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. 15-50463 ) Pla intiff-Appe lle e , ) D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00397-DM G -1 ) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) TONY B IDDLES, ) ) De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt. ) )

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 Dolly M
. Ge e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 13, 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. Tony B iddle s a ppe a ls his se nte nc e for viola ting his term s of supe rvise d
re le a se by c om m itting kidna

pping 1 and robbe ry 2 in the State of C a lifornia . W e
a ffirm in pa rt a nd va c at e and re m and in pa rt. 

# FIL ED SEP 07 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. 1 C a l. Pe n a l C ode § 207(a ).
2 Id. § 211 (he re a fte r § 211).(1) The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t B iddle s’ § 211 c onvic tion wa s a c rim e of viole nc e and wa s the re fore a Gra de A viola

tion unde r the Unite d State s Se nte n c i ng C om

m ission’ s polic y

sta te m e nt for supe rvise d

re l e a se viola

tions, 1 and the C om m e nta ry the re to. 2 W e a gre e . B iddle s first a sse rts tha

t § 211 is not a

c rim e of viole nc e be c a

u se a viola tion of tha t se c tion is not c ate goric a lly a c rim e of viole nc e a s de fine d in USSG §4B 1.2(a ) and its C om

m e n t ary . Howe ve r, we have a l re a dy spe c ific a lly

de te rm ine d that a viola tion of § 211 is c at e goric a l ly 3 a c rim e of viole n c e be c a

use any c onvic tion unde r that se c tion is e ithe r ge ne ric robbe ry or ge ne ric e xtortion. 4 B iddle s atte m

pts to a v oid the forc e of our e xisting c a se la w in a num

be r of
way s, none of whic h is pe rsua sive : (a ) he first sugge sts tha t we should now ignore

1 USSG §7B 1.1(a )(1)(A)(i), p.s. Unle ss othe rwise indic ate d , a ll re fe re nc e s are t o the Nove m

be r 1, 2014, ve rsion of theGuide l ine s . 2 Id. at c om

m e n t. (n.2). Tha

t a pplic ation notere fe rs to USSG §4B 1.2(a ) and the C om m e nta ry the re to. Id. 3 Se e Tay lor v . Unite d State s , 495 U.S. 575, 602, 110 S. Ct . 2143, 2160, 109 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1990); se e also D e s c amps v . Unite d State

s , __ U.S. __, __, 133 S. C t. 2276, 2283–85, 186 L. Ed. 2d 438 (2013).

4 Se e Unite d State

s v . Be c e rril-Lope

z , 541 F.3d 881, 890–93 (9th C ir. 2008); se e a lso Unite d State

s v . C hav e z-C ue v as , 862 F. 3d 729, 740 (9th C ir. 2017) ; Unite d State s v . Harris , 572 F.3d 1065, 1066 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). 2the C om

m e nta ry , 5 but the re is no inc o nsiste nc y be twe e n the C om m e nta ry and the Guide line itse lf; 6 (b) he the n a rgue s tha t § 211 is not c ate goric a lly a c rim e of robbe ry 7 or c at e goric a lly

a c rim e of e xtortion, 8 but tha t m atte rs not be c a

use it doe s not spe ak to the unde rly ing ba sis of our de c isions, whic h de c l are d tha t it wa s c ate goric a lly

one or the othe r; 9 (c ) he goe s on to a rgue tha t our c a se la

w m isa pplie d the m odifie d c ate goric a l te st a pproa c h, 1 0 but it did no suc h thing be c a

u se it a pplie d the c ate goric a l te st only ; 1 1 and (d) a s a fina l a rgum e nt he a sse rts tha

t a late r
am e ndm e nt to the Guide line , 1 2 whic h na rrowe d the de finition of e xtortion, should

5 USSG §4B 1.2, c o m

m e nt. (n.1). 6 Se e Stinson v . Unite d State s , 508 U.S. 36, 38, 45, 113 S. Ct. 1913, 1915, 1919, 123 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1993); Unite d State s v . Be rnardo , 818 F.3d 983, 985 (9th C ir. 2016). W e note a l so tha t the Guide line and its C om m e nta ry are not subje c t to va gue ne ss c ha l le nge s unde r the Due Proc e ss C la use . Se e B e c k

le s v . Unite d State

s , __ U.S. __, __, 137 S. C t. 886, 890, 197 L. Ed. 2d 145 (2017).

