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. ADR IAN ZITLALPOPOC AHER NANDEZ, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. Nos. 13-50551, 14-50180

D.C . No. 3:08-c r-04304-B EN-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 2, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HR ISTENSEN, ** C hie f Distric t

Judge
. Adria n Zitla lpopoc a -He rna

nde z (“ Zitla lpopoc a ” ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e on re m and of 262 m onths a nd orde r of re s titution of $8,960. A jury



# FIL ED D EC 28 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 Honora

ble Da na L. C hriste nse n, C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.c onvic te d Zitla lpopoc a , a M e xic an c itiz e n, of te n c ounts of prostitution involving the s e x tra ffic king of two wome n. This C ourt re ve rse d thre e of those c ounts a nd
re m ande d the re m a i ning se ve n for re se nte nc ing. U nite d State

s v . Zitlalpopoc a-He rnande

z , 495 F. App’ x. 833, 836 (9th C ir. 2012) (unpublishe d). Zitla lpopoc a argue s on a

p pe a l from

re se nte nc ing tha

t the distric t c ourt inc orre c tly
a pplie d m ultiple provisions of the

Unite d State s Se n te nc ing Guide line s, na m e ly : (1) the U.S.S.G § 2G1.1(c )(1) c ross re fe re nc e , whic h inc re a se d his ba se offe nse le ve l from

14 to 30; (2) the

four-le ve l a ggravate d

se xua l a buse e nha nc e m e nt unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2241; a

nd (3) the two-le ve l vulne ra ble vic tim e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G § 3A1.1(b). Zitla lpopoc a furthe r c onte nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in orde ring re stitution. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291 a nd va c ate the
se nte nc e and re stitution orde r and re m and for re se nte nc i ng. W e re vie w “ the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of theSe nte nc i ng Guide line s de novo, thedistric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l de t e rm i nations for c le ar e rror, and the d istric t c o urt’ s a

pplic at ions of theGuide line s to the fa c ts for a buse of disc re tion.” Unite d State

s v . C hriste nse n , 598 F.3d 1201, 1203 (9th C ir. 2010). Furthe r, we re vie w the le ga lity of the re stitution orde

r de novo. Unite d State

s v . Busse l l , 414 F.3d 1048, 1061 (9th C ir. 2005).

-2-First, the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing U.S.S.G § 2G1.1(c )(1). This c ross re fe re n c e to U.S.S.G § 2A3.1 im pose s a ba se offe n se le ve l of 30 if the unde rly ing offe nse involve d c onduc t de sc ribe d in 18 U.S.C . § 2242(a ) (knowingly c a using
anothe r pe rson to e n ga g e in a se xua l a c t by

thre ate ning or pla c ing tha t othe r pe rson in fe ar). The a

pplic ation of this enha

nc e m e nt by

the distric t c ourt inc re a se d Zitla lpopoc a ’ s ba se offe nse le ve l by 16 le ve ls, from

14 to 30, a

nd ra ise d the fina l Guide line range from

46–57 m o nths to 262–327 m onths, a five -fold inc re a se . As a
re sult of this disproportiona te e ffe c t on Zitlalpopoc a ’ s se nte nc e , the distric t c ourt
wa s re quire d to find c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e to support this e nha nc e m e nt. Unite d State s v . Gonzale

z , 492 F.3d 1031, 1039 (9th C ir. 2007) (de sc ribing fa c tors in a s se ssing whe the r the c l e ar and c onvinc ing sta nda rd a pplie s). The e vide nc e pre se nte d at tria l showe d tha t Ana be l, one of the wom e n Zitla lpopoc a pe rsua d e d to tra ve l to theUnite d

Stat e s to work a s a

prostitute , did
e xpre s s fe ar of him

at tim e s. Howe ve r, tha

t fe ar wa s not shown by

c le ar and
c onvinc i ng e vide nc e to ha ve induc e d he r to e nga ge in prostitution. The distric t
c ourt thus e rre d in a

pply ing U.S.S.G § 2G1.1(c )(1). The distric t c ourt a l so e rre d by a pply ing the four-le ve l a ggravate d se xua l
a buse e nha nc e m e nt unde r 18 U.S.C . § 2241. Applic at ion of this enha n c e m e nt is
warran te d whe n som e o ne “ knowingly c a use s anothe r pe rson to e nga g e in a se xua l -3-a c t: (1) by

