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 a nd 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 H on orabl e C orm ac J. C arney, D i stri ctJudg e f or the U . S . D i stri ct ** C our tf orthe C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof C a l i f orni a , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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. RONA LD L B RE KK E, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 30221 D . C . N o. 2: 10 -c r- 00 32 8-JC C -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 orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on J ohn C . C oughe nour , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 4, 2013 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: M cK E O W N and IK U T A , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C A RN E Y , D i stri ctJudg e. ** D e f e nda ntR ona l d B r e kke appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e f orone c ount of c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tthe f tof publ i c m one y i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371, a nd th r e e c o u n ts o f

w ir e f r a u d in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 3 . W e a f f irm h is 

# FI LED JU N 11 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

c o n v ic tio n , b u t v a c a te th e c o n d itio n s o f s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e r e q u ir in g h im to ab s ta in fr om consum i ng al coho l and t o avo i d p l ac es w here control l ed subst ance s a re i l l e ga l l yus e d ors ol d. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n c onc l udi ng tha tB r e kke ha d not une qui voc a l l y w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o c ouns e l a nd i n de c l i ni ng t o hol d a s e c ond Fa r e tta he a r i ng. T hr oughoutthe pr e - tr i a l pr oc e e di ngs , B r e kke m a de r e pe a t e d, c ontr a di c t ory s t a t e m e nt s aboutw he the rhe w i s he d t o ha ve the a s s i s t a nc e of coun se l . T hese st at em ent s di d n otam ou ntt o an “ expl i ci tchoi ce betw ee n e xe r c i s i ng the r i ghtt o c ouns e l a nd the r i ghtt o s e l f - r e pr e s e nt a t i on” a nd w e r e not s uf f i c i e ntt o a l l ow a di s tr i c tc our tt o be “ r e a s onabl y c e r t a i n” tha tB r e kke a f f irm a tiv e ly w a iv e d h is r ig h t to c o u n s e l. U n ite d S ta te s v . A r lt , 41 F . 3d 516, 519 (9th C i r. 19 94 ). B ec ause B re kk e di d n otm ake a n “ un equi vo ca l re qu es tt o p roce ed pro se, ” he w as no tent i t l ed t o a Far e t ta h e a r in g . U ni te d State s v . Far i as , 618 F . 3d 1 0 4 9 , 1 0 5 1

– 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . N o rd id B r e k k e h a v e a r ig h t to h y b r id r e p r e s e n ta tio n . U

ni te d State s v . O lano , 6 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g B r e k k e ’s m o tio n to s ubs t i tut e c ouns e l . T he c our tc onduc t e d af ul l e x pa r t e he a r i ng i n S e pt e m be r2011 du ri ng w hi ch bo th p art i es ai re d thei r gri evances w i th o ne another. T hi s i nq ui ry

“ pr ovi de [ d] a s uf

f i c i e ntba s i s ” f

orthe c our tt o r e a c h a n “ i nf orm e d de c i s i on” about3

th e n atu re o f th e co n fl i ctb etw een th e p art i es, U ni ted Stat es v. A del

zo-G on zales , 26 8 F . 3d 77 2, 77 7 (9th C i r. 20 01 ), and t o con cl ud e thatthe re l at i on shi p w as w orkabl e. T he di stri ctcourtl i kew i se di d n oterr i n fai l i ng t o h ol d a se cond ex pa r t e he a r i ng i n F e brua ry 2011, be c a us e by the n i tha d a l e ngthy r e c or d of m ot i ons and h ea ri ng tra nscr i pt s on the i ss ue of B re kk e’ s r epre se nt at i on . A di stri ctcourt need no tcond ucta heari ng w here the re cord al re ady provi des the basi s f or an in f o rm e d ju d g m e n t. U

n ite d S ta te s v . Sm ith , 2 8 2 F .3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T he di stri ctcourtm ade are as on abl e a ss es sm entof the nature of the confl i ct betw ee n cl i entand cou nsel , and i t s det erm i nat i on thatthe re l at i on shi p rem ai ned w o rk ab le w a s n o t a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n , p a r tic u la r ly s in c e th e c o n f lic t w a s la r g e ly th e p r o d u c t o f

