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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. M IC HAEL JAM ES PAUC KER T,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-30320

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-00138-TOR -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Thom a s O. R ic e , C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c K EOW

N, TALLM AN, a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. M ic ha e l Pa

uc ke rt a ppe a ls his 144-month se n te nc e for unla wfully posse ssing a fire arm , an e xplosivede vic e , a nd m ate ria ls for c re ating fra udule nt ide n tific ation doc um e nts. This is his se c ond a ppe a l. As in his first a

p pe a l, Pa uc ke rt a rgue s tha t 

# FIL ED D EC 13 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.the d istric t c o urt c om m itte d proc e dura l a

nd substa n tive e rrors. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 1. Pa uc ke rt a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt c o m

m i tte d signific ant proc e d ura l e rror by m isc a lc ulating thea pplic a ble Guide l ine s ran ge . Pa

uc ke rt did not obje c t to theGuide line s c a l c ulation a t his original se n te nc ing or a t re se nte nc ing, a

nd the pa rtie s stipula

te d to his ba se offe nse le ve l. W e the re fore re vie w Pa uc ke rt’ s se n t e nc e for pla in e rror. Se e M olina-Martine

z v . Unite d State

s , 136 S. C t. 1338, 1343 (2016); Unite d State s v . Guzman-Mata , 579 F.3d 1065, 1068 (9th C ir. 2009). In this a ppe a l, the pa

rtie s disputewhe the r the distric t c ourt c o rre c t ly c a lc ulat e d Pa

uc ke rt’ s ba se offe nse le ve l. A distric t c ourt m ust c orre c tly

c a l c ulate the G uide line s ra

n ge and use the re c om

m e ndat ion a s “ t

he sta rting point a

nd the initia l be n c hm ark.” Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). Pa uc ke rt, howe v e r, c ite s no a

uthority re quiring a distric t c ourt indepe nde ntly to re c a lc ulate a de fe nda n t’ s ba se offe nse le ve l whe re the pa rtie s ha ve stipula te d to it. The distric t c ourt a l so sta te d tha t it would im

pose an ide ntic a l se nte nc e in the e ve nt tha t it inc o rre c tly

c a lc ulate d the Guide line s ra nge . “ A distric t c ourt’ s m e re sta te m e nt tha

t it would im

pose the sa

m e a bove -Guide line s se nte nc e no m atte r what the c orre c t c a lc ulation c annot, without m ore , insula

te the se n te nc e from 2re m and . . . .” Unite d State s v . Munoz-C

a mare na , 631 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th C ir. 2011) (pe r c uriam ). “ [A] one -siz e -fits-a ll e xpla nation ordina

rily doe s not suffic e [,] ” id ., but “ [t] he re m ay be insta nc e s whe n, de spite a

pplic ation of a

n e rrone ous Guide line s ra

nge , a re a sona ble proba bility of pre judic e doe s not e xist” unde r pla in e rror re vie w , Molina-Martine z , 136 S. C t . at 1346. He re , the distric t c ourt did m uc h m ore tha

n give “ a one -siz e -fits-a ll e xpla nation” tha

t it would im

pose the sa

m e se nte nc e e ve n if the guide l ine s ra nge we re lowe r. The distric t c o urt thoroughly artic ulate d why

the unique c irc um s ta nc e s of this c a se justifie d a 144-m onth se nte nc e ba s e d on 18 U.S.C . § 3553 fa c tors. The se unique c irc um sta nc e s inc lude d the nature of the offe n se s, Pa uc ke rt’ s c rim ina l history , a nd the thre at to thepublic . In light of the pa rtie s’ stipula tion a nd the distric t c ourt’ s e xpla nat ion of the se nte nc e , Pa uc ke rt ha s fa ile d to de m onstra

te pla in e rror— i.e . tha

t the re is a

“ re a sona ble proba bility tha t but for the e rror [Pauc ke rt] would ha ve re c e ive d a

diffe re nt se nte nc e .” Id. at 1341. 2. Pa uc ke rt a rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt viola

te d this c o urt’ s m andate by c onside ring im

p rope r fa c tors, suc h a s Pa u c ke rt’ s inte ntions, in its § 3553 a na ly sis. Pa uc ke rt m isre a ds the prior disposition. The sta te m e n ts in them andat e upon whic h Pa uc ke rt re lie s re late to the distric t c ourt’ s pre vious useof the hy pothe tic a l c rim e of atte m

pte d m urde r to c a lc ulate the Guide line s ra nge , not wha

t the distric t 3c ourt c ould c onside r in its § 3553 a na ly sis. The distric t c ourt did not viola te our m andate . 3. Pa uc ke rt a rgue s tha t his se nte nc e is substa

n tive ly unre a sona

ble . W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion. Gall , 552 U.S. a t 51. He re , the e v ide nc e a dduc e d at the se nte nc ing he aring supports the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusion tha t Pa uc ke rt c om m itte d se rious offe n se s. The gove rnm e nt pre s e nte d e v ide nc e tha t Pa uc k e rt m ay have pre pa

re d to c om

m it e ve n m o re se rious offe n se s — suc h a s ta rge ting a pa role offic e r and ra

pe . The e vide nc e showe d tha t at the tim e of his a

rre st, Pa uc ke rt posse sse d a

pipe bom b tha t ha d be e n sha ve d down on oneside to we ake n it, m aking it more like ly

to e xplode in the dire c t ion of the we ake ne d side . Shra pne l wa s atta c he d to the bom

b on the we ake ne d side , sugge sting tha t som e one ha d de signe d the bom

b to ta rge t and kill a n individual pe rson. Fore nsic an a ly sis of c om pute rs re porte d to be long to Pa uc ke rt re v e a l e d tha

t som e one ha d se arc he d the hom e a ddre ss of Pa

u c ke rt’ s pa

role offic e r. Pa

uc ke rt a lso posse sse d “ ra

p e kits” or

“ Go B a gs” c onta ining, a

m ong othe r things, c ondom s, a bla c k ski m a sk, a nd two pa irs of fle xtie s c om

b i ne d to m ake ha

n dc uffs. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onc luding tha

t the 144-m onth se n te nc e wa s “ suffic i e nt, but not gre ate r tha

n ne c e ssa ry , to c om

ply with thepurpose s se t forth in” § 3553(a ). Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ). 44. Pa uc ke rt’ s re que st to re a ssign thec a s e to a nothe r distric t judge is de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

5