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 N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e S uz a nne B . C onl on, U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof I l l i noi s , 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. STEV EN EM O RY BU TCH ER, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 50518 D . C . N o. 2: 07 -C R -007 49 -V B F -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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V a l e r i e B a ke rF a i rba nk, 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 A pr i l 8, 2010 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B e f o r e : P R E GE R S ON a n d T HO MP S ON , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d C ON L ON , D i stri ct ** Judg e. S t e ve n E m ory B ut c he rw a s c onvi c t e d of tw o c ount s of

w i l l f ul l y a nd w i thout autho ri ty s ett i ng fi re t o federa l l and, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 85 5, as w el l as three m i sdem eano r off

ense s. T he conv i ct i on s s t em fr om w i l dfi re s B ut cherst art ed 

# FI LED APR21 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

i n L os P a dr e s N a t i ona l F or e s ti n 2002 a nd 2006. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 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 irm h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e . T he part i es ar e f

am i l i arw i th the fa ct s of thi s c as e, so w e r epea tthem here on l y a s n ecessary. B ut cherar gu es som e of hi s c on vi ct i on s overl ap t o such a degree thatthey v i o l at e h i s ri g h t s u n d er th e F i fth A m en d m en t ’ s D o u b l e Jeo p ard y C l au se. B ecau se h e r a is e s th is is s u e f

o rth e f ir s t tim e o n ap p e a l, w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . U

ni ted Stat es v. Scha les , 5 4 6 F .3 d 9 6 5 , 9 7 7 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). C o n trar y to B u tch er ’s cont ent i on , 18 U . S . C . § 1 85 5 and 36 C . F . R . § 2 61 . 52 (a ) are se para t e and di st i nct offe nses because e ac h “ re qu i re s proof of a fa ctw hi ch the other does not . ” B lockburger v. U

ni ted Stat es , 28 4 U . S . 29 9, 30 4 (19 32 ). S ec t i on 18 55 re qu i re s p r o o f th a t ad e f

e n d a n t w i l l

f ul l y s ta rte d af

ir e ; § 2 6 1 .5 2 ( a ) d o e s n o t. U ni ted Stat es v. V e lte , 33 1 F . 3d 67 3, 67 7 n . 1 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). S ec t i on 26 1. 52 (a ) r equi re s proof that ad e f e n d a n t v io la te d as p e c if ic F o r e s t S e rv ic e p r o h ib itio n a g a in s t s e ttin g f ir e s ; § 1 8 5 5 d o e s n o t. I

d. at67 7-78 . B ut cher ’ s argum entthat§ 1 85 5 i s al es se r- i ncl ud ed of f e ns e of 36 C . F . R . § 261. 5( e ) i s e qua l l y una va i l i ng. S e c t i on 1855 r e qui r e s pr oof of a n e l e m e ntnotf

ound i n § 261. 5( e ) , na m e l y tha taf i r e be s t a rt e d “ w i thout au th o r ity .” W e f

in d n o e rr o r , le t a lo n e p la in e rr o r , in B u tc h e r ’s m u ltip le 1 co n v i ct i o n s.3

W e r evi ew the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of the am ou ntof l oss f or cl ear e rr o r . U ni te d State s v . Santos , 52 7 F . 3d 10 03 , 10 06 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). T he di stri ct c ourtde t e rm i ne d tha tB ut c he rw a s r e s pons i bl e f or$228, 000 i n l os s e s , one of se vera l al t ernat i ve am ou nt s propo se d b y B ut cherhi m se l f. W e are no tpers uaded by B ut c he r ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d i n i nc l udi ng f i r e s uppr e s s i on c o s ts in th e lo s s c a lc u la tio n . T h e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d to c onc l ude tha tB ut c he rkne w ors houl d ha ve know n tha tf i r e s uppr e s s i on e x p e n d itu r e s w e r e ar e a s o n ab ly f o r e s e e ab le r e s u lt o f

h is a c tio n s . See U

ni ted Stat es v. W a rr , 53 0 F . 3d 11 52 , 11 58 -59 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). B u tc h e r ’s c o n te n tio n th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p e rm is s ib ly e n h a n c e d h is s e n te n c e b a s e d o n alo s s a m o u n t n o t d e te rm in e d b y th e ju ry is s q u a r e ly f o r e c lo s e d . See U ni ted Stat es v. Hi ckey , 580 F . 3d 922, 932 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . T he s a m e i s true of B u tc h e r ’s a s - ap p lie d S ix th A m e n d m e n t c h a lle n g e to h is s e n te n c e . See U ni ted S ta te s v . T

r e a dw e ll , 5 9 3 F .3 d 9 9 0 , 1 0 1 6 - 1 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . F i na l l y , w e r e

j e c tB ut c he r ’ s a r gum e nttha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by i ncl ud i ng fi re supp re ss i on cost s i n the re st i tut i on order. T he F ores tS ervi ce i ncurred the supp re ss i on cost s a s adi re ctre sul tof B ut cher ’ s off ense s. T he causal c h a i n d o e s “ n o te x t e n d s o f a r , i n t e rms o f

th e f a c t s o rth e t i me s p a n , a s t o b e c o me4

1. A tthe t i m e of hi s c on vi ct i on , 36 C . F . R . § 2 61 . 5(e) m er el y prohi bi t ed “ [a ] l l ow i ng a f

i re t o esc ape f

rom control . ” S ub se qu ent l y, the prov i si on w as a m e n d e d to p r o h ib it “[ c ]au s in g a n d f a ilin g to m a in ta in c o n tr o l o f af ir e th a t is n o t a pr e s c r i be d f

i r e tha tda m a ge s the N a t i ona l F or e s tS y s t e m . ” W e do nota ddr e s s the qu es t i on of w hether the am ended p rovi si on ra i se s dou bl e j eopardy i ss ues w hen pa i r e d w i th ac onvi c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 1855. un re as on abl e. ” U

ni ted Stat es v. G am m a T ec h Indus. , Inc. , 2 6 5 F .3 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 8 ( 9 th C i r. 20 01 ). AF F I RME D.