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 ER IC A, Plaintiff-Appe lle e , v. ARM ANDO C AZAREZ-SANTOS, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt-Pe t itione r. Nos. 15-50039, 15-50041 a nd 15-55216 D.C . Nos. 3:14-c r-01830-LAB -1 3:12-c r-03447-LAB -2 3:14-c v-02306-LAB

M EM O R ANDUM * Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 3, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B YB EE a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STEIN, * * Distric t Judge . Appe lla nt-pe titione r Arm ando C a z are z -Santos a ppe a ls from thre e distric t c ourt orde rs: (1) the de nia l of his 28 U.S.C . § 2255 pe tition, whic h sought to vac ate his 2012 c onvic tion for a lie n sm uggling on the ba sis of ine ffe c tive a s sista nc e of 

# FIL ED JUL 08 2016 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. ** The Honora

ble Sidne y

H. Ste in, Distric t

Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.c ounse l; (2) the se nte nc e on the viola tion of supe rvise d re le a s e im pose d on his 2012 a lie n-sm

uggling c onvic tion; a

nd (3) the fina l judgm e nt a nd c om m itm e nt for his 2014 ille ga l-re e ntry

c onvic tion on the

grounds tha

t his finge rprints should ha ve be e n suppre sse d. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua n t to 28 U.S.C . §§ 2253, 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C . § 3742. W e re vie w d e nov o both a

distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a Se c tion 2255 pe tition on tim

e line s s grounds, Unite d State s v . Buc k le s , 647 F.3d 883, 887 (9th C ir. 2011), a s we ll a s a de nia l of a

m otion to suppre ss, Unite d State s v . Moore , 770 F.3d 809, 812 (9th C ir. 2014). W e re vie w a distric t c ourt’ s se nte nc i ng de c ision for a

buse of disc re tion. Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007); Unite d State s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba n c ). Unde rly ing fa c t ua l findings a

re re vie we d for c le ar e rror. S e e Unite d State s v . Hink s on , 585 F.3d 1247, 1259 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). W e a ffirm . 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly de nie d C a z are z ’ s Se c tion 2255 pe tition on the grounds tha

t it wa s not tim e ly . In orde r for the lim ita t ions pe riod to sta

rt running on suc h a pe tition, the

pe titione r is not re quire d to know thele ga l c onse que nc e s of the fa c ts re le va

nt to his c la im ; he is only re quire d to know the

fa c ts. Hasan v . Galaza , 254 F.3d 1150, 1154 & n.3 (9th C ir. 2001); se e also 28 U.S.C . § 2255(f)(4). C a z are z wa s on inquiry notic e of his ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l c la im by no la te r tha n June 21, 2013, when he wa s se rve d with a notic e to a

ppe ar. 2Se e Hasan , 254 F.3d at 1154 (“ [A] pe titione r m u st ha ve disc ove re d (or with the e xe rc ise of due dilige nc e c ould ha ve disc ove re d) fa c ts sugge sting both unre a s ona

ble pe rform anc e a nd re sulting pre judic e .” ). C a z are z kne w tha t he wa s not a n Am e ric an c itiz e n; that Sc ott Pa c tor, his a ttorne y , ha d a dvise d

him to a c c e pt the p le a a gre e m e nt; that prior to his ple a he aring his a

ttorne y ha d a dvise d him

tha t

“ y o u know, y ou’ re like ly

to be de porte d , ne ve r sa

y ne ve r” ; that he ple a d e d guilty to an a g grav ate d fe lony ; that Pa c tor subse que ntly sta t e d at his se nte nc ing he aring tha t C a z are zwa s “ s om e one who is not a hundre d pe rc e nt going to be de porte d but de finite ly going to be

in de porta

tion proc e e dings” ; a

nd tha t he wa s in fa c t pla c e d in re m ova l proc e e d ings a

n d im m igration c ustody . The se fa c t s put C a z a

re z on inquiry

notic e to look into whe

the r his re m ova l wa s m o re like ly

tha n Pa c tor ha d

a dvise d him

whe n c ounse l ing him

to a c c e pt the ple a a gre e m e nt. Inde e d, in Oc tobe r 2013, C a z are z hire d a se pa ra te c rim ina l attorne y , Dav id Horwitz , to look into the possibility

