The Honor able John G. Koeltl, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * New Y ork, sitting by

desig nation. 08-4354-c r USA v. Ba

rrios
U

N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P RE CE DE N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY O RDE R FI L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE PR O C EDU R E 32 . 1 AN D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D E R IN A DO C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OTAT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORDE R” ) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O RDE R M US T S E RVE A COP Y OF I T ON ANY PA R TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 9 day of th Marc h, two thousand ten. Pr e se nt: ROBERT A. K ATZ MANN, R E E N ARA G G I,

Circuit Judges , J O HN G
. K O E LT L,

District Judge
. *

________________________________________________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appellee ,

v. No. 08-4354-c r RAFAEL BA RRI OS, De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt.

________________________________________________ F or De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt: T I NA S CHNEI DER , Por tla nd , M E-2-

For Appellee : D AVI D A. O’N E IL , Assistant to the Sol icitor Gene ral (Katherine Polk Fa illa, Assistant United States Attorney , on the brief ) for Preet B hara

ra, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ne w York, N ew Yor k, NY
Appea l from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ne w York (Patterson, J. ). ON CO NSI DE RA TIO N W HEREOF , i ti s h e r e b y OR DE RE D , AD JU DG ED , and DE CREED that th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED in p art , VACATED in p art , and RE M AN DE D
. Def endant- Appellant Rafa el B arr ios was convicte d followinga jury trial of possession with intent to dis tribute coc aine, a nd possessing a

firea rm in further ance of, and c arr ying the fi re arm duri ngand

in r e latio n to , a

dr ugtr a ff ic kin gc ri me . H e wa s se nte nc e d to 83 months ’ imprisonment, followed by two terms of thre e year s’ supervise d rele ase to run c onsecutively . On appea l, Ba

rrios ar gues that the district cour t’s judgme nt should be reve rsed be cause the district court (Cote, J. ) wro ng ly

de nie d h is m oti on

to s up pr e ss t

he fr uit s o f t he inv e nto ry

se arc h o f h is vehicle that yielded the c ocaine . We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with the fac ts and proce dural history of the c ase. Ba rrios ar gues that the impoundment of his vehicle , which pre cede d the inventory sear ch, vio late d th e F ourt

h A me ndme nt b e c a

us e ve hic le imp oundme nts un de r t he po lic e c omm

un ity
car etakingfunction must be made pur suant to standardized proc edure s and there is no evidence that st and ard ize d p ro c e dure s w e re fo llo we d in thi s c a se . B e c a

us e B arr ios did

no t make thi s argument to the district court, we revie w his claim for pla in error
. See Fe d. R. Crim. P . 52(b); United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). Under pla in error revie w, we ma

y notice-3-

an er ror only if it is plain and affe cts the substantial rig hts of the def endant. Olano , 507 U.S. at 73 2. “ An e rr or is p la in i f t

he ru lin gwa s c ontr ary

to l aw that w a s c le arl y

e sta bli sh e d b y

the tim e of the a ppeal.” Un ite d S

tates v . P olo uiz

zi , 564 F.3d 142, 156 ( 2d Cir. 2009) (interna l quotation
mark s o mitte d) . We c on c lud e that e ve n if the re we re e rr or

he re , a qu e sti on we do no t r e a c h, it
wo uld no t be pla in b e c a

us e the law o f t

his Court do e s n ot c le arl y

e sta bli shthat ve hic le imp oundme nts un de r t

he po lic e c omm

un ity c are takin gfu

nc tio n mu st b e ma de purs ua nt t o sta nd ard ize d p ro c e dure s. Ind e e d, the re is a sp lit amon gthe c ir c uit s o n th is q ue sti on , a nd thi s Court has not y et addr essed it. Com pa re United States v. Proc tor , 4 89 F .3 d 1 34 8, 13 54 (D .C. Cir. 2007) (re quiringstandardized proc edure s to be followed) , Un ite d S tates v . P e tty , 367 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 2004) (same ), and United States v. Duguay , 93 F.3d 346, 351 ( 7th Cir. 1996) (same), with Un ite d S tates v . S mi th , 522 F.3d 305, 312 ( 3d Cir. 2008) (dec lining to re quire standardized proc edure s), and United Sta te s v . Co c c ia , 446 F.3d 233, 239 ( 1st Cir. 2006) (same)
. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm B arr ios’s conviction. Ba rrios wa s sentence d to two terms of three y ear s’ supervise d rele ase to run c on se c uti v e ly followinghis term of imprisonment. By statute, “[t] he ter

m of supervised r elea se commenc es on the da y the pe rs on

is r e le a se d f

ro m im pr iso nme nt a

nd ru ns c on c urre ntl

ywith any

Fe dera l, State, or loca l term of probation or supervised r elea se or pa role for another offe nse to which the pe rson is subject duringthe term of supe rvised re lease .” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (empha sis added). The parties a g ree that this was plain err or, althoug h Ba rrios had not initially

raised it. We there fore
rema nd his case to the district c ourt for the sole purpose of enter ing a

corr ecte d judgme nt specify ing that the two terms of super vised rele ase a

re to run c oncurr ently
. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f) (1).-4-

F or the fo re g oin gre a so ns , B arr ios ’s c onvic tio n is AF F IRM ED ; B arr ios ’s se nte nc e is VACATED i n s o f

ar a s i tr e qu i r e s h i mt o s e r

v e tw o t e r m s o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e c o n s e c u t i v e l y;
and we re mand

fo r r e se nte nc ing . Jud g me nt AF F IRM ED in part, VACATED in part, and REMAND ED. FOR THE COURT: CA TH ERI

NE O’ HA GA

N WO L F E, CL ERK