This disposit io n i s n o t ap p ro p ri at e fo r p ub l i cation and is not prec edent except as * provided by

Ninth Cir. R. 36-3. The Honorab l e R an er C . C o l l i n s , Un i t ed S t ates District Judge f or the District of ** Arizona, sitting by

designation. 1

NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. CL AY TON ROU EC HE, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 30441 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -c r- 00 34 4-R S L -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R obe rtS . L a s ni k, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d & S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r8, 2010 S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B ef ore: T H O M A S and M . S M IT H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O L L IN S , D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED OC T 28 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

D e f e nda nt - A ppe l l a ntC l a y t on R oue c he appe a l s f r om hi s s e nt e nc e f

ol l ow i ng agui l ty pl e at o c ons pi r a c y t o e xportc oc a i ne , c ons pi r a c yt o i m portm a r i j ua na , a nd conspi ra cyt o eng age i n m on eyl aund er i ng . T he D i stri ctC ou rtfor the W es t ern D i s tr i c tof

W a s hi ngt on, Judge R obe rtS . L a s ni k pr e s i di ng, s e nt e nc e d R oue c he t o a t ot a l t e rm of

360 m onths . T he pa rt i e s a r e pr e s um e d t o be f a m i l i a rw i th the r e m a in in g f

a c ts , an d w e d o n o t r e c o u n t th e m h e r e e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ryto e x p la in ourde c i s i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291 a nd r e ve r s e a nd re m and for res ent enci ng i n acc ordance w i th F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 32 (i )( 3). T here ar e three i ss ues on app ea l : (1) w hether r es ent enci ng i s r equi re d u nd er R ul e 32( i ) ( 3) be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notm a ke f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng ordi s a vow re l i ance on di sput ed fa ct s; (2) w hether r es ent enci ng i s r equi re d b ec ause the di stri ct c ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n r e f us i ng t o rul e on w he the ri tw oul d c ons i de rthe decl ar at i on s of D ani el L eC l er c and K enneth D avi s; and (3) w hether the di stri ct c o u rt im p r o p e r lyc o n s id e r e d c r im e s c o m m itte d o u ts id e th e U n ite d S ta te s in fa shi on i ng i t s s ent ence . I . T he D is tr i c t

C our t ’s C om

pl i anc e w i th R ule 32(

i ) ( 3) We r e v i e w de no vo w he the radi s tr i c tc ourtc om pl i e d w i th F e de r a l R ul e of C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 32 . U n ite d S ta te s v . H e rr e r a - R o ja s , 2 4 3 F .3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 2 ( 9 th3

C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . T a m , 2 4 0 F .3 d 7 9 7 , 8 0 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . S tr i c tc om pl i a nc e w i th R ul e 32 i s r e qui r e d. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a e t e urn, 504 F . 3d 1175, 1178 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r f i e l d, 987 F . 2d 1424, 1 4 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ) . W h e n ad is tr ic t c o u rt f a ils to m a k e th e f

in d in g s r e q u ir e d u n d e rth e ru le , r e m a n d f o rr e s e n te n c in g is r e q u ir e d . G ar fi el d, 98 7 F . 2d at14 28 . If the di stri ctcourtchoo se s nott o rel y on the di sput ed fact s, i td o es n o tn eed t o reso l v e th e d i sp u t e, b u ti tm u stm ak e i t s d i sav o w al ex p ress on the re cord. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. C art er , 21 9 F . 3d 86 3, 86 7 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). N o t a ll o b

je c tio n s w ill tr ig g e rth e c o u rt’s o b lig a tio n s u n d e rR u le 3 2 . F ir s t, the obj e c t i on m us tr e l a t e t o f a c t s tha tw oul d t e nd t o a f f e c tthe l e ngth of

the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d. S a e t e urn, 504 F . 3d a t1179- 80. S e c ond, ade f e nda ntm us tm a ke a s peci fi c f

ac tual obj ec t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. S t ot er au, 52 4 F . 3d 98 8, 10 11 (9th C i r. 2008) . A s pe c i f

