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 lle e , v. VIC TOR M AR IN VIC T OR IO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-50132

D.C . No. 8:11-c r-00012-DOC -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

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 Dav id O. C arte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 21, 2015 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : IKUTA a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s , a nd SESSIONS, *** Distric t Judge
. Appe lla nt Vic t or Vic torio wa s c onvic te d of c onspira c y to distribute
m e tha m phe tam ine , in viola

tion of 21 U.S.C . § 846, following a jury tria l be fore the 

# FIL E D
OCT 23 2015 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. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble W illia m K. Se ssions III, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de signa tion.distric t c o urt. He a ppe a ls his se nte nc e of 292 m onths of inc arc e ra tion followe d by te n y e ars of supe rvise d re l e a se . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd
we a ffirm
. Vic torio’ s only

c la im is tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by re ly ing upon a stipula tion re ga rding drug qua

ntity and ty pe at se nte nc ing. Vic torio a c knowle dge s that his c ounse l a gre e d to thestipula tion, a nd tha t ne ithe r he nor his c ounse l obje c te d to thestipula

tion a t a ny point be fore the distric t c ourt. B ut he argue s tha t the d istric t c o urt should ha ve inquire d a s to whe the r he pe rsona l ly unde rstood a

nd
a sse nte d to thestipula

tion be c a use he did not sign it or othe rwise a ffirm ative ly de m onstra

te a sse nt. His a rgum e nt is fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . Fe rre boe uf

, 632 F.2d 832 (9th C ir. 1980). In Fe rre boe uf , this c ourt he ld tha

t “ whe n a stipula tion to a c ruc ia l fa c t is e nte re d into the re c ord in ope n c o urt in the pre se nc e of the de fe nda n t, a nd is
a gre e d to by de fe nda

nt’ s a c knowle dge d c ounse l, the tria l c ourt m ay re a sona bly
a ssum e that

the de fe nda

nt is a ware of the c onte nt of the stipula tion a nd a gre e s to it through his or her att orne y . Unle ss a c rim ina l de fe nda

nt indic ate s obje c tion a

t the tim e the stipula

tion is m a de , he or she is ordina rily bound by suc h

stipula tion.” Id.
at 836. In this c a se , Vic torio doe s not dispute tha t the stipula

tion wa s (1) e nte re d into there c ord in ope n

c o urt, (2) in his pre se nc e , a nd (3) a gre e d to by

his c ounse l. 2And he m ake s no c la i m t hat he obje c te d to the stipula tion a t a ny point be fore the distric t c o urt. Fe rre boe uf is thus dire c tly on point, a nd Vic torio’ s c la im

fa i ls. Vic torio’ s atte m

p ts to ge t a

round Fe r

re boe uf a re unpe rsua sive
. C ontra

ry to his sugge stion, Fe rre boe uf wa s not a brograte d by Appre n di v . N e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Se e Unite d State s v . He r nande z-He rnande

z , 431 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th C ir. 2005) (c iting F

e rre boe uf with a

pprova l post-

Appre ndi ). Appre n di broa de ne d the c l a ss of dispute d fa c ts tha t m ust be de c i de d by

a jury ; it doe s not
a pply whe n a de fe nda nt wa ive s the right to ha

ve a pa rtic ula r fa c t de te rm ine d

by the jury via stipula tion. Se e Unite d State

s v . Shimoda , 334 F.3d 846, 849-50 (9th C ir. 2003); s e e also United State s v . Silv a , 247 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th C i r. 2001). And Vic torio’ s fre que nt obje c tions be fore , during, a nd a fte r tria l do not distinguish the fa c t s of this c a s e from Fe rre boe uf . To the c ontra

ry , Vic torio’ s ge ne ra l disinc lina tion to a g re e with thegove rnm e nt m a de it a ll the m ore re a sona ble for the distric t c o urt to inte rpre t his silenc e a s a gre e m e nt with the c onte nts of thedrug stipula tion. Eve n a ssum ing Vic torio c ould distinguish Fe r re boe uf , he c annot show tha

t
any e rror in this c a se wa s “pla in.” Am o ng othe r things, a n e rror m ust be “ c l e ar or obvious”in orde r to be pla in. Unite d State s v . C astillo-Marin , 684 F.3d 914, 918 (9th C ir. 2012). Vic torio ha s not c i te d a single c a se , a

nd we have not found one , 3that

sta nds for the proposition tha t a stipula tion a s to a

c ruc ia l fa c t is inva lid if not pe rsona lly

signe d or a gre e d to by

a c rim ina l de fe nda

nt. The re fore , a

ny e rror in this
c a se wa s not pla in. AFFIRM E D.

4