N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JASON WASHINGTON, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-30143 D.C . No. 9:11-c r-00061-DLC -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 3, 2014 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GOODW IN, M c KEOW N, a nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s. 1. The distric t c ourt found tha t Ja son W a shington did not posse ss a fire arm

“ in c onne c t ion with the

offe nse ” unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(2). The c o urt did not c le arly e rr in so finding. Se e Unite d State s v . Fe r ry man , 444 F.3d 1183, 1185 (9th C ir. 2006). The c ourt c are fully c onside re d the c irc um sta n c e s surrounding those 

# FIL ED JUN 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Pa ge 2 of 4

insta nc e s in whic h W a shington posse sse d a fire arm and c onc lude d tha

t W a shington had prove d by a pre ponde ran c e of the e v ide nc e tha t he la w fully posse s se d the fire arm s for purpose s unc onne c te d to the drug offe n se s at issue . W e c annot sa y that the c ourt’ s finding le ave s us “ with a de finite an d firm

c onvic tion that a m ista ke h a s be e n m a de .” Id. at 1186. 2. The distric t c ourt a lso found tha t W a shington wa s not “ an orga niz e r, le a de r, m ana ge r, or supe rvisor of othe rs in the offe nse , a s de te rm ine d unde r the se nte nc ing guide line s.” 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(4). The e nha nc e m e nt for role in the offe nse a pplie s unde r U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 whe n “ the de fe nda nt e xe rc ise d som e c ontrol ove r othe rs involve d in the c om m i ssion of the offe nse or wa s re sponsible for orga niz ing othe rs for the purpose of c arry ing out the c rim e .” Unite d State

s v . Yi , 704 F.3d 800, 807 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). W e c onc lude tha t the distric t c ourt c o m

m itte d two le ga l e rrors in c onduc ting this a

n a ly sis. First, the c ourt did not addre ss W a shington’ s c ontrol ove r othe rs or his orga niz ationa l role at a ll. Inste a d, it c onc lude d tha t the e nha nc e m e nt should not a pply be c a u se W a shington did not pre se nt a re c i divism

risk or da

nge r to the public , two of the fa c t ors the Se nte nc ing C om m ission ha s indic ate d

unde rlie the role e nha nc e m e nt. Se e § 3B 1.1 c m t. ba c kground. Although se nte nc ing c ourts m ayPa ge 3 of 4

drawupon ba c kground c om m e nta ry to inform the ir a na l y s is, the y

m ust be gin with the p la in la

ngua ge of the guide line s. Se eUnite d State s v . C ruz-Gramajo , 570 F.3d 1162, 1167, 1168 n.4 (9th C ir. 2009). As with thee nha nc e m e nt for obstruc tion of justic e , if the c ourt de te rm ine s tha t the fa c tua l pre dic ate for the e nha nc e m e nt unde r § 3B 1 .1 ha s be e n

e s ta blishe d, a pplic at ion of the e nha

n c e m e n t is m a

n datory . Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Anc he ta , 38 F.3d 1114, 1118 (9th C ir. 1994) (holding tha t onc e a guide l ine provision’ s c rite ria have be e n m e t, the e nha

n c e m e n t is

“ m andatory , not disc re tiona ry ” ). Wh e n im

posing a se nte nc e , the c ourt m ay , of c ourse , c onside r de pa

rting from

the a pplic a ble guide line s ra

nge if it be lie v e s the e nha nc e m e nt ove rstat e s the de fe nda nt’ s c ulpa b ility . Se eK

oon v . Unite d State

s , 518 U.S. 81, 92 (1996). B ut whe n de te rm ining e ligibility for the sa fe ty va lve , the c ourt m ust a p ply the e nha nc e m e nt a c c ording to its pla in te rm s, without re ga

rd to de pa rture s. Se eUnite d

State s v . Vale nc ia-Andrade , 72 F.3d 770, 773–74 (9th C i r. 1995) (holding tha

t a c ourt c a lc ulating de fe nda nt’ s c rim ina l history

points for purpose s of sa fe t

y va lve e l igibility

m ust do so without c onside ring depa rture s). Se c ond, the c ourt e rre d by im porting the“ h e artla

n d” ana ly sis of K

oon into the s a fe ty va lve c onte xt. Tha

t a na ly sis is a

ppropria te only whe n, a fte r c orre c tly c a lc ulat ing the a

pplic a ble guide line s ra

n ge , a c ourt is c onside ring whe the r to gra nt a va ria nc e or de pa

rture from

tha t ra nge . It ha s no re le va

nc e whe n a

c ourt isPa ge 4 of 4

de te rm i ning whe the r a

pa rtic u l ar guide line e nha

n c e m e n t a

p plie s in the first pla c e . The guide line s m a

ke this c le ar by

sta ting tha t a c ourt m ust a pply the e nha nc e m e nt for role in the offe nse be fore c o nside ring a ny de pa rture s or va

rianc e s. Se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1. 3. In light of the

a bove , we re ve rse and re m and with re spe c t to the role e nha nc e m e nt unde r § 3B 1.1 so tha t the distric t c ourt m ay

re c o nside r its a

na ly sis, taking into a c c ount W a shington’ s “ c ontrol ove r othe rs involve d in the c om m ission of the offe nse ” and his re sponsibility “ for orga niz ing othe rs for the purpose of c arry ing out the c rim e .” Yi , 704 F.3d a t 807. If thec ourt de te rm ine s tha t the fa c t ua l pre dic at e for the role e nha nc e m e nt ha s be e n e sta

blishe d in light of the e vide nc e in the re c ord, tha t finding would pre c lude sa fe t y va lve re l ie f. 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f)(4); U.S.S.G. § 5C 1.2 c m t. n.5. On the

othe r hand, if the re c ord doe s not support a pplic ation of thee nha

n c e m e nt a fte r the c ourt a

na ly z e s it within the fra m e work la id out a

bove , sa fe ty

va lve re lie f would be ava ila b le . V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.Unite d

State s v . W ashington , No. 13-30143 W ATFORD , C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: Whe the r a ll c om

pone nts of thesa fe ty

va l ve sta tute re m a in c o nstitutiona

l a fte r Alle y nev . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t . 2151 (2013), is a n ope n que stion. W

hile at le a st one c irc uit ha s c onc lude d post- Alle y ne that the sta

tute doe sn’ t offe nd the Sixth Am e ndm e nt, se e Unite d State s v . Harak

aly , 734 F.3d 88, 97–99 (1st C ir. 2013), our c irc uit ha s y e t

to de c ide the issue . Se e Unite d State s v . Te q uida-Esque r , No. 13-10514 (9th C ir. a

ppe a l doc ke te d Oc t. 7, 2013). Ha v ing pre va ile d be low on the i ssue of sa fe ty

va l ve e ligibility , W a s hington ha d no oc c a sion to brie f the issue in this a p pe a l , a nd we the re fore do not a ddre ss it. 

# FIL ED JUN 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS