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. FER NANDO ESPAR

ZA, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50439

D.C . No. 5:05-c r-00056-VAP-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 V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d August 3, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, R

AW LINSON, a

nd C A LLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Fe rnando Espa rz a a ppe a ls his se nte nc e for distributing child pornogra phy in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 2252A(a)(2)(A). The fa c ts of this c a se are known to the

pa rtie s, a n d we do not repe at the m

he re . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 

# FIL ED AUG 25 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.I

Espa rz a argue s the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing a five -le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(6)(D). Thedistric t c ourt a pplie d suc h e nha

nc e m e nt
a fte r de te rm ining tha

t Espa rz a ’ s posse ssion of roughly 1,150 im a ge s of c hild pornogra phy wa s “ pa rt of the sa

m e c ourse of c onduc t or c om m on sc h e m e or pla

n”
a s his distribution offe

n se . Se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3(a )(2). W e are satisfie d tha t the
e nha nc e m e nt wa s supporte d by the re c ord. For c onduc t to be “ pa

rt of the sa

m e c ourse of c onduc t or c o m m on sc he m e or pla n ” within the

m e aning of Guide line s § 1B 1 .3(a )(2), “ [t] h e re m ust be ‘ suffic ie n t sim ila rity and te m pora l proxim ity

to re a sona

bly sugge st tha

t re pe ate d insta

nc e s of
c rim ina l be havior c onstitute a patte rn of c rim i na l c onduc t.’ ” Unite d State s v . Hahn , 960 F.2d 903, 910 (9th C ir. 1992) (quoting Unite d State s v . Santiago , 906 F.2d 867, 872 (2d C ir. 1990)). The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly re a sone d tha t distribution a

nd posse ssion of c hild pornogra phy are “ tightly

c onne c te d,” sinc e “ y ou c a nnot distribute

im a g e s unle ss, of c ourse , y ou posse ss the m .” C irc um sta nc e s spe c ific to Espa

rz a furthe r indic ate that his posse ssion a

nd distribution we

re pa rt of the sa

m e c ourse of c rim ina l
c onduc t. Espa

rz a ’ s posse ssion of the1,150 im a ge s oc c urre d c onte m pora ne ously with his distribution, a

nd the im a ge s we re c o -m ingle d am ong thosehe distribute d

2on the floppy disks in his hom

e –fa c ts sugge s ting tha

t Espa rz a ’ s posse ssion a

nd distribution ove

rla ppe d in tim e a s we l l a s purpose .

II Espa rz a ne xt a rgue s tha t the c ourt’ s im

pose d se nte nc e viola

t e d both thela

w of the c a se and the rule of m andate doc trine s. W e disa gre e . Whe n c onside ring the fa c tors de line ate d in 18 U.S.C
. § 3553, thedistric t
c ourt sta t e d in pa ssing tha

t Espa rz a “ distribute d pornogra

phy to y oung girls”and that he e nga ge d in c hats “ w ith y oung girls.”Espa rz a argue s tha

t the s e re fe re nc e s viola te d the la w of the c a s e and rule of m andate doc trine s sinc e we ha d a lre a dy he ld tha t the a pplic ation of a

se ve n-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt wa s inva lid be c a use the
re c o rd c onta ine d no ve rific a tion tha t a ny of Espa rz a ’ s c onve rsation pa

rtne rs “ wa s an a c tua l m inor.” Unite d State s v . Esparza , 310 F. App’ x 80, 82 (9th C ir. 2009). B ut the distric t c ourt did not se e k to im pose a se v e n-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt in de fianc e of our pre vious ruling. R a the r, it a c c e pte d tha

t ruling a n d sim ply m a d e a de te rm i nation in re sponse to our la te r instruc tions tha

t it c onside r whe the r § 1B 1.3(a )(2) a

pplie d. Se e Unite d State

s v . Esparza , 489 F. App’ x 204 (9th C ir. 2012). III

3Espa

rz a ne xt a rgue s tha t a c ondition of his supe

rvise d re le a se
— C o ndition 11— ra ise s First Am e n dm e nt c onc e rns tha t re quire re m and. Aga in, we disa gre e . This C ourt ha s e xam ine d a sim ila r c ondition a

nd c o n c lude d tha

t a lthough the
c ondition’ s la

ngua ge ra ise d First Am e ndm e nt c onc e rns, re m and wa s not ne c e ssa ry be c a use the c o ndition c ould be c onstrue d to a void theproble m . Se e Unite d State s v . Gnirk e , 775 F.3d 1155, 1166 (9th C ir. 2015). Although the distric t c ourt did not
e xplic itly sta te tha t C o ndition 11 wa s lim i te d to a dult pornogra phy , re a ding the
c ondition a s so limite d m ake s se nse , in pa rt be c a use the c ourt im

pose d a n a dditiona l c ondition—C o ndition 12— a s re stric ting a c c e ss to c hild pornogra phy
. Thus, we c onstrue C o ndition 11 a s only a pply ing to “ any

m ate ria ls with de

pic tions of ‘ se xua l e xplic it c onduc t’ involving adults, de fine d a s e xplic it se xua lly stim ulat ing de p i c tions of a dult se xua l c onduc t tha t a re de e m e d ina

ppropria te by [Espa rz a ’ s] probat ion offic e r.” Gnirk e , 775 F.3d a

t 1166. IV The distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd se n te nc e is AFFIRM E D

4