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 ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. GAB R IEL GONZALEZ-PER EZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30212

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00296-JLR -2
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington Jam e s L. R oba

rt, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d July 12, 2013 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : KLEINFELD, M
. SM ITH, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Ga brie l Gonz a le z -Pe re z a

ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd
se nte nc e for thre e c ounts re late d to his distribution of he roin. S e e 21 U.S.C . § 841. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam i lia r with thefa c t

ua l a nd proc e dura l history

of this c a se , 

# FIL ED
JUL 22 2013 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).we re pe at

only those fa c ts ne c e s sa

ry to re solve the issue s ra i se d on a ppe a l. W e
a ffirm
. Gonz a le z c onte n ds tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s ruling lim iting his que stioning of the g ove rnm e nt’ s c onfide ntia l inform a nt de nie d him “ a

m e aningful opportunity

to pre s e nt a c om

ple te d e fe nse .” Holme

s v . South C

arolina , 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006). This a rgum e nt fa i ls be c a

use the distric t c ourt’ s ruling did not “infring[e ] upon a we ighty i nte re s t of the a c c use d” and wa s not “ ‘ a rbitra ry ’ or ‘ disproportiona

te to the purpose s [it wa s] de signe d to se rve .’ ” Id. (c ita tions omitte d). Gonz a le z a lso c onte nds tha t he is e ntitle d to a

ne w tria l be c a

use the distric t
c ourt e rre d by

re fusing to c o m

pe l the gove rnm e nt to gra nt use im m unity to the inform ant. W e a

pply a two-prong te s t to de t e rm i ne whe the r due proc e ss re quire s that “ the distric t c ourt im

pe d e on the disc re tion of thee xe c utive branc h and c om pe l
use im m unity . . . .” Unite d State

s v . Straub , 538 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th C i r. 2008). Spe c ific a lly , the de fe n da

nt m u st show tha

t: (1) the de fe nse witne ss’ s te stim ony wa s re le v ant; a

nd (2) e ithe r (a ) the prose c ution intentiona lly c a use d the de fe nse witne ss to invoke

the Fifth Am e n dm e nt right aga inst se lfinc rim i nation with the

purpose of distorting the fa c tfinding proc e ss; or (b) theprose c ution gra nte d im m unity to a gove rnm e nt witne ss in orde r to obta i n tha t witne ss’ s te s tim ony , but de nie d im

m unity to a de fe nse witne ss whose te stim ony

would ha ve dire c t ly

c o ntra dic te d tha

t of the gove rnm e nt witne ss, with the e ffe c t of so distorting 2the fa c t-finding proc e ss tha t the de fe n da

nt wa s de nie d his due proc e s s right to a

funda m e nta lly fa ir tria l. Id. at 1162. Eve n a ssum ing, argue ndo , tha t the te stim ony

Gonz a le z sought to e l ic it from the c onfide ntia l inform ant wa s re le v ant, Gonz a l e z is not e ntitle d to re lie f be c a use he c a nnot sa t i sfy e ithe r e le m e nt of these c ond prong of the Straub te st. As the distric t c o urt prope rly

re c ogniz e d, the prose c ution did not inte ntiona lly c a use the inform ant to invoke

his Fifth Am e ndm e nt rights. Nor did the prose c ution gra

nt im m unity to a ny gove rnm e nt witne ss, or othe rwise distort the fa c t-finding proc e s s. B e c a use the Straub te st wa s not m e t, the distric t c ourt prope rly de n ie d Gonz a le z ’ s
m otion to c om

pe l the gove rnm e nt to gra nt the inform ant use im

m unity
. W e a lso re

je c t Gonz a le z ’ s c ha lle nge to his se nte n c e . Gonz a l e z c onte nds tha t the d istric t c o urt e rre d by de ny ing him

“ sa fe ty -va l ve ” re lie f unde r the Se nte nc ing Guide line s. Se eU.S.S.G. § 5C 1.2; se ealso 18 U.S.C . § 3553(f). To bee ligiblefor
sa fe ty -va lve re l i e f, a

de fe nda nt be ars the burde n

to e sta b lish tha t he m e e ts a ll five sta tutory qua lify ing c rite ria , inc luding tha t “ the de fe nda

nt did not . . . posse s s a fire arm . . . in c onne c tion with the offe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 5C 1.2(a )(2). He re , the distric t c ourt re a sona bly c onc lude d tha

t Gonz a le z posse sse d a fire arm “ in c onne c t ion with the

offe nse .” Id. Gonz a le z a dm its tha t he owne d the gun tha t la w e n forc e m e nt found in his stas h house . He a lso a dm its tha t the gun 3wa s re trie ve d from a duffe l ba g tha

t c onta ine d

drug pa ra phe rna lia ( i .e . , a porta ble digita l sc a le ). And Gonz a le z a dm its tha t the gun wa s found in the sa m e a pa rtm e nt whe re la we n forc e m e nt disc ove re d a substa ntia l qua ntity of he roin. Under the se c irc um s ta nc e s , we sim

ply c annot c onc lude tha

t the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision tha t Gonz a le z posse sse d a

fire arm “ in c onne c tion with the offe nse ” wa s c le arly
e rrone ous. Se eUnite d

State s v . Fe rry m an , 444 F.3d 1183, 1185 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha

t “ this c ourt re vie ws for c l e ar e rror the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l de te rm i nation tha

t a de fe nda nt posse sse d fire arm s in c onne c tion with the offe nse of
c onvic tion, m aking him

ine ligiblefor sa fe ty

va lve re lie f” ). AFFIRM E D.

4