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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 1 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. C AR L OS U. L OB O, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50011 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 04 12 7-W Q H -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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia W i l l i a m Q . H a y e s , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry8, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , W A R D L A W , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C ar l os U . L ob o (“ L ob o”) app ea l s hi s j ury c on vi ct i on and 7 0-m on th sent ence f o rr e e n te r in g th e U n ite dS ta te s w ith o u t au th o r iz a tio n a f te rh a v in g b e e n r e m o v e din v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 . W e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED APR05 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A . L ob o’ s S ec on d M ot i on t o S ub st i tut e C ou rt -A pp oi nt ed C ou nsel T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng L obo’ s s e c ond m ot i on for s ub st i tut i on of appo i nt ed coun se l . W e c on si der the three fa ct ors s t at ed in U n ite dS ta te s v . M e n d e z - S a n c h e z , 5 6 3 F .3 d9 3 5 , 9 4 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . L o b o s u b m itte dh is s e c o n dm o tio n to s u b s titu te c o u n s e l o n th e e v e o f tr ia l.

“ I ti s w i thi n the tr i a l j udge ’ s di s c r e t i on t o de nyam ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e m a de dur i ng or on the eve of tri ali f the subst i tut i on w ou l d requi re a c on t i nu ance . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. M c C l e ndon, 782 F . 2d 785, 789 ( 9th C i r . 1986) . G i ve n tha tgr a nt i ng L ob o’ s r equestl i kel y w ou l d h ave r equi re d a subst ant i alcont i nu ance , i tw as no tan ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n f

o rth e c o u rt to d e n yth e m o tio n . M o r e o v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s in q u iryin to L o b o ’s c o m p la in t w a s a d e q u a te . T hi s w a s L obo’ s s e c ond m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e appoi nt e d c ouns e l , m a de s ubs t a nt i ve l yf

orthe s a m e r e a s on he r e que s t e d tha thi s f i r s tappoi nt e d de f

e nde rbe re m ov ed. T he di stri ctcourti nq ui re d i nt o the crux of the di sa gree m entbetw ee n L o b o an dh is co u n se l, as k in g sp ec ific an dtarg eted q u es ti o n s ab o u t L o b o ’s di s s a t i s f a c t i on w i th hi s c ouns e l ’ s pe r f orm a nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A de l z oG onz a l e z , 268 F . 3d 772, 777- 78 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . L obo’ s de s c r i pt i on of the p ro b lem s h e h ad w ith h is ap p o in tedco u n se l, alo n g w ith th e d istrict co u rt’s qu es t i on s and ob se rvat i on s, gave the court“ a s uffi ci entbasi s f or re ac hi ng an3

i nform ed deci si on . ” M cC l endo n, 78 2 F . 2d at78 9. A l tho ug h L ob o sug gest s that the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o i nq ui re i nt o L ob o’ s c ho i ce t o p roce ed t o tri alra ther than p le a dg u ilty , th is d idn o t r e n d e rth e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s in q u iryin a d e q u a te . L o b o c o u ld ha ve pl e d gui l tya ta nyt i m e , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i nqui rye s t abl i s he d tha tthe s o u r c e o f L o b o ’s c o n f

lic t w ith h is a tto rn e yw a s h is in s is te n c e o n c o lla te r a lly a tt a c ki ng hi s s t a t e c onvi c t i on i n the f e de r a l pr oc e e di ng. F i na l l y , the a tt orne y - c l i e ntr e l a t i ons hip w a s nots o i rr e c onc i l abl e a s t o de ny L obo e f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l , nordi d i tr e s ul ti n L obo’ s i nabi l i tyt o pr e s e nt an adequat e def

ense . W hi l e the re l at i on shi p b etw ee n L ob o and hi s app oi nt ed c o u n s e l w a s s tr a in e d , L o b o ’s c a s e is m is s in g th e “s tr ik in g s ig n s o f s e r io u s c o n f

lic t” tha ti ndi c a t e as i gni f

i c a ntbr e a kdow n i n c om m uni c a t i on. A de l z o- G onz a l e z , 268 F .3 da t 7 7 4 - 7 5 , 7 7 8 - 7 9 . M o r e o v e r , th e r e is n o in d ic a tio n th a t th e b r e a k d o w n in com m un i ca t i on betw ee n L ob o and hi s c ou nselprevent ed L ob o’ s app oi nt ed coun se l f r o m p r e s e n tin g a n a d e q u a te d e f e n s e o n th e § 1 3 2 6 c h a r g e o f ille g a l r e e n try . In stea d , th e c o n flict b etw ee n L o b o an db o th o f h is atto rn ey s a ro se o u t o f L o b o ’s

