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 by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yf i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2)(C ). 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. J E S US J OS E P E R E Z AN DR AD E , AK A J or ge B r a vo- B r a vo, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 35113 D C N o . 3 : 9 8 c r - 0 0 5 6 MA 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

O r e gon M a l c ol m F . M a r s h, S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 7, 2013 ** P ort l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: T A S H IM A , C L IF T O N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. 

# FI LED APR02 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSIn the ca se capt i on , A pp el l antappears as Je sus J ose P er ez -A nd ra de, 1 buti n hi s s ubm i s s i ons on appe a l , A ppe l l a ntr e pr e s e nt s tha thi s na m e i s J or ge B ra vo -B ra vo and thathi s a l i as i s J es us A nd ra de-P er ez . W e r ef ert o h i m si m pl y a s “A p p e lla n t.”

- 2- D ef endant -A pp el l antJorge B ra vo -B ra vo (a/k/ a J es us A nd ra dé-P er ez ) 1 appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on for aw ri tof a u d ita q u e r e la , o rin the al t ernat i ve, a w ri tof c o r a m n o b is . A ppe l l a nts e e ks t o va c a t e hi s 1998 c onvi c t i on f

orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , f orw hi c h he has a l re ady c om pl et ed the se nt ence . H e c on t ends thathe i s e nt i t l ed t o rel i ef be c aus e hi s s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s f orthe 1998 c onvi c t i on w e r e ba s e d, i n pa rt , on a 1 9 9 5 s ta te c o u rt c o n v ic tio n f o rc o n s p ir a c yto p o s s e s s c o c a in e f o rs a le . I n 2 0 1 0 , a C a l i f orni ac ourtva c a t e d the 1995 c onvi c t i on a nd, i n i t s pl a c e , e nt e r e d ac onvi c t i on for the l es se r c harge of m er e posse ss i on of a c on trol l ed subst ance . We r e v i e w de no vo a di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a pet i t i on for aw ri tof a u d ita q u e r e la or c o r a m n o b is . Se e U ni te d State s v . H

ovs e pi an , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 1 4 4 , 1 1 5 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e n b a n c ) ; M atus-L ev a v. U

ni ted Stat es , 28 7 F . 3d 75 8, 76 0 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. 1. A party s ee ki ng a w ri tof a u d ita q u e r e la m ustdem on stra t e “ a l egal defe cti n the conv i ct i on , or i n the se nt ence w hi ch t ai nt s the conv i ct i on . ” D oe v. I NS , 12 0 F . 3d 20 0, 20 3 (9th C i r. 19 97 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed). H er e,- 3-

A pp el l anthas notdem on stra t ed a s uffi ci entpo ss i bi l i ty of pre j ud i ce t o j ust i fy i s s u a n c e o f

th e w r i t . A p p e l l a n ta l mo s tc e rt a i n l yw o u l d h a v e r e c e i v e d th e s a me s e nt e nc e on the 1998 c onvi c t i on e ve n ha d the 1995 c onvi c t i on be e n a s i ts t a nds to d a y . A ppe l l a ntr e c e i ve d thr e e c r i m i na l hi s t orypoi nt s f orthe or i gi na l 1995 conv i ct i on , w hi ch l ed t o an agg re gat e c ri m i nal hi st ory s core of ni ne. H ad the new 19 95 conv i ct i on been i n p l ac e, he w ou l d h ave r ec ei ved o nl y tw o cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s be c aus e the s e nt e nc e f orthe ne w c onvi c t i on w a s l e s s tha n one y e a ra nd one m o n th . See U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(a) -( b) (199 8). H ow ever , hi s a gg re gat e c ri m i nal h i s t o rys c o r e w o u l d h a v e b e e n e i g h t , w h i c h w o u l d h a v e p r o d u c e d th e s a me c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e goryof I V a nd a n i de nt i c a l gui de l i ne s r a nge of 84- 105 m o n th s . See i d. § 5 A . T h e f a c t th a t, in c a lc u la tin g A p p e lla n t’s s e n te n c e in 1 9 9 8 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a c tu a llylo w e r e d A p p e lla n t’s c r im in a l h is to ryc a te g o ryf r o m I V to II I, and sent ence d h i m t o the l ow end o f the re sul t i ng gu i del i nes r ange, on l y f urther d im in is h e s th e p o s s ib ilityth a t th e o u tc o m e w o u ld h a v e b e e n d if f e r e n t. E ve n i f A ppe l l a ntw oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d al e s s e rs e nt e nc e on the 1998 conv i ct i on , there i s l i tt l e possi bi l i ty thatthe cont i nu ed exi st ence of the ori gi nal se nt ence coul d adv er se l y i m pacthi m i n the future. A pp el l antfa ce d a m andat ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e on the 1998 c onvi c t i on of 60 m onths . I f

he ha d r e c e i ve d the- 4-

m andat ory m i ni m um ra ther than the 70 m on ths he di d rec ei ve, he w ou l d st i l l earn thr e e c r i m i na l hi s t orypoi nt s f orthe 1998 c onvi c t i on i n c a l c ul a t i ng hi s s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s f

oranys ubs e que ntof

f e ns e , i nc l udi ng hi s 2012 c onvi c t i on on ac ha r ge o f ille g a l r e - e n try . See U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(a) (201 2). 2. T o w a rr a n t c o r a m n o b is r e l i e f , ape t i t i one rm us tde m ons tr a t e tha t : “ ( 1) am or e us ua l r e m e dyi s nota va i l abl e ; ( 2) va l i d r e a s ons e xi s tf ornota tt a c ki ng the c o n v ic tio n e a r lie r ; ( 3 ) a d v e r s e c o n s e q u e n c e s e x is t f r o m th e c o n v ic tio n s u f

f ic ie n t to sa t i sf y the ca se or controvers y r equi re m entof A rt i cl e I II ; and (4) the error i s of a fund am ent al char ac t er . ” M atus-L ev a , 28 7 F . 3d at76 0. T hese el em ent s are c o n ju n c tiv e ; th u s , f

a ilu r e to m e e t a n yo n e o f th e m is f

a ta l. I d. A ppe l l a ntc a nnot sa t i sf y, ata m i ni m um , the fi nal of these el em ent s. In thi s c on t ext , an error i s “ of a fund am ent al char ac t er ” i f i tre nd er s the ent i re proceedi ng “ i rr egul arand i nv al i d. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . A ddo n iz io , 4 4 2 U .S . 1 7 8 , 1 8 6 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; see a l so B yrnes v . U

ni ted Stat es , 408 F . 2d 599, 602 ( 9th C i r . 1969) . F orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d above , the e rr or i n c a l c ul a t i ng A ppe l l a nt ’ s gui de l i ne s f orthe 1998 c onvi c t i on – a ttr i but abl e t o the r e c o r d o f th e 1 9 9 5 c o n v ic tio n –w a s in c o n s e q u e n tia l a n d th e r e f o r e c a n n o t p o s s ib ly q u a lif y a s f u n d a m e n ta l. T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is AF F I RME D.