7 Se e Be c e rril-Lope

z , 541 F.3d a

t 891. 8 Se e Unite d State

s v . Dix on , 805 F.3d 1193, 1196–97 (9th C ir. 2015). 9 W e have de c ide d tha

t it ne c e ssa

rily wa s e i the r robbe ry or e xtortion, a nd Dix on , id. at 1196–97, doe s not spe ak to tha t point.
1 0 Se e De sc a mps , __ U.S. a

t __, 133 S. C t . at 2283–85. 1 1 Se e Be c e rril-Lope

z , 541 F.3d a

t 893 n.10. 1 2 Se e USSG Supp. App. C , am e nd. 798, a t 131 (Nov. 1, 2016); USSG §4B 1.2, c om

m e n t. (n.1) (2016). 3be a

p plie d re troa c t ive ly b e c a

use it wa s m e re ly

c l arify ing, 1 3 but the am e n dm e nt wa s substa ntive in c ha

ra c t e r. The Guide line C om m ission did not dub it re

troa c t ive , did not sa y it wa s a c la rific at ion, a

nd did not re solve a

c irc uit c onflic t, 1 4 but sim ply
c hose t o foc u s on a

subse t of e xtortione rs by na rrowing the long-sta

nding de finition of e xtortion 1 5 for Guide line purpose s . (2) B iddle s ne xt a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d 1 6 be c a use it did not suffic ie ntly

e xpla i n 1 7 its de c ision to de pa rt downwa

rd from the
se nte nc ing ra

nge for Gra de A le ve l viola tions— twe nty -four to thirty

m onths 1 8

—

to
a fifte e n-m onth se nte nc e . If his c rim e we re not a c rim e of viole nc e , he would ha ve be e n in the Gra de B c ate gory and his se nte nc ing ra nge would ha

ve be e n four to te n

1 3 Se e U nite d State

s v . J ohns , 5 F.3d 1267, 1269–70 (9th C ir. 1993).
1 4 Se e U nite d State

s v . Morgan , 376 F.3d 1002, 1010–11 (9th C ir. 2004).
1 5 Se e B e c e rril-Lope

z , 541 F.3d a

t 891–92; se e also Sc h e idle r v . N at’l Org. for W ome n, Inc
. , 537 U.S. 393, 409–10, 123 S. C t. 1057, 1068, 154 L. Ed. 2d 991 (2003); Unite d S

t ate s v . N arde llo , 393 U.S. 286, 295–96, 89 S. C t. 534, 539, 21 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1969).

1 6 Se e U nite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba nc ); se e a lso Unite d State

s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 & n.3 (9th C ir. 2010).
1 7 Se e C

arty , 520 F.3d a

t 993. 1 8 USSG §7B 1.4(a ), p.s. (Gra de A(2)). 4m onths. 1 9 De spite the fa c t tha t the distric t c ourt did va

ry downwa rd, B iddle s
a sse rts tha

t it should ha

ve e xpla ine d why

it did not va

ry still further downwa

rd, a kind of substa

ntive re a s ona

ble ne ss a rgum e nt. Se e Unite d State s v . Lloy d , 807 F.3d 1128, 1145–46 (9th C ir. 2015). W e disa g re e . The distric t c ourt c a re fully
e xpla ine d its re a son for the se nte nc e it im pose d. The distric t

c o urt’ s e xpla

n ation
wa s suffic ie nt “ to pe rm it m e an ingful a ppe lla te re vie w .” C

arty , 520 F.3d a

t 992. The c ourt sta

te d tha t B i ddle s’ c ha

ra c te ristic s, inc l uding his disre spe c t of the la w, his ina bility to a dhe re to the te rm s of his supe rvise d re le a se , the ne e d to de te r him from furthe r c rim ina l c onduc t , a nd the ne e d to prote c t the public from furthe r de pre d at ions we re the re a sons tha t the fifte e n-m onth se nte nc e wa s ne c e ssa ry . The distric t c o urt did not err. (3) B iddle s fina lly obje c ts to the drug te sting a nd tre atm e n t c onditions in the n e w supe rvise d re le a s e se nte nc e whic h is to follow his te rm of im prisonm e nt. B ut drug te sting is a

n e sse ntia lly

m andatory te rm

of supe rvise d re le a se . S

e e 18 U.S.C . § 3583(d); se e also Unite d State s v . C arte r , 159 F.3d 397, 399 (9th C ir. 1998). Of c ourse , the distric t c ourt ha d the disc re tion to suspe nd the c ondition, if it

