N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N

UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT

UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A,

Pla intiff - Appe lle e ,

v.

ANG ELEDITH SAR

AM A YLENE SM ITH

a nd TANA C HR IS LAW R ENC E,

De fe nda

nts - Appe lla

nts. Nos. 14-30080, 14-30081

D.C

. No. 3:12-c r-00538-B R -2

M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a ls from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt
for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding

Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 13, 2015
Portla nd, Ore gon

B e fore : TASHIM A, GILM AN, ** a n d B EA, C i rc u it Judge s.

Ange le dith Sm ith a n d Ta na La wre nc e (De f en d a nts) t orture d a nd kille d Fa ron

Ka la m a on the W a rm Springs India n R e se rva t ion in the fa l l o f 2012. The y e ve ntua lly



# FIL ED

NOV 06 2015

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is n o t a ppropria te for p ublic a tion a

n d is not pre c e de nt ex c e pt a s provide d by

9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e G ilm a n , S en i o r C i rc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.ple a de d guilty to first-de gre e m u rde r. As p a rt of t

he p le a a gre e m e nts, the gove rnm e nt

prom ise d to re c om

m e nd a s e nte n c e of no m ore tha n 35 y e a rs in prison a nd De fe nda nts

a gre e d to re c om

m e nd a se n t e nc e of no l e ss tha n 25 y e a rs in p rison. De fe nda nts

a c c e pte d t h e p le a a gre e m e n ts a nd wa ive d the ir right to a ppe a l a ny a spe c t of the ir

se nte nc e s de s pite t

he ir a c knowle dgm e nt tha t the distric t c ourt would not be bound by

the s e re c om

m e nda tions. The distric t c ourt e nde d up im posing life s e nte nc e s on both

De fe nda nts. It e xpla ine d tha t De fe nda nts’ c onduc t wa s a m ong the w ors t i t h ad

e nc ounte re d a n d t

ha t the gover n m ent’ s re c om m e nde d se nte nc e did not a d e qua te l y

a c c ount for the bruta lity of the ir c rim e

.

B oth De fe nda

nts now a ppe a l. The y first c o n te nd tha t the ir a p pe lla te wa ive rs a re

une nforc e a

ble be c a use t h e gove rnm e nt bre a c he d the p le a a gre e m e nts. Ne xt, the y ra ise

se ve ra l c ha lle nge s t o t

he substa ntive a nd proc e dura l a spe ct s o f t h e d istric t c ourt’ s

se nte nc ing de c i s ion.

A knowing a nd volunta

ry a p pe lla te w a ive r is e nforc e a

b l e e xc e pt in l i m i te d

c irc um s ta nc e s , s uc h a s whe n the g ove r n m en t bre a c he s t he p le a a g re e m e nt tha t

c onta ins t he wa ive r. Unite d State

s v

. J e ronimo

, 3 98 F.3d 1 149, 1153 & n.2 (9th C ir.

2005), o v e rrule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State s v

. C astillo

, 496 F.3d 947, 957 (9th

C ir. 2007) (e n b a nc ). A b re a c h c a n oc c ur whe n the g ove rnm e nt p a y s lip se rvic e to its

obliga tions unde r a ple a a gre e m e nt but ne ve rthe le ss pe rsua d es a distric t c ourt to

- 2-im

pose a ha rshe r se n te nc e tha

n the one c onte m

pla te d by the a gre e m e nt. Unite d State s

v . W hitne y , 673 F.3d 965, 972 (9th C ir. 2012).

In the p re se nt c a s e , the gove rnm e nt a gre e d to re c om m e nd a se nte nc e of no m ore

tha n 35 year s

. A t t

he se n t e nc ing he a ring, howe ve r, the g ove rnm e nt sta te d tha t

De fen d an t s ’ c rim e w a s worse tha n othe r m urde rs tha t ha d re sulte d in 35- or 40-y e a r

se nte nc e s. The gove rnm e nt a l s o note d tha t De fe nda nts’ c rim e c ould ha ve c a rrie d the

de a th pe na lty unde r sta

te la w. Fina lly

, the gove rnm e nt sta t e d tha t De fe nda

n ts’ c rim e

wa s o ne of the worst m

urde rs tha t ha d oc curre d in the c ourt’ s judic ia l distric t in a t

le a st the la st 14 y e a rs.

