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,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e ,
v. FLAVIO TAVER

AS, AKA Shorty , AKA Fla vio Ta ve ra s, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 22-50109

D.C . No. 3:15-c r-00596-B EN-2

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

M a y 15, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD, N.R . SM ITH, a nd M ENDOZA, C irc uit Judge s. Afte r ple a ding guilty

to c onspiring to ship c oc a ine unde r 21 U.S.C

. §§ 841(a )(1) a n d 846, Fla v io Ta ve ra s a ppe a l s his se nte nc e of 108 m onths in

c ustody a nd 20 y e a rs of supe rvise d re le a se , a sse rting five proc e dura l e rrors. W e 

# F IL ED

MAY 17 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we va c a te the se nte nc e a nd re m a nd for re se nte nc i ng. B e c a use Ta ve ra s did not obje c t during se nte nc ing a s to the issue s ra ise d on

a ppe a l, we re vie w for pla in e rror. Unite d State s v . C ampbe ll , 937 F.3d 1254, 1256–57 (9th C ir. 2019). “ Unde r pla in-e rror re vie w, re ve rsa l is pe rm itte d only whe n the re is (1) e rror tha t is (2) pla in, (3) a ffe c ts substa ntia l rights, a

nd (4)

se riously a ffe c ts the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re p uta tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Unite d State s v . C ruz , 554 F.3d 840, 845 (9th C ir. 2009) (inte rna l quota t ion m a rks om itte d). “ An e rror c a nnot be pla in whe re the re is no c ontrolling

a uthority on point a

nd whe re the m ost c lose ly a na logous pre c e de nt le a d s to

c onflic ting re sults.” Unite d State s v . De La Fue nte , 353 F.3d 766, 769 (9th C ir. 2003). A se nte nc ing e rror a ffe c ts a de fe nda nt’ s substa

ntia l rights “ whe n the re is a

re a s ona ble proba bility tha t he would ha

ve re c e ive d a

diffe re nt se nte nc e ha d

the distric t c o urt not e rre d. The de fe nda nt be a rs the burde n of showing a re a sona ble proba b ility tha t he would ha

ve re c e ive d a

diffe re nt se nte nc e a

bse nt the e rror.” Unite d State s v . C hriste nse n , 732 F.3d 1094, 1102 (9th C i r. 2013) (c ita t ions

om i tte d). 1. Ta v e ra s ’ s a rgum e nt tha t the d istric t c ourt m a nipula te d the Se nte nc ing Guide line s fa ils. As in Unite d S tate s v . Rosale

s -Gonzale

s , the se nte nc ing judge he re

2sta

te d his te nta tive Guide line ra nge “ from the outse t.” 801 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th C ir. 2015). He sa id tha t he d id not “ se e a ny thing in t his c a se or in this p l e a a gre e m e nt tha t

wa rra n ts a

four-le ve l re duc tion unde r” § 5K2.0 of the Guide line s. The distric t c ourt d i d n ot e rrone ously c a lc ula t e the offe nse le v e l, e nga ge in re c a lc ula tion, or gra nt an

a m e nde d g o ver n m e nt de p a rture re c om

m e nda tion to a c hie ve its i nitia l Guide line s

ra nge . C f. Unite d State

s v . Le e , 725 F.3d 1159, 1 164 (9th C ir. 2013). M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt re a sona

bly c onc l ude d tha t the c irc um sta nc e s did not wa rra n t a downwa rd de pa rture unde r § 5 K 2

. 0 , be c a use , a s the c ourt e xpla ine d, T a ve ra s h a s a history of

a bsc onding from

supe rvise d re le a se . 2

. T h e d i s t ric t c ourt did not p la inly e rr by s ta ting tha t it wa s “ willing to go

a long with” the gove rnm e n t’ s § 5K1.1 re c om m e nda tion. The gove rnm e nt re que ste d

a four-le ve l re d

uc t ion unde r § 5K1.1, while Ta ve ra s re que ste d a five -le ve l re duc tion. The distric t c ourt he a rd a rgum e nt from b oth pa rtie s, a nd ultim a te ly s i ded w i th the gove rnm e nt. This proc e dure a nd outc om e w e re not pla inly e rrone ous. Se e Unite d State s v . Ame zc ua-Vasque

z , 567 F.3d 1050, 1053–54 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ [A] se nte nc ing judge doe s not a

b u se h is disc re t ion whe n he liste ns to the de fe n da nt’ s a rgum e nts a

n d the n sim ply finds t

he c irc um sta

nc e s insuffic ie nt to w a rra nt a se nte nc e lowe r tha n the Guide line s ra nge .” (c le a ne d up)); se e also Unite d S tate s v . Lane y , 189 F.3d 954, 964 ( 9 t h C ir. 1999). In a ddition, Ta ve ra s fa ile d t o de m onstra te tha t the a sse rte d e rror

