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. GER ARDO M OSQUER

A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-30392

DC No. 3:10 c r-0191 HZ M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M arc o A . He rnande z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

16, 2014 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : ALAR C ÓN, TASHIM A, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED JUN 25 2014 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.Appe lla nt Ge rardo M osque ra

(“ M osque ra ” ) wa s c o nvic te d of a nd se nte nc e d for two c ounts of a

fe de ra l the ft offe nse unde r 18 U.S.C . § 666(a )(1)(A). 1 On a ppe a l, he c ha l le nge s his c onvic tion on spe e dy tria l grounds, a

nd se pa rate ly argue s that the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing his re q u e st for a downwa rd de pa rture ba se d on the c o nditions of his pre t ria l c onfine m e nt in C olum b ia , in im posing a two-le ve l upwa rd a djustm e nt for obstruc tion of justic e , an d a nothe r two-le ve l upwa

rd a djustm e nt for m isuse of a Soc ia l Se c urity

num be r. 1. W e do not re a c h the m e rits of M o sque ra ’ s c onte ntions tha t his spe e dy tria l rights we re viola

te d be c a use we c onc lude tha

t the se c la im s we re wa i ve d. First, M osque ra wa ive d

his rights unde

r the Spe e dy

Tria l Ac t by fa iling to file

a m otion to dism

iss on spe e dy t

ria l grounds be fore tria l. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3162(a )(2). 2 W e sim ila

rly c onc lude tha

t M osque ra

volunta rily and knowingly wa ive d his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to a spe e dy tria l. Although M o sque ra initia lly

1 M osque ra

wa s e xtra dite d from C olom bia for the se offe nse s , but the gove rnm e nt of C olom

bia de nie d e xtra dition on the c ha rge of m isuse of a

Soc ia l Se c urity Num be r. 2 The Ac t provide s in re le va nt pa rt: Fa ilure of the de fe nda

nt to m ove for dism issa l prior to trial or e ntry of a ple a of guilty . . . sha ll c o nstitutea

wa ive r of the right to dism issa l unde r this se c tion. 18 U.S.C . § 3162(a)(2). 2obje c te d to a c ontinua nc e , he c onse nte d to thec o ntinua nc e a fte r the distric t c ourt e xpla ine d tha

t it wa s in his be st inte re st to a llow his a ttorne y tim e to pre pa

re for tria l and he a gre e d to thedate on whic h the tria l wa s ultim ate ly sc he dule d. M osque ra m a de no othe r obje c tions on spe e dy tria l grounds a

nd fa ile d to fileany m otions c la im ing a spe e dy tria l viola

tion. The re fore , he wa i ve d his Sixth Am e ndm e nt spe e dy

tria l right. Se eBark

e r v . W ingo , 407 U.S. 514, 529 (1972)
. 2. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a downwa rd de pa rture ba se d on the c o nditions of c onfine m e nt M osque ra e xpe rie nc e d while he wa s im p risone d in C olom bia awa iting e xtra dition. W e have not y e t de c ide d whe the r harsh pre tria l c onfine m e nt c o n ditions may be a ba sis for a

downwa rd de pa rture unde r U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. W e ne e d not de c ide tha t issuetoda

y , howe ve r, be c a

use , e v e n a ssum ing that suc h a ba sis for depa

rture e xists, M osque ra

ha s not m a de an a de quat e fa c tua l showing tha

t he would bee ntitle d to suc h a de p arture . Nothing, no sworn e vide nc e , supports his a

lle gations, e xc e pt re fe re nc e s to publicwe bsite s de sc ribing ge ne ra l prison c o nditions in C olum bia . 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in im posing a two-le ve l upwa

rd a djustm e nt for obstruc tion of justic e unde r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1 .1. Evide n c e at tria l de m onstra

te d tha t M osque ra

file d fa lse re c ords in a

re late d a dm inistra

tive proc e e ding, whic h is suffic ie nt to support a n upwa rd a d justm e nt. Se e id . 34. Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not err in im posing a two-le ve l upwa

rd a djustm e nt for fra

udule nt use of a

Soc i a l Se c urity

Num be r pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1(b)(11)(C ). The a djustm e nt doe s not viola te the doc trine s of c rim ina lity and spe c ia lty be c a use the e v ide n c e use d to e nha nc e M osque ra ’ s se nte nc e wa s diffe re nt from tha t in thee xtra d i tion re q

ue st: M o sque ra ’ s e xtra d ition wa s re que ste d for m isuse of a

Soc ia l Se c urity

num be r to obta in a

c ar loa n while his se nte nc e wa s e nha nc e d for fra

udule nt use of a

Soc ia l Se c urity

Num be r to ope n a

ba nk a c c ount in c onne c tion with the

fra udule nt sc he m e for whic h he wa s c onvic te d. In a ny e ve nt, the u se of e vide nc e of M osque ra ’ s soc ia l se c urity viola t ions to e nha

nc e his se nte nc e for the the ft of fe de ra l funds is not “ punishm e nt” unde r the e x tra dition doc trine of spe c i a lty . Se e Unite d State s v . Lazare v ic h , 147 F.3d 1061, 1063-64 (9th C ir. 1998) (c iting W

itte v . Unite d State

s , 515 U.S. 389, 399 (1995)). The judgm e nt of thedistric t c ourt is AFFIR M ED.

4