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 a nd 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.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

T he H onor abl e D a vi d G . C a m pbe l l , U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** * the D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona , s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on.

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. J AME S WI L L I AM L ON DO , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10000 D . C . N o. 3: 05 -C R -000 85 -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 D i s tr i c tof

N e va da E dw a r d C . R e e d, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 8, 2010 ** S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia Be f o r e : HA LL a n d M c KEOW N, Ci r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d CAM PB EL L, D i stri ct *** Judg e. 

# FI LED FEB 24 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

J a m e s L ondo ( “ L ondo” ) t i m e l y appe a l s f r om a j udgm e ntof

c onvi c t i on of on e c ou ntof conspi ra cy t o p osse ss w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e a nd t o d i stri bu t e m ore tha n 50 gr a m s of

m e tha m phe t a m i ne ( “ C ountO ne ” ) , a nd one c ountof pos s e s s i on w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e m ore than 5 0 g ra m s of m etham ph et am i ne (“ C ou ntT w o”), i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 846, a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2. L ondo c ont e nds th atth e d i stri ctco u rt : (1 ) ab u sed i t s d i scret i o n b y g ran t i n g h i s th i rd m o tio n to w i thd ra w a 200 5 g ui l ty pl eaas t o C ou ntO ne on l y, for w hi ch he w ou l d h ave been s e n te n c e d to 1 0 y e a r s in p r is o n , s o th a t h e c o u ld p r e s e n t a “s e n te n c in g e n tr ap m e n t” de f e ns e t o a j ury ; a nd ( 2) c om m i tt e d a n e rr orof l a w w he n i ts ubm i tt e d hi s the ory of “s e n te n c in g e n tr ap m e n t” to th e ju ry f o rd e c is io n . A f

te rth e ju ry r e

je c te d h is defe nse a nd foun d h i m gu i l ty of both C ou ntO ne and C ou ntT w o, L on do w as s e n t e n c e d t o th e s t a tu t o ry mi n i mu m t e r m o f 2 0 y e a r s p r e s c r i b e d b y 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( vi i i ) , i n l i ghtof a pr i ors t a t e f

e l ony drug c onvi c t i on a nd the gove rnm e nt ’ s f

i l i ng of a n i nf or m a t i on pur s ua ntt o 21 U . S . C . § 851. W e ha ve j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i r m. I. T he l a r ge body of

e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d dur i ng a f i ve - da y j ury tr i a l , the p r o c e d u r a l e v e n ts o f

th e c a s e , a n d th e ap p lic ab le la w a r e w e ll k n o w n to th e p a r tie s . T hus , w e w i l l r e c i t e s uc h i nf or m a t i on onl y a s ne c e s s a ry t o ourdi s pos i t i on of the3

c la im s o f e rr o rr a is e d in th is ap p e a l. II. A n e rr orc a us e d by a c t i ons of the c om pl a i ni ng pa r ty w i l l pr ovi de gr ounds f or re vers al on l y i n an “ exce pt i on al si tuat i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . Sc h a

ff , 948 F . 2d 501, 5 0 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ; s e e a ls o U n ite d S ta te s v . P e r ez, 11 6 F . 3d 84 0, 84 4-46 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( en banc). S uch an “ i nv i t ed error” w i l l be cause f or re vers al on l y w hen c o rr e c tio n “is n e c e s s a ry to p r e s e r v e th e in te g r ity o f th e ju d ic ia l p r o c e s s o rto preventa m i sc arri age of j ust i ce . ” Sc h a ff, 948 F . 2d a t506. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d on appe a l , w e a r e c onvi nc e d tha tL ondo know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y w a i ve d the r i ght s a f f or de d by hi s 2005 pl e a a gr e e m e nt because he w ant ed t o h ave aj ury dec i de w hether, as he adam ant l y c l ai m ed for over tw o yea rs , the go vernm enthad i m prop er l y i nd uced hi m t o arr ange a drug d ea l in v o lv in g a m u c h la r g e ra m o u n t o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e th a n h e , a n a d m itte d s m a llt i m e drug de a l e r , c us t om a r i l y de a l t

— i . e . , w he the rhe w a s s ubj e c t e d t o “ s e nt e nc i ng e n tr ap m e n t.” I n d e e d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a d v is e d L o n d o , d u r in g th e h e a r in g o n h is th i rd m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a i n J a nua ry 2008, tha tthe r e w e r e no r e por t e d c a s e s s pe c i f

i c a l l y a uthor i z i ng a s ubs t a nt i ve de f e ns e of “ s e nt e nc i ng entrapm ent , ” butthatthe am ou ntof drug s a l l eged i n the i nd i ctm entw as , af t er Appr e ndi v . N

e w J e rs e y, 530 U . S . 466 ( 2000) a nd i t s pr oge ny , a que s t i on f orthe4

ju ry , n o t th e c o u r t, to d e c id e . T h u s , th e c o u r t e x p la in e d th a t it s e e m e d o n ly

