T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. 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. R E GN AL DO VA R GA S - ME ND OZ A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 50142 D . C . N o. 3: 10 -c r- 00 03 4-L A B -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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a rry A . B urns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 10, 2011 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , R E IN H A R D T , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R egnal do V ar gas- M endo zaappeal s hi s s ent ence for i l l egal re entryaf t er r e m ova l i n vi ol a t i on of

8 U . S . C . § 1326. V a r ga s - M e ndoz aa r gue s tha thi s pr i or s t a t e c onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on of

c oc a i ne w i th i nt e ntt o de l i ve runde rW a s h. R e v. C ode § 69. 50. 401 i s notc a t e gor i c a l l y a“ drug tr a f f i c ki ng of f e ns e ” w a rr a nt i ng a16 

# FI LED SEP 15 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSl ev el i n crease in h i s o ffen se l ev el u n d er U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1 . 2 (b )(1 )(A )(i ). H e al so

c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpr oc e dur a l l y e rr e d by f a i l i ng t o e xpl a i n i t s de c i s i on t o appl y the 16 l e ve l i nc r e a s e , a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntw a s r e qui r e d t o c ha r ge a nd p r o v e to aju ry th e f

a c t o f h is p r io rc o n v ic tio n , c o n tr a ry to th e h o ld in g in A lm enda rez- T

orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 523 U . S . 224 ( 1998) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 1. T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y c onc l ude d tha tac onvi c t i on unde rW a s h. R e v. C od e § 69 . 50 . 40 1 i s c at egori ca l l y aconv i ct i on for a“ drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse” as d e f in e d b y U .S .S .G . § 2 L 1 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i) . W e lo o kto th e s ta tu te o f c o n v ic tio n to de t e rm i ne w he the rthe s t a t e s t a tut e pot e nt i a l l y c r i m i na l i z e s c onduc ttha tw oul d not q u a lif y a s a“d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e ” a s d e f

in e d in th e G u id e lin e s . T aylor v. U ni ted Stat es , 4 9 5 U .S . 5 7 5 , 5 8 8 - 8 9 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . Sh u m a te , 329 F . 3d 10 26 , 10 29 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). V ar gas- M endo zacont ends thatbecause he c ou l d b e c on vi ct ed as a pri nci pal f orm e r e s ol i c i t a t i on unde rthe s t a t e of W a s hi ngt on’ s c om pl i c i ty s t a tut e , W a s h. R e v. C ode . § 9A . 08. 020( 3) , the s t a tut e of c onvi c t i on c r i m i na l i z e s c onduc tbe y ond th a t in c lu d e d in th e d e f

in itio n o f “d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e .” W h ile V a r g a s is c o rr e c t th a t th e r e e x is ts ap o s s ib ility th a t o n e c o u ld b e c o n v ic te d u n d e rth e s ta te s ta tu te a s ap r in c ip a l o n ath e o ry o f a c c o m p lic e liab ility , th is th e o ry o f liab ility f

a lls w ith in th e d e f

in itio n o f “d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e .” T h e C o m m e n ta ry to U .S .S .G . §2L 1. 2 i ns truc t s tha t“ [ p] r i orc onvi c t i ons of of f e ns e s c ount e d unde rs ubs e c t i on ( b ) ( 1 ) in c lu d e th e o f

f e n s e s o f a id in g a n d ab e ttin g , c o n s p ir in g , a n d a tte m p tin g , to com m i tsuch offe nses . ” U . S . S . G . § 2 L 1. 2 cm t . n. 5 (“ no t e 5”) . T hi s l i stof i ncl ud ed o f f e n s e s is n o t e x h au s tiv e . See U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 1 c m t . n. 2. T he r e f or e , the

“ om i ss i on of sol i ci t at i on fr om the l i stdo es no tca rry l egal si gn i fi ca nce. ” Sh u m a te , 329 F . 3d a t1030 ( quot i ng U ni te d State s v . C ox , 74 F . 3d 18 9, 19 0 (9th C i r. 19 96 )) ; see a l so U ni ted Stat es v. C on tre ras- H erna nd ez , 62 8 F . 3d 11 69 , 11 72 (9th C i r. 2 0 1 1 ) . W e ha ve pr e vi ous l y he l d tha ts ol i c i t a t i on i s “ s uf f i c i e nt l y s i m i l a r ” t o the offe nses l i st ed i n n ot e 5 t o b e e ncom pass ed w i thi n § 2L 1. 2 b ec ause “ the m ens r ea a nd a c tus r e us r e qui r e d f ors ol i c i t a t i on a r e s i m i l a rt o thos e r e qui r e d f ora i di ng a nd abett i ng , conspi ra cyand att em pt . ” I d. a t1173 ( quot i ng U

ni te d State s v . C orne l i oP e na , 4 3 5 F .3 d 1 2 7 9 , 1 2 8 6 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ) ; s e e C orne l i o- P e na , 435 F . 3d a t1288 (f i nd i ng thata s ol i ci t at i on conv i ct i on w as suff i ci ent l y s i m i l art o the other e num e r a t e d of

