be r 16-10424.

1 2 Id . § 1B 1.10(a )(2)(B ), p.s.
1 3 Id . at (a )(2) (introduc tory c la use ). 4