N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R OGELIO LEM U S, aka

Sky , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-50041

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00825-B R O-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 B e ve rly R e id O’ C onne ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2018 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R , W . FLETC HER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt R oge lio Le m

us tim e ly a ppe a ls the se nte nc e tha

t the distric t c ourt im pose d following our re m and. Unite d State s v. Le m us, 847 F.3d 1016 (9th C ir. 2016). W e a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation 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.

* * T he pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).1. In the e arlie r a ppe a l , we a ffirm e d

De fe nda nt’ s c onvic t ion but re m ande d

" for re se nte nc ing pursua

nt to thesta

tutory range se t forth in 21 U.S.C
. § 841(b)(1)(C )." Id. at 1019. Thejury ha d found tha

t De fe nda nt posse sse d m ore tha n 50 gra m s of m e tha

m phe tam ine but tha

t, be c a use his posse ssion wa s c onstruc tive and the drug ha d not be e n te s te d for purity , the e vide n c e did not prove be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt tha

t the pound of c ontra

ba n d (453 gra m s ) c o nta ine d 50 gram s or m ore of m e t

ham phe tam ine
. Id. at 1022–24. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate d the
m andatory

m inim um se nte nc e of 120 m onths. B ut we note d tha t, at " se nte nc ing, qua ntity ne e d only

be prove n

by a pre ponde ranc e of the e vide nc e ." Id. at 1023. On re m and, the distric t

c ourt did not pla

inly e rr by a dopting the
re c o m m e nde d findings in the Pre se nte nc e R e port (" PSR " ), inc luding thea pplic a ble ba se offe nse le ve l of 26. 1 The c ourt followe d our instruc tions, a nd the re is suffic i e nt fa c tua l support for the c ourt’ s unde rly ing findings using a pre ponde ranc e of e vide nc e sta

nda rd. And c ourts m ay

c onside r a c quitte d c onduc t at se nte n c ing. Unite d State s v. M e rc a do, 474 F.3d 654, 657 (9th C ir. 2007). De fe nda nt’ s ne w

1 Inde e d, De fe nda

nt a ffirm ative ly

a gre e d with theba s e offe nse le ve l of 26, whic h the PSR

c a lc u lat e d, a

nd a ske d the c o urt to usetha t ba s e offe nse le ve l. W e a ssum e that

De fe nda nt did not the

re by wa ive e ntire l y his right to m ake the pre se nt argum e nt unde r the invite d e rror doc trine , Unite d State s v. La urie nti, 611 F.3d 530, 543 (9th C i r. 2010), but a t a m inim um De fe nda n t m ake s a

ne w a rgum e nt on a ppe a l, whic h

we the re fore re vie w only for pla in e rror, Unite d State s v. C ha rle s, 581 F.3d 927, 932 (9th C ir. 2009). 2argum e nt, tha t the a ppropria te ba se offe n se le ve l is 12, in e s se nc e atte m pts to
re surre c t the supe rse de d ve rsion of our opinion. 2. De fe nda

nt a lso a rgue s tha t the se nte nc e of 63 m onths is substa ntive ly
unre a s ona

ble . W e find no a

buse of disc re tion. Se e Unite d State s v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 422 (9th C ir. 2011) (sta ting sta nda rd of re vie w). Tha

t se nte nc e lie s at

the low
e nd of the Guide line s ra

nge . The c ourt m a de c le ar that a ll a rgum e nts of thepa

rtie s and a ll fa c tors ha d be e n c onside re d, a nd the c ourt e xpla ine d a

ppropria t e ly the § 3553(a ) c onside ra tions tha t le d to the se le c tion of thepa rtic ula r le ngth of im prisonm e nt. AFFIRM E D
.

3