f e ns e s be c aus e i tr e qui r e d pr oof tha tthe de f

e nda nti nt e nde d the unde r l y i ng c r i m e t o be c om m i tt e d) . A pe r s on c a n be c onvi c t e d unde rW a s hi ngt on la w a s ap r in c ip a l o n ly w h e r e a n in te n t to f a c ilita te th e u n d e r ly in g c r im e is f o u n d . State v . R otunno , 631 P . 2d 951, 952 ( W a s h. 1981) ( c i t i ng I n r e W i l s on , 588 P . 2d 1 1 6 1 ( W a s h . 1 9 7 9 ) ) ; S ta te v . G a lis ia , 822 P . 2d 303, 307 ( W a s h. C t . A pp. 1992) ( “ [ I ] ti s the i nt e ntt o f

a c i l i t a t e a nothe ri n the c om m i s s i on of ac r i m e by pr ovi di ngM o reo v er, V arg as-M en d o za fai l ed t o i d en t i fy a si n g l e W ash i n g t o n case 1 w here a c on vi ct i on for vi ol at i ng W as h. R ev. § 6 9. 50 . 40 1(a) w as base d o n a theory o f s o lic ita tio n . See G on zales v. D uena s-A lvarez , 5 4 9 U .S . 1 8 3 , 1 9 3 (2 0 0 7 ) ( “[T ]o fi nd thata s t at e s t atut e c re at es a c ri m e out si de the generi c def i ni t i on of a l i st ed c r im e in af

e d e r a l s ta tu te r e q u ir e s m o r e th a n th e ap p lic a tio n o f le g a l im a g in a tio n to as ta te s ta tu te ’s la n g u a g e .” ) . a s s is ta n c e th r o u g h h is p r e s e n c e o rh is a c t th a t m a k e s th e a c c o m p lic e c r im in a lly liab le ” ) . B e c au s e s o lic ita tio n s a tis f ie s th e d e f

in itio n o f d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e s in § 2 L 1. 2, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n i ncre as i ng V ar gas- M endo za ’ s off ense l evel by 16. 1 2. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpr oc e dur a l l y e rrby f a i l i ng t o e xpl a i n w hy V arg as-M en d o za’ s 1 9 9 2 co n v i ct i o n w as cat eg o ri cal l y a d ru g traffi ck i n g o ffen se w arran t i n g a 1 6 l ev el i n crease u n d er § 2 L 1 . 2 . T h e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ex p l an at i o n m u st be suff i ci ent“ t o p erm i tm ea ni ng ful appel l at e r evi ew . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 520 F . 3d 984, 992 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( c i t i ng R i ta v. U ni ted Stat es , 551 U . S . 338, 356 (200 7)). T ho ug h a det ai l ed expl anat i on i s notnece ss ary w here “ ‘ the re cord m akes cl ea r thatthe se nt enci ng j ud ge consi dere d the evi dence and argum ent s. ’ ” U ni ted S ta te s v . D a n ie ls , 541 F . 3d 915, 922 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng R ita , 55 1 U . S . at 35 9). T h e d istrict co u rt stated th at itre v iew ed an d co n sid er ed V ar g as -M en d o za ’s c r i m i na l hi s t ory r e por ta nd hi s obj e c t i ons t o tha tr e por t , hi s s e nt e nc i ng m e m or a ndum a nd the gove rnm e nt ’ s r e s pons e , the gove rnm e nt ’ s s e nt e nc i ngsum m ary c hart , the abstra ctof the st at e j ud gm ent , and o ther pl eado cum ent s. A ft er

r e vi e w i ng the s e doc um e nt s , the di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha tthe c a l c ul a t i ons i n the go vernm ent ’ s s ent enci ng sum m ary, w hi ch i ncl ud ed the 16 l evel i ncre as e, w er e c orr e c t . B e c aus e the di s tr i c tc our ta de qua t e l y c ons i de r e d the a r gum e nt s a nd evi dence i n the re cord, i tdi d n otprocedural l y e rrby fa i l i ng t o p rovi de any f urther e xpl a na t i on. 3 . T h e g o v ern m en tw as n o treq u i red t o ch arg e an d p ro v e th e facto f V arg asM e ndoz a ’ s pr i orc onvi c t i on t o aj ury . T he S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n N i j haw an v. H older , 1 2 9 S . C t. 2 2 9 4 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , d id n o t o v e rru le its p r e v io u s h o ld in g in A lm enda rez- T

orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 523 U . S . 224 ( 1998) , tha t§ 1326( b) const i tut es a s ent enci ng prov i si on ra ther than a se para t e e l em ent . W e r ej ec t ed that a r gum e nti n U

ni ted Stat es v. V

aldo vi no s-Mendez , 64 1 F . 3d 10 31 (9th C i r. 20 11 ), w he r e w e he l d tha tthe opi ni on i n N i j haw an , “ doe s notc a s tdoubton the c ont i nui ng va l i di ty of

the C our t ’ s c l e a rhol di ng i n A lm enda rez- T orres . ” Id . a t1036. AF F I RME D.