T hi s di s pos i t i on i s nota ppr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H on orabl e E dw ar d R
. K orm an, S eni or U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ct ** J udge f orthe E a s t e r n D i s tr i c tof N e w Y or k, s i t t i ng by de s i gna t i on.

1 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. M A RI O W EI CK S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 07- 10446 D . C
. N o . C R -0 5 -0 0 0 4 0 -K JD
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

N e va da K e ntJ . D a w s on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d N ove m be r2, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B e f o r e : HA WKI NS a n d T HO MAS , C i r c u i tJ u d g e s , a n d KO R MAN, D i stri ct ** J u d g e . A ppe l l a nt , M a r i o W e i c ks , a ppe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on of tw o c ount s of tr a ns por t i ng 

# FI LED JAN 22 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

a m in o rw ith in te n t th a t s h e e n g a g e in p r o s titu tio n , 1 8 U . S .C . § 2 4 2 3 ( a ) , tw o c o u n ts of tra vel i ng i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce for the pu rpose of e ng agi ng i n se x w it h a m i no r, 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 4 2 3 ( b ) , o n e c o u n t o f p o s s e s s i n g a f i r e a r m a s a c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n , 1 8 U . S. C. § 922( g) ( 1) , a nd one c ountof pos s e s s i ng a f

i r e a r m i n f

ur theran ce o f a c r i m e of vi ol ence , 18 U . S
. C
. § 924 (c ). H e w as se nt ence d t o 420 m on ths i m pri sonm entpl us t en ye ar s of s up ervi se d rel ea se . W e a ff i rm W ei cks’ conv i ct i on bu tre m and t o the di stri ct
c our tf orr e s e nt e nc i ng. I U n d e rU .S . S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s ( “G u id e lin e s ” ) § 4 B 1 .1 , a d e f e n d a n tis tr e a t e d a s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e r i f , a mo n g o th e rth i n g s , “ th e d e f e n d a n th a s a tl e a s ttwo pri or fe l on y conv i ct i on s of ei ther a cr i m e of vi ol ence or a cont rol l ed su b stance offe nse. ” U
. S
. S ent enci ng G ui del i nes § 4B 1. 1 (20 05 ). H er e, the di stri ctcourtappl i ed the c a r e e r of

f e nde r pr ovi s i on, w hi c h m a nda t e d a G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 360
mo n t h s t o l i f

e b e c a u s e o n e o f W e i c k s ’ c o n v i c t i o n s wa s f o r v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 9 24 (c ). A bsentappl i ca t i on of the ca re eroffe nd erprov i si o n , W eicks’ G ui del i nes of f e ns e l e ve l w oul d be 30, w hi c h w oul d r e s ul t i n a G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 168 t o 210 m onths
. T he onl y i s s ue on a pp eal r e l a t i ng t o the c a r e e rof f e nde rs e nt e nc i ng en h an cem en ti s w h eth er h i s p ri o r co n v i ct i o n f o r th i rd -d eg ree assau l tco n st i tu t es a “c r i m e o f

v io le n c e .” T h e G u id e lin e s d e f in e ac r im e o f

v io le n c e a s a n y o f

f e n s e th a t,3

in te ra lia , “ has a s a n el em entthe use, att em pt ed use or threa t en ed u se o f physi ca l f or c e a ga i nst t h e pe r s on of a nothe r , ori s bur gl a r y of a dw e l l i ng, a r s on, ore xt or t i on, i nvol ve s us e of

e xpl os i ve s , orothe r w i s e i nvol ve s c onduc ttha tp resen t s a s e r i ous p o te n tia l r is k o f

p h y s ic a l in

ju r y to a n o th e r .” U .S . S e n te n c in g G u i d e l i n e s § 4 B 1 .2 (200 5). I n U ni t e d Stat e s v . Sandov al , 39 0 F
. 3d 10 77 (9th C i r. 20 04 ), w e hel d t hat