3a ffe c te d his s ubsta ntia l rights, be c a

use he d id n ot show “ a re a sona ble proba bility tha t he would ha ve re c e ive d a d iffe re nt se nte nc e a b se n t the e rror.” C

hriste nse n , 732 F.3d

a t 1102. 3. The d i stric t c ourt d i d not pla inly e rr by s t at i n g tha t the gove rnm e nt “ c ould ha ve file d a n” e nha

nc e m e nt u nde r 21 U.S.C

. § 8 51 “ i n t h i s ca se . ” Ta ve ra s ha s not ide n tifie d a ny “ on p oint” a nd “ c ontrolling” a

uthority prohibiting distric t c ourts from

c onside ring prose c utors’ ch ar ging de c isions d uring se nte nc ing. D e La Fue nte , 353 F.3d a t 769; se e Unite d State s v . Fitc h , 659 F.3d 788, 795 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha t

se nte nc ing judge s m a y c onside r unc ha rge d c o nduc t during s en t en c ing). Furthe r, Ta ve ra s ha s not de m onstra te d tha t the distric t c ourt’ s s ingle re fe re n c e to the possibility of a n e nha

n c e m e nt c ha

rge a ffe c te d his substa

ntia l r i ghts. C

hriste nse n , 732 F.3d a t 1102. 4. Ta ve ra s’ s a rgum e nt tha t “ the di st r i ct c ourt provide d no e xpla na tion wha tsoe v e r” for the low-e nd c ustodia l se nte n c e a nd the a bove -Guide line s s upe rvise d

re le a se s e nte nc e la c k s m e rit. T he se nte nc ing judge e xpla ine d tha t he wa s “ c onc e rne d

a bo u t a co u ple things,” inc l uding tha t (1) “ Ta v e ra s c om m itte d t his offe n se while he

w as o n s u p e rvise d re le a se for a nothe r offe n se , a nothe r d rug offe n se ;” (2) Ta ve ra s

“ wa s a lso found to ha ve use d we a pons;” (3) Ta ve ra s “ wa s subse que ntly found to a lso ha ve a ssa ult we a pons;” a nd (4) tha t “ the c om bina tion of drugs a nd gu n s ” is “ one of

4the m os t d an g er o u s things.” The distric t c ourt’ s e xpla na t ion wa s longe r a nd m ore de ta ile d tha

n t h e e xpla na tions in Unite d State

s v . Le o nard , 4 83 F.3d 635, 637 (9th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (e xpla ining tha t the de fe nda nt “ viola t[e d] e ve ry a spe c t of wha t is inte nde d to be a c c o m plishe d by supe rvise d re le a se ” a n d h a d “ not c om

plie d in a n y se nse of the word with the obliga

tions of supe rvise d re le a se ” ) a nd Unite d State s v . Musa , 2 20 F.3d 1096 , 1 1 0 0 (9th C i r. 2 000) (noting tha t t he de fe nda

nt wa s “ a da

nge r to the

c om m unity ” ), b oth of w hic h re sulte d in a bove -Guide line s se n ten ces . Ac c o rdingly , the d istric t c o urt did not pla inly e rr. 5. A distric t c ourt m a y not “ im pose a se nte n c e to run c onse c utive ly to a nothe r fe de ra l se nte nc e tha t ha s y e t to be im pose d.” Unite d State

s v . Monte

s-Ruiz , 7 45 F.3d 1286, 1293 (9th C ir. 2014). He re , the distric t c ourt i m pose d a se n te nc e tha t wa s to run

“ c o nse c utive to an y se nte nc e tha t may be impose d a s a re sult of a viola tion of supe rvise d re le a se ” i n t h e S o uthe rn Distric t of Ne w York, No. 1:91-C R -00147. On its fa c e , t he se nte nc e ra n a foul of Monte s-Ruiz

. Th e gove rnm e nt a rgue s tha t the

se nte nc e im

pose d did n o t a c tua lly run c onse c utive ly t o a future fe de ra l se nte nc e , be c a use the Ne w York fe de ra l se nte nc e ha d a lre a dy te rm ina te d by the tim e the distric t

c ourt he re im

pose d its se nte nc e . Although this m a y be the c a s e , ba se d on our re vie w of the re c ord, the possi b i l it y r em a ins tha t the s e nte nc e im pose d i n the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w Y ork ha d te rm ina te d a fte r the insta n t se nte nc e wa s im

pose d, so we

5c hoose t o e rr on the side of c a ution. Ac c ordingly , we va c a te t he se nte n c e a

n d re m a n d
to t he distric t c o u rt for re se nte nc ing c onsiste n t with Monte s-Ruiz a nd this d isposition. SE NT E NCE V ACAT E D; RE M ANDE D FO R RE SE NT E NCING

.

6