The gove rnm e nt m a inta ins tha t the se sta te m e nts we re sim

ply inte nde d to re but

De fe nda nts’ a rgum e n ts in fa

vor of a 25-y e a r se nte nc e , but the sta te m e nts c ould ha

ve

e a sily i n f l u en c e d the distric t c ourt to im pose a ha rshe r se nte nc e t

ha n tha t whic h the

gove rnm e nt ha d a gre e d to re c om m e nd. U ltim a t e ly

, h owe ve r, we need n o t re solve

whe the r a bre a c h of the p l e a a gre e m e nt oc c u rre d be c a use De fe nda

nts a re not e ntitle d

t o r el i ef e ve n if we c onside r the ir a ppe a l on the m e rits. W e will t he re fore a ssum e

without de c iding t h at a b re a c h did oc c ur a nd tha t De fe nda

nts’ a ppe lla te w a ive rs a re

the re fore une nforc e a

ble

.

On the m e rits, De fe nda

nts first a rgue tha t the gove rnm e nt’ s a lle ge d bre a c h of

the ple a a gre e m e nts justifie s va c a ture of the i r s e nte nc e s. The y did not ra i se this c la im

- 3-be fore t

he distric t c ourt, howe ve r, so the pla in-e rror sta nda rd of re vie w a

pplie s. Se e

Wh i t ne y , 673 F.3d a t 970. De fe nda nts m ust the re fore e sta

blish tha t a “ c le a r o r

o b v i o u s” e rror o c c u rre d a nd t ha t the e rror a ffe c te d the ir “ substa n tia l rights.” S

ee

Puc k e tt v

. Unite d State

s , 556 U.S. 129, 1 3 5 ( 2009). An e rror im pa c ts a de fe nda

nt’ s

“ subst an t i al rights” only if t he re is “ a re a sona

b le proba b ility ” tha t the e rror a ffe c te d

the outc om e of the se nte nc ing. Unite d State s v

. Gonzale

z-Aguilar

, 718 F.3d 1185,

1189 (9th C ir. 2013).

De fe nda nts c a nnot s a tisfy this sta

nda rd be c a use the proc e e dings b e low indic a te

tha t the distric t c ourt re a c h e d its de c ision without re l ia nc e on the gove rnm e nt’ s

sta te m e nts. Inste a d, the c ourt be c a m e fa m ilia r with the bruta lity of De fe nda nts’ c rim e

by p re siding ove r the ir e xte nsive c ha nge -of-ple a h e a rings a nd by re v i ewing

De fe nda nts’ de ta ile d Pre se nte nc e R e ports. The c ourt t hus ha d a n a m

ple inde pe nde nt

ba sis for c o nc lu d i n g t h at De fe nda nts’ c rim e w a rra nte d a h a rsh se nte n c e , le a ving n o

re a s ona ble proba bility tha t t

he gove rnm e nt’ s a lle g e d b re a c h a ff ec te d the outc om e of

the s e nte n c ing.

De fe nda nts ne x t a rgue tha t the d istric t c ourt v iola te d the ir due proc e ss rights

by not providing a dva

n c e notic e of (1) its inte nt to im pose a n upwa

rd s e nte nc i n g

va ria nc e , a nd (2) th e g r o un d s u pon whic h tha t va ria nc e wa s ba se d. T his c ourt’ s

pre c e de nt fore c lose s De fe nda nts’ a rgum e nt. In Unite d State

s v

. C hriste nse n , 732 F.3d

1094 (9th C ir. 2013), this c o urt he ld tha t “ [a ] distric t c ourt is not re quire d— e ithe r by

- 4-the Fe de ra l R u l e s of C rim ina l Proc e dure or by the Due Proc e ss C la use

— to give

a dva nc e notic e o f its inte nt t o im pose a s en t en ce outside the a dvisory Guide line s

ra nge

. ” Id. a t 1102. It a lso c o nc lude d t ha t t he distric t c o u r t “ c om

m itte d no e rror,

m uc h le ss pla in e rror, by fa iling to provide a dva nc e notic e of the pre c ise grounds upon

whic h the 19–m onth upwa rd va ria nc e to [de fe nda

nt’ s ] se nte nc e wa s ba se d .” Id.