using forc e a g a inst tha

t othe r pe rson; or (2) by

thre ate ning or pla c ing that othe r pe rson in fe ar that

any pe rson will besubje c te d to de ath, se rious bodily injury , or kidna

pping.” 18 U.S.C . § 2241(a ). Though the re wa s e vide nc e that Zitla lpopoc a c o m

m itte d viole n c e a ga inst thewom e n he pe rsua d e d to e n ga ge in prostitution, the

e vide nc e did not show tha t he c a use d the m

to do so with forc e or thre ats of se rious bodily

ha rm . The distric t

c o urt inc orre c tly

a pplie d this
e nha nc e m e nt. The distric t c ourt’ s a

pplic ation of thevulne ra

ble vic t im e nha n c e m e n t unde r U.S.S.G § 3A1.1(b) wa s a lso e rror. This e nha n c e m e n t is a

pplie d if “ the distric t
c ourt ide ntifie s a

spe c ific fa c tor (or fa c tors) tha t m a de the vic tim

unique l y vulne ra ble a s c om

p are d to the ty pic a l vic tim

of the offe nse .” U

nite d State

s v . N ie lse n , 694 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th C ir. 2012). Exa m ple s of this inc lude individuals who a re “ unusua lly

vulne ra ble due to a ge , phy sic a l or m e nta l c ondition, or who [are ] othe rwise pa

rtic ula rly susc e ptible to the c rim ina l c onduc t.” U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, c m

t. n. 2. He re , the distric t c ourt a

p plie d the e nha

nc e m e nt be c a

use Zitla lpopoc a c ontrolle d Ana

be l through psy c hologic a l m anipula tion. Zitlalpopoc a

prom ise d Ana be l tha t the y would be m arrie d one da y and use d this promise to c oe rc e he r

-4-into a

life of prostitution. Howe ve r, the c om

m e nts to theGuide line s sugge st tha t the e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s only

whe re the pe rpe trator e xploits a vic tim ’ s pre e xisting vulne ra bility
. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, c m t . n. 2 (e nha

nc e m e nt a

pplie s “ in a

fra ud
c a se in whic h

the de fe n da

n t m a rke te d a n ine ffe c tive c anc e r c ure or in a robbe ry in whic h de fe nda

n t se le c t e d a

ha ndic a ppe d vic t im ” ). He re , the re wa s no e vide n c e tha t Ana be l wa s m ore pre dispose d to psy c hologic a l m anipula tion tha n any othe r vic tim of prostitution. Applic ation of thevulne ra ble vic tim e nha

nc e m e nt wa s e rror. La stly , the distric t c ourt inc orre c tly orde re d m andatory re stitution pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3663A(c )(1). The distric t c ourt found tha t it wa s e m

powe re d to orde r re stitution unde

r e ithe r § 3663A(c )(1)(A) (a s “ a c rim e of viole nc e ” ) or § 3663A(c )(1)(B ) (a s “ a

pe c unia ry loss” ). Howe v e r, a

pla in re a ding of this sta

tute
re quire s a dua l finding tha

t the unde rly ing offe n se wa s a c rim e of viole nc e and that the v ic tim suffe re d a

pe c unia ry loss. 18 U.S.C . § 3663A(c )(1). The distric t c ourt thus e rre d be c a

use Zitla lpopoc a ’ s unde rly ing offe nse , 18 U.S.C . § 2422 (pe rsua sion or c oe rc ion to tra ve l in fore ign c om

m e rc e for prostitution), is not te c hnic a lly

“ a c rim e of viole nc e .” 18 U.S.C . § 3663A(c )(1)(A)(i). Notwithsta

nding this error, we do not fore c lose the possibility tha t
re stitution m

ay be awarde d

a s a c ondition of supe

rvise d re le a s e pursua

nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3583(d). Howe ve r, if re stitution is a warde d a s a c ondition of supe rvise d -5-re le a se , the distric t c ourt m ust c onside r c e rta in fa c tors unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3553 in de c iding whe the r to im

pose a te rm of supe rvise d re le a s e . 18 U.S.C . § 3583(c ) (providing tha

t c ourts “ sha ll c onside r the fa c tors se t forth in se c tion 3553(a )(1), (a )(2)(B ), (a )(2)(C ), (a )(2)(D), (a )(4), (a )(5), (a )(6), a nd (a )(7)” whe n “ de te rm ining the l e ngth of thete rm

and c o nditions of supe

rvise d re le a se ” ). The distric t c ourt’ s re stitution orde

r is thus re ve rse d a

nd re m ande d for furthe r c onside ra tion. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D FO R RE SE NT E NCING

-6-