i c f a c tua l obj e c t i on i s one tha tpoi nt s outf a c tua l i na c c ur a c i e s , not j ustre com m endat i on s, op i ni on s, or concl usi on s. C art er , 21 9 F . 3d at86 7; U ni t ed S t at es v. L i nd ho l m , 24 F . 3d 10 78 , 10 85 n. 7 (9th C i r. 19 94 ). T h e d istrict co u rt h er e w as n o t req u ired to ad d re ss m o st o f R o u ec h e’s o b je c tio n s b e c au s e th e y w e r e n o t f a c tu a l, s p e c if

ic , o rr e la te d to th e le n g th o f h is s e nt e nc e . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s r e qui r e d t o r e s ol ve R oue c he ’ s obj e c t i ons t o p art s of the L eC l er c dec l ar at i on and h i s obj ec t i on s c on ce rni ng a w i re t apped4

co n v er sa ti o n . S p ec ifically, th e d istrict co u rt w as re q u ired to re so lv e R o u ec h e’s o b je c tio n s to L e C le r c ’s c la im th a t h e w a s p r e s s u r e d , in tim id a te d , o rth r e a te n e d in to w orki ng f

orthe U N G a ng by R oue c he , and L e C l e r c ’ s c l a i m tha tR oue c he su p er v ised h im . T h e d istrict co u rt w as also re q u ired to re so lv e R o u ec h e’s obj e c t i on t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on of ac onve r s a t i on he ha d r e ga r di ng a n e xt ort i on s c he m e tha tw a s c aptur e d on w i r e t ap. R ou ec he’ s obj ec t i on s t o L eC l er c’ s dec l ar at i on and t o the w i re t apped c onve r s a t i on w e r e f

a c tua l a nd s pe c i f

i c . R oue c he c ha l l e nge d the a c c ur a c yof s pe c i f i c f a c t s a nd pr ovi de d a n a l t e rna t e ve r s i on ori nt e rpr e t a t i on. T he s e obj e c t i ons w e r e a l s o r e l e va ntt o the l e ngth of the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d s i nc e the ybor e di r e c t l yon hi s hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s , w hi c h the c ourtw a s r e qui r e d t o c ons i de runde r18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1). A t sen ten cin g , th e d istrict co u rt fa il ed to m ak e f in d in g s r eg ar d in g L eC lerc ’s d ec lara ti o n an d w iretap co n v er sa ti o n s. S p ec ifically, i t ref u se d to strik e L eC lerc ’s d e c la r a tio n b u t a ls o a s s u r e d th e p a rtie s th a t it d id n o t b e lie v e e v e ry th in g p u t f o rth i n the decl ar at i on . Ital so re fuse d t o rul e on w hi ch vers i on of the w i re t ap co n v er sa ti o n itac ce p ted w h il e a ff irm ativ ely s tati n g itw o u ldco n sid erR o u ec h e’s w i re t ap conv er sa t i on s. S i nce w e are “ l ef tgu es si ng w hether the di stri ctcourt r e c ogni z e d, c ont e m pl a t e d, a nd r e s ol ve d the . . . obj e c t i on[ s ] , ” r e m a nd f or5

re se nt enci ng i s r equi re d. U ni t ed S t at es v. H ou st on , 21 7 F . 3d 12 04 , 12 09 (9th C i r. 20 00 ). I I . U s e of the L e C le r c and D av is D e c lar at i ons at Se nte nc i ng W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on de t e rm i na t i ons r e ga r di ng the r e l i abi l i tyof e vi de nc e f

orthe purpos e s of

s e nt e nc i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F e l i x, 561 F . 3d 1036, 1040 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , c e rt . de ni e d, 130 S . C t . 256 ( 2009) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A l v arad o -M art i n ez, 5 5 6 F . 3 d 7 3 2 , 7 3 5 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ). F ai l u re t o ex erci se d is c r e tio n c a n c o n s titu te a n ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . C au d le v . B r is to w O p tic a l C o ., I nc . , 224 F . 3d 1014, 1027 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( quot i ng M i l l e rv. H a m br i c k, 905 F . 2d 25 9, 26 2 (9th C i r. 19 90 )) . A di stri ctcourthas w i de l at i tud e i n the evi dence i tcan con si der a t sen t en ci n g . Itm ay co n si d er i n fo rm at i o n th atw o u l d n o tb e ad m i ssi b l e attri al so l on g as i t“ has s uffi ci enti nd i ci a of r el i abi l i ty t o sup po rti t s probabl e a cc urac y. ” U . S . S . G . § 6 A 1. 3(a) . ; F el i x, 56 1 F . 3d at10 42 . H ow ever , i tm ustm ake c l ear w hat i ti s c ons i de r i ng a nd w ha ti ti s not . F e d. R . C r i m . P . 32. T he di s tr i c tc ourthe r e abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i tr e f us e d t o rul e on Ro u e c h e ’ s o b

