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. ADOLPH SPEAR S, SR ., De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 18-30120

D.C . No. 3:98-c r-00208-SI-22 M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M a

y 17, 2019 * * Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : N. R

ANDY SM ITH a

n d PAUL J. W

A TFORD, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd JAM ES V. SELNA, * * * Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED M AY31 2019 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 pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ja m e s V. Se lna , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 1At the c onc l u sion of a jury tria l, De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt Adolph Spe a

rs, Sr. (“ Spe a rs” ) wa s c onvic t e d of va

rious c rim e s ba se d on his involve m e nt in a c o c a ine tra ffic king c onspira c y . The c o urt se nte nc e d Spe ars to life im prisonm e nt. Spe ars a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to re duc e his se nte nc e pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) a

nd Unite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line s Am e ndm e nt 782 (“ Am e ndm e nt 782” ). 1 The m otion wa s pre se nte d to a diffe re nt judgefollowing the origina l se nte nc ing judge ’ s re tire m e nt. This C ourt ha s jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742 a nd 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . Whe the r a

distric t c o urt ha s jurisdic tion to re duc e a se nte nc e unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3582(c )(2) is re vie we d denov o . Unite d State s v . Me rc ado-More no , 869 F.3d 942, 953 (9th C ir. 2017). W he the r a distric t c ourt m ay

supple m e nt the origina l se nte nc ing c ourt’ s drug qua ntity findings when de c iding a § 3582(c )(2) m otion is also re vie w e d denov o . Id. A distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings re ga rding drug qua ntitie s a re re vie w e d for c le ar e rror. Id. at 959. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err whe n it m a de a supple m e nta l finding tha t Spe ars wa s re sponsiblefor a pproxim ate ly

100 kilogra

m s of c ra c k c oc a ine . “ In those c a se s whe re a se nte nc i n g c ourt’ s qua ntity finding is a

m biguous or inc om

ple te

1 Spe ars brought a

n e a rlie r m otion for a

re duc e d se nte nc e , whic h the distric t c ourt de nie d a

nd this C ourt a ffirm e d. Unite d State s v . Spe ars , 824 F.3d 908 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ Spe ars I

” ). 2. . . § 3582(c )(2)’ s e ligibility inquiry m ay

re quire a distric t c ourt to supplem e nt the origina l se nte nc ing c ourt’ s drug qua ntity findings.” M

e rc ado-More no , 869 F.3d a t 954. B o th whe n initial ly

se nte n c e d, a

nd whe n Spe ars’ s first § 3582(c )(2) m otion wa s de nie d, the distric t

c ourt, re ly ing on thepre se nte nc e re port (“ PSR ” ), found tha t Spe ars wa s re sponsiblefor the m inim um drug qua ntity re quire d to support the se nte nc e it ha d im

pose d— 1.5 kilogra

m s whe n he wa s se nte nc e d, 8.4 kilogra m s whe n he file d his first § 3582(c )(2) m otion. Howe ve r, in e a c h of those insta nc e s the c ourt de c line d to spe c ify what the tota l qua

ntity wa s for whic h

Spe ars wa s re sponsible , though the

PSR (whic h the distric t c ourt a dopte d) indic ate d tha t Spe ars wa s re sponsiblefor a signific antly

la rge r tota l qua

ntity . B e c a

use the distric t c ourt ne ve r pre viously

sta te d de finitive ly

what tota l drug qua

ntity Spe ars wa s re sponsiblefor distributing, the distric t c ourt did not err whe n it found tha

t supple m e nta l findings were ne e de d in orde r to de te rm ine whe the r Spe a rs wa s re sponsiblefor the drug qua ntity (25.2 kilogra

m s ) spe c ifie d unde r the c urre nt se nte nc ing guide line s. 2. As note d , the se nte nc ing c ourt a dopte d the sta te m e nts in thePSR

re g arding drug qua ntity (e x c luding those

“ upon whic h no finding [wa s] ne c e ssa ry ” ) whic h ultim ate ly c onc lude d tha

t , ba s e d on the e vide nc e , Spe ars “ is a c c ounta ble for a pproxim ate l y

100 kilogra

m s of c oc a ine ba se ” a s a

“ le a de r/orga

niz e r” in the

3c rim ina l c onspira c y . The distric t c ourt ba se d its c onc lusion on spe c ific findings in the PSR tha t: (1) one c ode fe nda

nt purc h a se d c oc a ine from Spe a rs on 10 to 12 oc c a sions, with the

first thre e tra

nsa c tions involving “

kilogra m s” and the re m a ining tra

nsa c tions involving “

nine -ounc e qua

ntitie s” ; (2) two c ode fe n da nts we re distributing te

n kilogra m s of c ra c k c oc a ine pe r we e k for Spe a rs during the fa ll of 1997; (3) one

c ode fe n da

nt e stim ate d purc ha sing 200 kilogra m s of c oc a ine from Spe ars; a nd (4) it wa s e sta

blishe d at tria l tha t the c o nspira c y

c onve rte d

“ m ost” of its c o c a ine to c ra c k c oc a ine , a nd tha t one kilogra

m of c oc a ine y ie lde d slightly m ore tha n one kilogra

m of c ra c k c oc a ine . S

e e Spe ars I

, 824 F.3d a

t 914–15. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it looke d to thetra nsc ript of the se nte nc ing he aring a nd the c onc lusions in the

PSR a dopte d by

the se nte nc ing c ourt to m ake its supplem e nta l finding re ga rding drug qua

ntity . Se e Me rc adoMore n o , 869 F.3d a

t 957 (quoting U

nite d State

s v . Vale ntine , 694 F.3d 655, 670 (6th C ir. 2012)). M ore ove r, the finding doe s not c ontra dic t any findings ma de by the s e nte n c ing c o urt, a

nd the re is no support for Spe ars’ c onte ntion tha t the c onc lusions in the

PSR c ontra dic t the tria l re c ord. Se e id. at 955 (“ Suc h findings m ust be supporte d

by the re c o rd a

nd c annot c ontra dic t a

ny findings m a de by

the origina l se nte nc ing c ourt.” ). The re fore , the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha

t Spe ars wa s 4re sponsiblefor a pproxim at e ly

100 kilogra

m s of c ra c k c o c a ine wa s not c le arly e rrone ous, nor did it a

buse its disc re tion whe n it found tha t Spe ars wa s not e ntitle d to a re duc e d se nte nc e . 3. The distric t c ourt a l so did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de c line d to hold a n e vide ntia ry he a ring be fore m aking its supple m e nta l finding re ga

rding drug qua ntity , pa rtic ula rly be c a u se it did not c onside r e vide nc e outsidethe re c ord. Se e Me rc ado-More no , 869 F.3d a t 954. AFFIRM E D.

5