In the pre se nt c a s e , the distric t c ourt c onside re d the Guide line s ra nge a nd the n

a pplie d a n u

pwa rd va ria nc e to i m

pose se nte nc e s outside t

ha t ra nge

. C onsiste nt with

C hriste nse n , the c ourt “ [wa s] not re quire d— e ithe r by the Fe de ra l R ule s o f Crim ina l

Proc e d ure or by the Due Proc e ss C la use

— to” g ive “ a dva

nc e notic e of its i nte nt to d o

so,” or to “ provide a dva

nc e notic e of the p re c ise grounds upon whic h the

. . . upwa rd

va ria nc e

. . . wa s ba se d.” Id

. The re wa s thus no e rror e ntitling De fe nda nts to re lie f.

De fe nda nts ne xt a rgue tha t the im

position of life s e nte nc e s viola t e d the Eighth

Am e ndm e nt’ s prohibition on c rue l a nd unusua l punishm e nt. The y princ ipa lly re ly o n

Graham v

. Florida

, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), a nd Atk ins v

. Virginia

, 536 U .S. 304 (2002).

The Supre m e C ourt rule d in the first c a se tha t the Eighth Am en d m e nt “ prohibits the

im position of a life without p a role s en t en ce on a juve nile offe nde r who did not

c om m it hom ic ide .” Graham

, 560 U.S. a t 82. It rule d in the se c ond c a se tha t t h e

Eighth Am e ndm e nt forbids “ the e xe cu ti o n of m e nta lly re ta rde d c rim ina ls.” Atk

i ns ,

536 U.S. a t 321. B ut ne ithe r De fe nda nt in this c a se i s a juve nile or m e nta lly re ta rde d.

In a d dition, both De fe nda nts in this c a s e c om

m itte d a hom ic ide a nd ne ithe r D e fe nda nt

- 5-ha s be e n se nte nc e d to de a th. Graham a nd A tk ins a re c onse que ntly ina

pplic a ble to

De fe nda nts’ c a se . The ir Eighth Am e ndm e nt c la im i s a lso without m e rit be c a use life

im prisonm e nt is the pre sum pti v e pe na lty for first-de gre e m urde r. Se e 18 U.S.C

.

§ 1111(b) (“ W hoe ve r is guilty of m urde r i n the first d e gre e sha ll be punishe d by de a th

or by im prisonm e n t for life . . . .” ).

De fe nda n ts fina lly c onte nd tha t the i r s e nte nc e s we re im prope rly influe nc e d by

c onside ra tion of othe r c rim e s c om m itte d i n the Distric t of Ore gon. T he y did not ra ise

this c la i m b e fore the d istric t c ourt, howe ve r, s o the pla in-e rror sta nda rd of re vie w is

a ga in a pplic a ble

. De fe nda

nts m ust the re fore show a “ re a sona ble proba bility ” tha t the

distric t c o urt’ s c o nside ra tion o f othe r c rim e s a ffe c te d the outc om e of t he ir s e nte nc ing.

Se e Gonzale

z-Aguilar

, 718 F.3d a t 1189. The c ourt, howe ve r, dism isse d th e othe r

c rim e s tha t it c onside re d a s “ not

. . . re a sona bly c om pa rab l e” t o D e fe nda

nts’ c rim e

.

It the n e xpla ine d tha t the ne e d to im p ose a c om

pa ra ble se nte nc e in this c a se wa s a n

“ a c a de m i c ” issue that was “ [ n o t] a fa c tor tha t re a lly provide [d] a ny he lp” in

de te rm i ning the c orre ct s e nte n c e

. The c onside ra t ion o f othe r c rim e s thus a ppe a rs to

ha ve pla y e d little if a ny role in the distric t c o urt’ s se nte nc i ng d e c ision, so De fe nda nts

c a nnot pre va il unde r the pla in-e rror sta nda rd of re vie w

.

For a ll of the a

bove re a sons, W E AFFIR M the se nte nc e in e a c h c a se

.

- 6-