j e c t i o n s t o th e d e c l a r a t i o n s o f Le Cl e r c a n d D a v i s w h i l e a tth e s a me t i m e not i ng thatpo rt i on s of the decl ar at i on s w er e unrel i abl e. T he courtw as o b lig a te d to m a k e f

in d in g s a s to w h ic h p o rtio n s it w o u ld c o n s id e r , a n d its f a ilu r e to6

do s o w a s a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. I I I . U s e of Cr i m e s C om m i t te d O ut s i de the U

ni te d State s at

Se nte nc i ng W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of R oue c he ’ s a c t i ons i n C a na da de no vo a s al e g a l i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s . U n i t e d St a t e s v . A z e e m, 9 4 6 F .2 d 1 3 , 1 5 ( 2 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . A di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s c ons i de r a t i on of ade f e nda nt ’ s f

or e i gn a c t i ons doe s not v i o l at e th e p resu m p t i o n ag ai n stex trat erri t o ri al ap p l i cat i o n o f A m eri can l aw s, be c aus e i ti s nota n e xtr a t e rr i t or i a l appl i c a t i on of A m e r i c a n l a w s . W hi l e the r e i s no ca se l aw di re ct l y on p oi nt , i ti s helpful t o n ot e thatB l ac k’ s L aw D i ct i on ary def i nes “e x tr a te rr ito r ia l ju r is d ic tio n ” a s “ac o u rt’s ab ilityto e x e r c is e p o w e rb e y o n d its te rr ito r ia l lim its .” B la c k ’s L a w D ic tio n ary9 2 9 ( 9 th e d . 2 0 0 9 ) . U n d e rth is defi ni t i on , a c ou rtm ustre ac h b ey on d i t s t erri t ori al l i m i t s t o exerci se po w erov era c a s e ori s s ue tha ti tc oul d notothe rw i s e r e a c h. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt h e r e d id n o t r e a c h o u t b e y o n d its te rr ito r ia l lim its to h o ld R ou ec he cr i m i nal l y l i abl e f or hi s a ct i on s i n C anada by convi ct i ng hi m on char ges s t e m m i ng f

r om hi s be ha vi ori n C a na da . W hi l e i ti s unc l e a rt o w ha te xt e ntthe d i stri ctco u rtd i d co n si d er n o n -ch arg ed act i o n s th ato ccu rred i n C an ad a, i ti s al so cl ear thatthese ac t i on s w er e notused i n sett i ng the base offe nse l evel or t o enh ance the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge i n a ny w a y . I f the di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d R oue c he ’ s a c t i onsPag e -7-

i n C a na dai n f

orm i ng the s e nt e nc e i ti m pos e d, i tw a s m e r e l yus i ng tha ti nf orm a t i on t o creat e a m o re d et ai l ed p i ctu re o f R o u ech e i n o rd er t o i m p o se th e m o st approp ri at e s ent ence . T hi s i s perm i ss i bl e und er18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1). I V . C onc lus i on R em and for res ent enci ng i s r equi re d i n thi s c as e s o thatthe di stri ctcourtcan c om pl y w i th the r e qui r e m e nt s of F e de r a l R ul e of

C r i m i na l P r oc e dur e 32 a nd m a ke cl ear w hati nform at i on form s the basi s of R ou ec he’ s s ent ence . T he di stri ctcourt s ha l l i de nt i f

y a nd rul e on a l l s pe c i f

i c f a c tua l obj e c t i ons tha tr e l a t e t o the l e ngth of R oue c he ’ s s e nt e nc e orm a ke e xpr e s s i t s di s a vow a l of the i nf orm a t i on. R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED .