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. 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. REN E O SW A LD CO BA R, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10322 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - C R - 0 0 0 1 4 - J C MR JJ -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

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. REN E O SW A LD CO BA R, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10545 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 -cr-0 0 0 1 4 -JC M -R JJ1

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. N o. 10- 10551 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 -cr-0 0 0 1 4 -JC M -R JJ2 

# FI LED FEB 21 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

L UI S AN GE L GO NZ AL E Z - L AR GO , A K A L uc ho, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. A pp ea l s f

rom 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 J a m e s C . M a ha n, 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 F e brua ry 13, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G R A B E R , B E R Z O N , an d T A L L M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. D ef endant -A pp el l antR ene O sw al d C ob arappeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s c l ai m of se nt enci ng entrapm ent , as w el l as i t s deni al of hi s m ot i on for anew tr i a l . D e f

e nda nt - A ppe l l a ntL ui s A nge l G onz a l e z - L a r go j oi ns i n C oba r ’ s appe a l of th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f th e mo t i o n f

o ra n e w tr i a l . W e a f

f i rm. 1. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s “ f or ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rc le a re rr o r .” U

ni ted S ta tes v. G a rro , 5 1 7 F .3 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . A s a pr e l i m i na ry m a tt e r , C oba ra r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o m a ke s u f f ic ie n t f a c tu a l f in d in g s s u p p o r tin g its d e n ia l o f h is s e n te n c in g e n tr ap m e n t c la im . W e di s a gr e e . U pon r e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, w e ha ve no di f f i c ul ty “ a s c e r t a i n[ i ng] w h a t f a c ts [ th e d is tr ic t c o u r t] r e lie d u p o n in f in d in g th a t [ C o b a r ] d id n o t a d e q u a te ly- 3-

prov e s ent enci ng entrapm ent . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . N

a r a n jo , 52 F . 3d 24 5, 25 1 (9th C i r. 19 95 ). O n the m e r i t s , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng C oba r ’ s s e nt e nc i ng e ntr apm e ntc l a i m . T o s uc c e e d on s uc h a c l a i m , a de f e nda nt m ustshow “ by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence: 1) the l ac k o f i nt entt o p rodu ce the qua nt i ty of

drugs ; a nd 2) the l a c k of c apabi l i ty t o pr oduc e the qua nt i ty of drug s. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . Me

jia , 55 9 F . 3d 11 13 , 11 18 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). C ob arfa i l ed t o d o ei ther. T he r e c or d r e ve a l s s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e tha tC oba rha d both the “ i nt e nt ” a nd the “ c apabi l i ty ” t o pr oduc e the qua nt i ty of drugs f orw hi c h he w a s c onvi c t e d. F or ex am p l e, th ere w ere m o re th an tw en ty p h o n e cal l s b etw een C o b ar an d th o se i nvol ve d i n drug tr a f

f i c ki ng, de m ons tr a t i ng w ha tthe di s tr i c tc our tj udge char ac t er i ze d as a“ re m arkabl e a ff i ni ty a nd conn ec t i on t o v ar i ou s peopl e w ho w er e i nv ol ved i n d rug tra ff

i cki ng . ” O ver the course of hi s dea l i ng s w i th an u nd er cover pol i c e of f i c e r , C oba rr e ve a l e d hi m s e l f t o be i n c ont a c tw i th a tl e a s tthr e e drug su p p l i ers, w i th w h o m h e tri ed t o o rch estrat e d ru g tran sact i o n s. In addi t i on , w hen the un derc ov eroffi ce r s ug gest ed thathe and C ob ar ne got i a t e f

or400 ki l ogr a m s of

c oc a i ne , C oba rr e s ponde d by s t a t i ng tha the ha d “ up t o 1, 000 ki l os of

c oc a i ne a va i l abl e . ” I tw a s the of f i c e rw ho t ol d C oba rt o “ s l ow- 4-

dow n” a nd l i m i t e d the de a l t o 400 ki l ogr a m s . I f a ny thi ng, the r e c or d s ugge s t s not tha tthe G ove rnm e nti nduc e d C oba rt o s e l l a l a r ge rqua nt i ty of drugs tha n he othe rw i s e w oul d ha ve but , t o the c ontr a ry , tha ti tr e duc e d the s c a l e of the tra nsac t i on fr om thatw hi ch C ob arw as prepar ed t o u nd ert ake. T hatci rc um st ance d o e s n o t m a k e f

o ra p la u s ib le c la im o f

s e n te n c in g e n tr ap m e n t. 2. “ A di stri ctcourtm ustadequat el y e xp l ai n i t s dec i si on -m aki ng proces s s o an appel l at e c ou rtca n eng age i n m ea ni ng ful re vi ew . ” A m . B road . C os. v. Mi l l er , 550 F . 3d 78 6, 78 8 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( per c uri am ). C ob arar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt f a i l e d t o do s o i n de ny i ng hi s m ot i on f ora ne w tr i a l ba s e d on the de a c t i va t i on of c o n f id e n tia l in f

o rm a n t C a r lo s A g u ila r - A lv a r e z . W e d is a g r e e . A l though the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rde ny i ng C oba r ’ s m ot i on w a s t e r s e , the j udge ’ s e xt e ns i ve c om m e nt s dur i ng the he a r i ng m a ke c l e a rhi s r e a s ons f orthe deni al . T he j ud ge, w ho w as the fi nd erof fa ctatC ob ar ’ s bench tri al , expl ai ned at th e h e a r in g th a t A g u ila r - A lv a r e z ’s c r e d ib ility w a s d e e p ly s u s p e c t a n d th a t h is r o le i n C oba r ’ s tr i a l w a s m i nor . F ur the rm or e , i n hi s w r i tt e n or de r , the j udge f ound “ no r e l a t i ons hi p a nd no pa r a l l e l s be tw e e n the c a s e f orw hi c h the c onf

i de nt i a l i nf

orm a nt w a s de a c t i va t e d a nd” C oba r ’ s c a s e . E vi de nc e of A gui l a r - A l va r e z ’ s de a c t i va t i on w a s thus notm a t e r i a l t o the tr i a l , norw oul d i tha ve a f f e c t e d the j udge ’ s a s s e s s m e nt of A gu i l ar -A l vare z’ s c re di bi l i ty. T he deni al of C ob ar ’ s m ot i on for anew tri al w as- 5-

th e r e f o r e n o t a n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . Se e U

ni te d State s v . H

ar r i ngton , 410 F . 3d 5 9 8 , 6 0 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A gu i l ar -A l vare z pl ay ed even l es s of arol e i n the prosecut i on of G on za l ez L a r g o th a n h e d id in C o b a r ’s tr ia l. T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g G o n z a le z - L a r g o ’s m o tio n f o ra n e w tr ia l. AF F I R ME D.