“ l ogi c a l a nd s e ns i bl e ” tha tL ondo s houl d be a l l ow e d t o try t o pr ove he w a s not pr e di s pos e d t o de a l i n the r e l a t i ve l y l a r ge a m ount s a l l e ge d a nd tha the w oul d not ha ve done s o butf

orgove rnm e nti nduc e m e nt s tha t“ uppe d the a nt e ” w e l l above the le v e ls a t w h ic h h e u s u a lly d e a lt. I n th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , if th e r e w a s a n y e rr o rin th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n to g r a n t L o n d o ’s th ir d m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty pl eat o al l ow hi m t o p ursue a“ se nt enci ng entrapm ent ” def ense , i tw as “ i nv i t ed e rr o r ” f o rw h ic h ap p e lla te r e v ie w is u n a v a ilab le w h e n c o m b in e d w ith r e lin q u is h m e n t o f

a k n o w n r ig h t. Se e P e r ez, 11 6 F . 3d at84 5 (“ If the defendanthas both i nvi t e d the e rr or , a nd r e l i nqui s he d a know n r i ght , the n the e rr ori s w a i ve d a nd there fore un re vi ew abl e. ”) . III. A f te rf in a lly c o n v in c in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to a llo w h im to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty pl e a s o tha the c oul d a s s e r ta de f e ns e of “ s e nt e nc i ng e ntr apm e nt , ” a nd bui l di ng v i rtu al l y h i s en t i re d efen se aro u n d th ati ssu e, L o n d o n o w co n t en d s— fo r th e fi rst t i m e o n ap p eal

— th at“ sen t en ci n g en trap m en t ” i s n o t a pe r m i s s i bl e s ubs t a nt i ve defe nse t o a fe dera l drug char ge, and thatthe di stri ctcourterre d as am att erof l aw b y a llo w in g h im to p r e s e n t th a t d e f e n s e to th e ju ry . W e r e

je c t th is a r g u m e n t. W he n a pa r tyf

a i l s t o r a i s e orpr e s e r ve a n obj e c t i on orc l a i m of e rr ora s t o a5

d e c is io n o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w th a t d e c is io n o n ly f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sa nchez , 1 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 1 4 , 1 2 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; F e d . R . C r im . P . 5 2 ( b ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tc om m i t s pl a i n e rr orw he n the r e i s “ ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd (3) thataf

fe ct [s ] subst ant i al ri gh t s. ” John son v. U ni t ed Stat es , 520 U . S . 461, 46 6-67 (199 7). “ [A ] n err or i s notpl ai n u nl es s i ti s ‘ cl ea r’ or ‘ ob vi ou s. ’ ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . Sm ith , 424 F . 3d 992, 1002 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. O lano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ) . “P la in e rr o ris s o c le a r - c u t, s o o b v io u s , a com pet entdi stri ctj ud ge shou l d b e abl e t o avo i d i tw i tho utbenefi tof obj ec t i on . ” U ni t e d Stat e s v . T

urm an , 1 2 2 F. 3 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 9 7 ) . “ A ta mi n i mu m, the C our tof

A ppe a l s c a nnotc orr e c ta n e rr orpur s ua ntt o R ul e 52( b) unl e s s the e rr or i s c l ea r und ercurr entl aw . ” O lano , 507 U . S . a t734. B oth be f or e a nd a f

t e rthe S upr e m e C our tde c i de d Appr e ndi , N in th C ir c u it case l aw h as reco g n i zed th e th eo ry o f “ sen t en ci n g en trap m en t , ” b u to n l y as a m a tte rto b e c o n s id e r e d a t s e n te n c in g . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . Me

jia , 559 F . 3d 1113, 1 1 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; U n i t ed S ta t es v . Stau

f er , 38 F . 3d 11 03 , 11 06 -08 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ). T h e i ssu e w h eth er th e “ sen t en ci n g en trap m en t ” th eo ry can b e i n v o k ed as a subst ant i ve defense t o a drug offe nse a ft er Ap p r e n d i h as b een d i scu ssed i n th e case l a w , butha s ne ve rbe e n s pe c i f i c a l l y appr ove d o r di sapp roved b y a ny fe dera l ap p e lla te c o u r t. Se e U

ni t e d Stat e s v . G unn , 36 9 F . 3d 12 29 , 12 36 -37 (11 th C i r.6

2 0 0 4 ) ; U ni t e d Stat e s v . R

y an , 28 9 F . 3d 13 39 , 13 42 -43 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ). A s the l aw w as un se tt l ed atthe t i m e L on do m ov ed t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea , the di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on t o al l ow hi m t o p re se ntevi dence and argum entt o the j ury und era “s e n te n c in g e n tr ap m e n t” th e o ry w a s n e ith e rc le a rn o ro b v io u s e rr o r . E v e n i f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o m m i tt e d a “ c l e a r ” o r“ o b v i o u s ” e rr o ro f l a w, how e ve r , w e w oul d notr e ve r s e L ondo’ s c onvi c t i on. T he e vi de nc e of hi s gui l tof both c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s w a s ove rw he l m i ng a nd c ry s t a l c l e a r , a nd the f a c tof hi s pr i or f e l ony c onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on of

a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e — w hi c h doubl e d the se nt ence he w as sl at ed t o rec ei ve un der the t erm s of hi s 200 5 p l eaagre em ent

— w as i ndi s put abl e . I f

he ha d notbe e n a l l ow e d t o pr e s e nta de f e ns e of “ s e nt e nc i ng e ntr apm e nt , ” i tappe a r s he w oul d ha ve ha d no de f e ns e a ta l l , a nd the r e i s no r e a s on t o be l i e ve the ve r di c t , orhi s s e nt e nc e , w oul d ha ve be e n a ny di f f e r e nt . T hus , a ny erro r i n th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n t o su b m i tth e “ sen t en ci n g en trap m en t ” d efen se t o th e j u ry d i d n o taffect hi s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. I V. F ora l l the f

or e goi ng r e a s ons , the j udgm e ntof c onvi c t i on, i nc l udi ng the sen t en ce i m p o sed , i s AF F I RME D.