B r e k k e ’s o w n u n r e a s o n ab le n e s s a n d m a n u f a c tu r e d d is c o n te n t. See U ni ted Stat es v. Mendez- Sa nchez , 56 3 F . 3d 93 5, 94 4 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpl a i nl y e rri n a dm i tt i ng c e r t i f i e d c ont e m por a ne ous r e c o r d in g s o f

th e d a te a n d tim e B r e k k e c r o s s e d in to a n d o u t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s . T h ese certi fi ed b o rd er-cro ssi n g reco rd s, ar e “ rout i ne, obj ec t i ve ca t al og i ng of an un am bi gu ou s f

ac tual m att er , ” U

n i ted S ta tes v. B erry , 68 3 F . 3d 10 15 , 10 22 (9th C i r. 2012) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) , tha ta r e notc r e a t e d i n a nt i c i pa t i on of litig a tio n , a n d th e r e f

o r e d o n o t r a is e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C la u s e c o n c e rn s . U ni ted Stat es v . O r z o c o -A c o s ta , 6 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) .4

T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i ns truc t i ons t o the j ury dur i ng the f or f e i tur e pha s e of

the tr i a l di d notvi ol a t e B r e kke ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . T he c om m e nt s di d notdi s t or tor a d d to th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l, U n ite d S ta te s v . C o u tc h a v lis , 260 F . 3d 1149, 1156 ( 9th C i r . 2001) , nordi d the y c r e a t e a n appe a r a nc e of pa r t i a l i ty ora dvoc a c y on b e h a lf o f o n e o f th e p a r tie s . U

n ite d S ta te s v . Mo s te lla , 80 2 F . 2d 35 8, 36 1 (9th C i r. 1986) . E ve n i f

the di s tr i c tc our tha d e rr e d i n i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe f or f e i tur e he a r i ng w as “ stra i gh t forw ar d” and “ shou l dn ’ tt ake veryl on g, ” a ny error di d n otaf fe ct B r e kke ’ s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s i n l i ghtof the ove rw he l m i ng e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng the illic it s o u r c e o f

th e f u n d s in h is P a y P a l a c c o u n t. U ni te d State s v . A m e l i ne , 409 F . 3d 10 73 , 10 78 (9th C i r. 20 05 ) ( en banc). T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d pl a i nl y e rr , how e ve r , i n i m pos i ng c ondi t i ons of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e r e qui r i ng B r e kke t o abs t a i n f r om the c ons um pt i on of a l c ohol a nd r e qui r i ng hi m t o a voi d pl a c e s w he r e c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s a r e i l l e ga l l y us e d or so l d . N ei th er co n d i t i o n b ears a reaso n ab l e rel at i o n sh i p t o B rek k e’ s ch aract eri st i cs, the nature of hi s off

ense , or “ t o the ri sk that[B re kk e] w ou l d return t o h i s c ri m i nal b e h a v io r ,” U

ni te d State s v . N

apulou , 593 F . 3d 1041, 1045 ( 9th C i r . 2010) , a nd the r e c o r d d o e s n o t in d ic a te a n y “in d iv id u a liz e d c o n s id e r a tio n ” s u p p o r tin g th e ir im p o s itio n . U

n ite d S ta te s v . B e tts , 5 1 1 F .3 d 8 7 2 , 8 7 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). B re k k e’s f a i l ur e t o c oope r a t e w i th the pr oba t i on of f i c e , w i thoutm or e , doe s notm e e tthe5

g o v e rn m e n t’s b u r d e n o f p r o v in g b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t a p a r tic u la rc o n d itio n o f

s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e is n e c e s s a ry . I d. a t881 ( c i t i ng U

ni ted Stat es v. W

eber , 4 5 1 F .3 d 5 5 2 , 5 5 8

– 5 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e v a c a te th o s e c o n d itio n s . A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; VA C A TED I N PA R T.