of va c ating his 2012 a

lie nsm uggling c onvic tion. Horwitz a dvise d C a z are z tha

t the re wa s nothing C a z are z c ould do. C a z are z urge s tha

t Horwitz ’ s a dvic e trigge re d e quita ble tolling. It did not. The distric t c ourt prope rly found tha

t while Horwitz ’ s a dvic e wa s que stiona ble , his re pre se ntation did not rise to the le v e l of “ e x tra ordina ry c i rc um sta

nc e s” im pe ding 3C a z are zfrom filing a tim e ly pe tition. C

f . Holland v . Florida , 560 U.S. 631, 651–52 (2010). Ac c ordingly , C a z are z is not e ntitle d to e quita ble tolling, a

nd the sta tute of lim ita tions on C a z are z ’ s pe t ition e xpire d pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 2255(f)(4) on June 23, 2014 a

t the late st— one y e ar a fte r C a z are z wa s se rve d with his notic e to a ppe ar. 1 C a z are z m isse d the de a dline by , at the ve ry le a st, a

pproxim ate ly

thre e m onths be c a

use his Se c tion 2255 pe tition wa s file d on Se pte m be r 29, 2014. 2. B e c a use C a z are z ’ s 2012 a lie n -sm uggling c onvic tion sta

nds, we a ffirm

the distric t c o urt’ s se nte nc e on C a z are z ’ s viola tion of supe rvise d re le a se im pose d on his 2012 c onvic tion. Thedistric t c ourt’ s se nte nc e on the viola tion of supe rvise d re le a se is not unre a s ona

ble . Se e Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly c om pe lle d C a z are z to produc e a se c ond se t of finge rprints a

nd de e m e d those prints a dm issibleon C a z are z ’ s 2014 ille ga l-re e ntry c ha rge , e ve n though the

distric t c ourt suppre sse d the first se t of C a z are z ’ s finge rprints a s c o lle c te d

in viola tion of his Fourth Am

e n dm e nt rights.

1 The date e xa c t ly

one y e ar a fte r C a z are z wa s se rve d, June 21, 2014, fe ll on a Sa turda y . Ac c ordingly , the de a dline for filing thepe tition would ha ve be e n the following M onda

y , June 23, 2014. Se e Fe d. R . C iv. P. 6(a )(1)(C ); R ule s 1(b) & 12 of the R u le s Gove rning Se c tion 2254 &2255 C a se s in the Unite d State s Distric t C ourts. 4This C irc u it ha s c o n siste n tly he ld tha t e v e n if the gove rnm e nt be c om e s aware of a

de fe nda n t’ s ide ntity

sole ly through finge rprints c olle c te d a s the re sult of an ille ga l a

rre st a nd ga t he re d in pa

rt to inve stiga

t e whe the r the de fe nda

n t is in the c ountry ille ga lly , the gove rnm e nt m ay none the le ss introduc e a ne w se t of finge rprints ta

ke n a s e vide nc e of the de fe nda nt’ s ide ntity . S

e e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Garc ia-Be ltran , 443 F.3d 1126, 1133–34 (9th C i r. 2006); Unite d State s v . OrtizHe rnande z , 427 F.3d 567, 577 (9th C ir. 2005) (pe r c uriam ). M o re ove r, the ne w se t of finge rprints, ta

ke n for ide ntific ation purpose s , m ay be a dm itte d a long with the de fe nda n t’ s offic ia l file , inc luding his c rim ina l a nd im m igration re c ord. Se e

, e .g. , Garc ia-Be ltran , 443 F.3d a t 1134; Ortiz-He r

nande z , 427 F.3d a

t 577; Unite d State

s v . Orozc o-Ric o , 589 F.2d 433, 435 (9th C ir. 1978). TheGove rnm e nt c olle c te d a se c o nd se t of C a z are z ’ s finge rprints a s e vide nc e of his ide ntity

— not for inve stiga tory purpose s— and thus the se finge rprints a re a dm issible toge t

he r with his offic ia l re c ord. AFFIRM E D.

5