“ [ u] nde rthe c a t e gor i c a l a pp r oa c h s e tf or th i n [ T

ayl or v. U

ni t ed St at es , 495 U
. S
. 575 (199 0)] , thi rd-degree as saul ti n W as hi ng t on do es no tqu al i fy as a c ri m e of vi ol ence a s th a t te r m is d e f

in e d in U n ite d S ta te s S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e § 4 B 1 .2 ,” b e c a u s e it is pos s i bl e t o c o mmi tth e o f f e n s e th r o u g h a n u n l a w f u l t o u c h i n g th a td o e s n o ti n vol ve s u b s ta n tia l p h y s ic a l f

o r c e o r th e s e r io u s r is k o f p h y s ic a l in ju r y . I d
. a t 1 0 8 1 ; see a l

so S ta te v . H

a ll , 14 P . 3d 88 4, 88 9 (W as h. C t . A pp . 20 00 ). C on se qu ent l y, w e hel d that th ir d
- d e g r e e a s s a u lt is n o t c a te g o r ic a lly a c r im e o f v io le n c e . Sandov al , 39 0 F
. 3d at 1 0 8 1 ; see a l

so Jam es v. U

ni t ed St at es , 5 5 0 U .S
. 1 9 2 , 2 0 8
- 0 9 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; G on zal ezv. D uena s-A lvarez , 549 U
. S
. 183, 193 ( 2007) (“ [T ] o fi n d th ata st at e st atu t e creates a
c r im e o u ts id e th e g e n e r ic d e f in itio n o f a lis te d c r im e . . . r e q u ir e s a r e a lis tic p r o b a b ility . . . th a t t h e S t a t e w o u ld a p p ly its s ta tu te to c o n d u c t th a t f a lls o u ts id e th e g e n e r ic d e f in itio n o f a c r im e ” )
.4

M o r e o v e r , a f

te re x a m in in g “th e in f

o r m a tio n , p le a a g r e e m e n t, a n d ju d g m e n t in t h e r e c o r d ,” w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e y “d o n o t e x c lu d e th e p o s s ib ility th a t S a n d o v a l's gu i l t y pl e a t o thi r d- de gr e e a s s a ul tw a s f orc on du c ttha tdi d n oti nv ol ve s ub s t a nt i al ph ys i ca l forc e and di d not se ri ou sl y ri sk ph ys i ca l i nj ury. ” I d. A c c or di ngl y , the pr i or gui l ty pl e a “ di d notc ons t i tut e a cri m e o f vi ol e nc e unde re i the rthe c a t e gor i c a l orthe
m o d if ie d c a te g o r ic a l a p p r o a c h , a n d [ th u s ] S a n d o v a l's se n te n c e w a s i m p r o p e r ly enhanced. ” I

d. ; s e e al

s o U ni t e d Stat es v. Y

oung , 42 0 F
. 3d 91 5, 91 7-18 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 5 )
. T he i nf or m a t i on t o w hi c h W e i c ks pl e d gui l ty i n W a s hi ngt on s a y s nothi ng a bout the cond uctun derl yi ng the offens e. N or do es the pl eaagre em ent , pu rs uantt o w hi ch W e i c ks e nt e r e d a n A l

f o rd pl e a , c ont a i n a ny a de q u at e f a c tua l r e c i t a t i ons . W hi l e the p le a p r o c e e d in g p r o v id e s s o m e a d d itio n a l in f o r m a tio n in v o lv in g W e ic k s ’ c o n d u c t in the W as hi ng t on ca se , the fa ct s t o w hi ch W ei cks a dm i t t ed w er e i nsuffi ci entt o sat i sf y the m odi f

i e d c a t e gor i c a l a ppr oa c h. O n the a s s um pt i on tha tW e i c ks ’ a t t or ne y ’ s st at em e ntr e ga r di ng the i nc i de nt
c o u ld b e im p u te d to W e ic k s h im s e lf , it m e r e ly c o n s titu te s a r g u m e n t b a s e d o n f a c ts that w er e c on t ai ned i n t he po l i ce re po rt , nam el y thatthe arre st i ng offi ce r r e por t e d that W ei ck s “ sl ap p ed h er w ri st , ” an d th atth e p o l ic e rep o rt , b u tn o tth e p ro b ab l e cau se a f f id a v it, in d ic a te d h e “a p p a r e n tly h a d s h o v e d h im s e lf o rh is a r m b a c k w h i le
. . .5

