T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. A M BRO SI O SA N TO S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10367 D . C . N o. 1: 11 -c r- 00 12 8-H G -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f o rth e D is tr ic t o f

H a w a ii H e l e n W . G i l l m or , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 11, 2013 ** H o n o lu lu , H a w a ii B efo re: G R A B E R , B Y B E E , an d C H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A m br os i o S a nt os appe a l s f r om the 120- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d f ol l ow i ng h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c y to d is tr ib u te a n d to p o s s e s s w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e i n e xc e s s of

50 gr a m s of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 

# FI LED FEB 15 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

21 U . S . C . §§ 84 6, 84 1(a) (1) a nd (b)( 1)(A ). W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. W e r ej ec tS ant os’ s argum entthathe fa i l ed t o rec ei ve a f ai r e vi dent i ary hear i ng i n v i ol at i on of hi s due proces s r i gh t s. T he re cord show s the di stri ctcourt d id n o t r e ly o n u n r e liab le h e a r s a y to f in d S an to s in e lig ib le f

o rs a f e ty v a lv e r e lie f

. A nd c ontr a ry t o S a nt os ’ s a l l e ga t i on, the r e w a s no i m pr ope rpr os e c ut or i a l vouc hi ng i n thi s c as e, w here the al l eged i nst ance s occ urre d b ef ore ase nt enci ng j ud ge ra ther th a n aju ry . Se e E . E . O . C . v . Farm e rB r os . C o. , 31 F . 3d 891, 898 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ( “[ I ]n ab e n c h tr ia l, th e r is kth a t av e r d ic t w ill b e a f f e c te d u n f a ir ly a n d s u b s ta n tia lly b y th e a d m is s io n o f

irr e le v a n t e v id e n c e is f arle s s th a n in aju ry tr ia l.” ) . F i n al l y, the r e c or d doe s notpr ovi de s uppor tf orS a nt os ’ s a l l e ga t i on tha tthe pr os e c ut i on k n o w in g ly u s e d p e r

ju r e d te s tim o n y a t th e e v id e n tia ry h e a r in g . S a nt os a l s o c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n i t s appl i c a t i on of the S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e r a n g e b y a ttr ib u tin g to h im th e d ru g s f o u n d in h is c o - d e f e n d a n t’s s u itc a s e . C ontr a ry t o S a nt os ’ s a r gum e nt , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d not appl y the i nc orr e c ts t a nda r d of pr oof , nordi d the c our tappl y a n “ a s s um pt i on of r is k ” a n a ly s is in d e te rm in in g d ru g q u a n tity . U ni ted Stat es v. G on zalez , 528 F . 3d 1207, 1214 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( “ T he di s tr i c tc our ta ts e nt e nc i ng m us tf i nd drug q u a n titie s b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th r o u g h s u f f ic ie n tly r e liab le3

i n fo rm at i o n . ”). B ecau se th e q u an t i ty o f d ru g s i n S an t o s’ s co -d efen d an t ’ s su i t case w a s r e a s onabl yf

or e s e e abl e a nd “ w i thi n the s c ope of the c r i m i na l a c t i vi ty tha the jo in tly u n d e r to o k ,” th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin h o ld in g h im a c c o u n tab le f o rit. U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3( a ) ( 1) ( B ) c m t . n. 2. I tw a s notne c e s s a ry t o e s t abl i s h the f or e s e e abi l i ty of

the qua nt i ty of

drugs be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubtbe c aus e the qua nt i ty i s notaf

a c t“ ne c e s s a ry t o s uppor tas e nt e nc e e xc e e di ng the m a xi m um au th o r iz e d b y th e f

a c ts e s tab lis h e d b y [ S a n to s ’s ] p le a .” U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 24 4 (20 05 ). B a s e d o n th e f

o r e g o in g , S a n to s ’s c la im o f c u m u la tiv e e rr o ra ls o f a ils . See U ni ted Stat es v. G ut i errez , 995 F . 2d 169, 173 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( no c um ul a t i ve e rr or w h e r e d e f

e n d a n t f a ile d to id e n tif

y s in g le e rr o r ) . AF F I RME D.