“ ge ne r a l unr e a s onabl e ne s s , ” a nd “ [ i ] ti s unc l e a rw ha tc oul d ha ve be e n done di f f e r e nt l y . ” M e nde z - S a nc he z , 563 F . 3d a t944. G i ve n tha tL obo’ s f rus tr a t i on a r o s e f r o m th e in ab ilityto c o lla te r a llya tta c kh is p r io rs ta te c o n v ic tio n , it is unl i ke l ytha tgr a nt i ng hi s m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e c ouns e l w oul d ha ve pr e c l ude d a4

si m i l arcom pl ai ntabou tany new l y s ub st i tut ed coun se l . T hu s, the di stri ctcourt pr ope r l ye xe r c i s e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tr e j e c t e d L obo’ s s e c ond m ot i on f or s u b s titu tio n o f

c o u n s e l. B . T he R ea sonabl enes s of L ob o’ s S ent ence

“ [ A ] ppe l l a t e r e vi e w of

s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i ons i s l i m i t e d t o de t e rm i ni ng w hether they are ‘ re as on abl e. ’ ” G al l v. U ni t ed S t at es , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 46 (200 7); se e al so U ni t ed S t at es v. C antre l l , 43 3 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 80 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). A n “ abuse- ofdi s c r e t i on s t a nda r d of

r e vi e w now appl i e s t o appe l l a t e r e vi e w of s e nt e nc i ng d e c is io n s .” G a ll, 5 5 2 U .S . a t 4 6 . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s e nt e nc e c orr e c t l yc a l c ul a t e d L obo’ s S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes r ange as 63 t o 7 8 m on ths and con si dere d al l of the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i n i t s det erm i nat i on . T he di stri ctcourtre du ce d L ob o’ s t ot aloffe nse l evel by tw o p oi nt s bas ed on ac ce pt ance of re spon sibi l i ty and consi dere d m any f ac t ors w e ig h in g in L o b o ’s f

a v o r . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o g a v e s u f f ic ie n t c o n s id e r a tio n to L obo’ s r e a s ons f

orr e turni ng t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s w i thoutauthor i z a t i on, i nc l udi ng hi s des i re t o reuni t e w i th h i s f am i l y, and t oo k as true L ob o’ s c l ai m thathe w as u n d erdu re ss to leav e H o n du ra s. H o w ev er , th e d istrict co u rt fo u n dth at L o b o ’s hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs w er e part i cul ar l y a gg ravat ed by hi s pri or cr i m i nal re cord a nd m e r i t e d as e nt e nc e s uf f i c i e ntt o pr ot e c tthe publ i c a nd t o de t e rL obo f r om5

c om m i tt i ng f

urthe rc r i m i na l a c t i vi ty . T hus , L obo’ s 70- m onth s e nt e nc e f or v io la tin g 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 w a s n o t u n r e a s o n ab le . C. Lo b o ’ s Re ma i n i n g Cl a i ms W e have previ ou sl y hel d thata w arrantof depo rt at i on i s non -t es t i m on i al because i ti s notm ade i n ant i cipat i on of l i t i gat i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. O rozc o-A cost a, 607 F . 3d 1156, 1163 ( 9th C i r . 2010) . T hus , the a dm i s s i on of L obo’ s w a rr a ntof de port a t i on i nt o e vi de nc e w a s notavi ol a t i on of L obo’ s S i xth A m e ndm e nt C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e r ig h ts . I d . W e have al so previ ou sl y r ej ec t ed ar gu m ent s thatU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 23 1 (20 05 ), abrogat ed the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s hol di ng i n A l m endarez T orre s v. U ni t ed S t at es , 52 3 U . S . 22 4, 22 6-27 (199 8), thata di stri ctcourtcan e n h a n c e ad e f

e n d a n t’s b a s e o f

f e n s e le v e l u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s a n din c r e a s e h is c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e gorye ve n i f aj urydi d notm a ke a nyf i ndi ngs aboutthe de f e nda nt ’ s pr i orr e c or d. S e e , e . g. , U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a - C a r de na s , 555 F . 3d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 3 0 S . C t. 3 1 5 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . AF F I RME D.