1 9 Id. (Gra de B ). 5sa

w “ a low risk of futuresubsta

nc e a buse , ” 2 0 but give n B iddle s’ pa st history and his re lative ly

ra pid re la pse into c rim ina l a c tivity , we se e no e rror in the distric t
c ourt’ s de c lining to do so he re . Howe v e r, while the re is som e ba s is for orde ring B i ddle s’ pa rtic ipation in a drug tre atm e nt progra

m , 2 1 the re is no e vide nc e tha t he ha d a c t

ua l ly be e n using drugs during the

pa st se ve nte e n or e ighte e n y e ars, 2 2 and the gove rnm e nt ha s wa ive d tha

t issue by fa iling to a ddre ss it in its brie fing be fore us. 2 3 W e , the re fore , va c ate tha t c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a se an d re m an d with instruc tions tha t the
c ondition be

stric ke n from

the judgm e nt. AFFIR M ED in pa

rt, a nd VAC ATED a

n d RE M ANDED in pa

rt.

2 0 18 U.S.C . §§ 3563(a)(5), 3583(d); se e also Unite d State s v . J e re miah , 493 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th C ir. 2007).

2 1 C f. C arte r , 159 F.3d a

t 401. 2 2 C f. Unite d State

s v . T.M. , 330 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th C ir. 2003).
2 3 Se e U nite d State

s v . Dre y e r , 804 F.3d 1266, 1277 (9th C i r. 2015) (e n ba nc ). 6Unite d

State s v. B iddle s, No. 15-50463

R EINHAR

DT, C irc uit Judge , dubita nte in pa rt a nd c onc urring in pa

rt: I have se rious doubts a s to the va lidity of the C om

m ission’ s inc lusion of robbe ry in the de finition of c rim e of viole nc e by m e ans of the C om

m e nta ry whe n the o nly possibleba sis for its doing so a ppe ars to ha

ve be e n its re lia

n c e on a c la u se in the Guide line tha

t it itse lf ha s now re m ove d, a ppa re ntly be c a u s e it c annot prope rly se rve a s the ba sis for suc h an inte rpre t ation. This c a se a sks us to de c ide , for the first tim e , whe the r the inc lusion of robbe ry in the C om

m e nta ry is binding. 1 C o m

m e nta ry is binding only

if it inte rpre ts
or e xpla ins the te xt of the re le va nt Guide line
. Unite d State s v . Stinson , 508 U.S. 36 (1993). I be lie ve a

strong a rgum e n t c an be m a d e that unde r J ohnson v . Unite d State s , 135 S. C t. 2551 (2015), the C om m e nta ry c annot be tre ate d a s a

n inte rpre tation of there sidua l c la use in the Guide line , an

argum e nt tha

t doe s not de pe nd on theDue Proc e ss C la use and is the re fore una ffe c te d by Be c k le s v . Unite d State s , 137 S. C t. 886 (2017). Sinc e the re is no othe r la ngua ge in the te xt of the Guide line tha

t the C om m e nta ry c ould be inte rpre ting, this would m e an tha t C a l. 

# FIL ED SEP 07 2017 M O LLYC. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1 W e have pre viously

tre ate d it a s though it wa s binding, se e Unite d State s v . Harris , 572 F.3d 1065 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ), but the que stion ha s ne ve r a c tua lly be e n pre se n te d to us.Pe na l C ode § 211 is overbroa d a nd not a c rim e of viole n c e unde r the Guide line
. Ac c ordingly , while I c onc ur in a ll othe r re spe c ts in them e m oran dum disposition, I a

m in doubt a s to the c orre c t ne ss of Se c tion (1).

2