c o n tin u in g to b e a r r e s te d a n d a p p a r e n tly th e o f f ic e r w a s s tru c k a g a in a t . . . th a t tim e .” N e ve r the l e s s , the di s tr i c t c our t c oul d notc ons i de rthe pol i c e r e por tw he n a ppl y i ng the
m odi f i e d c a t e gor i c a l a ppr oa c h. Sh epard v. U ni t ed St at es , 54 4 U
. S
. at 21 -23. U nd er these ci rcum st ance s, i tnece ss ar i l y f ol l ow s thatar gu m entby W ei cks’ l aw ye r bas ed up on th e p o l i ce re po rtw as l i kew i se i nadequ at e t o sat i sf y the m od i fi ed ca t egori ca l approach. C o nsequent l y, w e nee d n otre ac h t he i ss ue w hether W ei cks’ cond uct , as desc ri bed i n t he po l i ce re po rt , const i tut es a c ri m e of vi ol ence . II W e i c k s ma k e s tw o a r g u me n t s w i th r e s p e c tt o h i s c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 924( c ) , f

orus e of a f

i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e . B oth a r e w i thout
m e r i t . S ect i on 924( c ) pr ovi de s tha t“ a ny pe r s on w ho, dur i ng a nd i n r e l a t i on t o a ny cr i m e o f v io lence .
. . uses or ca rr i es a f i re arm , or w ho , i n furthera nce of any s uch
c r i m e , pos s e s s e s a fi rearm , sh al l
. . . be s e nt e nc e d t o a t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntof

not l es s than 5 ye ar s. ” 18 U
. S
. C
. § 9 24 (c ). W e have hel d that 18 U . S
. C
. § 2 42 3(a) , w hi ch
m a ke s i ta c r i m e t o tr a ns por ta m i nor a c r os s s t a t e l i ne s w i th the i nt e nttha ts he e nga ge i n pr os t i tut i on, c reat e s a s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k tha tvi ol e nc e m a y be us e d t o pe rpe tr a t e the
c r im e . See U

ni t ed St at es v. C art er , 2 6 6 F . 3 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 1 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). S p eci fi cal l y,
w e he l d tha t , be c a us e pr os t i tut i on “ c a r r i e d the r i s k of a s s a ul t or phy s i c a l a bus e by the pi m p' s c us t om e r s or by the pi m p hi m s e l f , ” i t w a s a c r i m e of vi ol e nc e e nc om pa s s e d by6

th e G u id e lin e s § 4 B 1 .2
. I d
. a t 1 0 9 0
- 9 1 ; c

f
. U ni t e d Stat e s v . P at t e rs on , 576 F
. 3d 431, 4 4 0
- 4 2 ( 7 th C i r. 20 09 ); Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 F .3 d 1 , 5
- 7 ( 1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 8 )
. W e i c k s a r g u e s th a tth e s e c a s e s a r e i n a p p o s i t e b e c a u s e th e d e f i n i t i o n o f a c r i me o f v io le n c e u n d e r § 4 B 1 .2 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f th e G u id e lin e s is d if

f e r e n t th a n th a t f

o u n d in § 924 (c). W h i l e the G ui de l i ne s de f i ne a c r i m e of

vi ol e nc e a s i nvol vi ng “ a s e r i ous po t ent i al ri sk of ph ys i ca l i nj ur y to an ot her, ” U
. S
. S ent enci ng G ui del i nes § 4 B 1 .2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , § 9 2 4 ( c ) r e q u ir e s “a s u b s ta n tia l r is k th a t phys ica l f o rce a ga i ns tthe pe r s on orpr ope r ty m a y be us e d. ” 18 U
. S
. C
. § 924( c ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d)
. I n V a le n c ia
v. G on zal es , w e foun d s t atut ory rape t o b e acr i m e of vi ol ence , di st i ng ui shi ng betw ee n

“ s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of phy s i c a l f or c e ” a nd “ s e r i ous pot e nt i a l r i s k of phy s i c a l i nj ur y , ” a nd
c o n c lu d in g th a t w h ile c o n s e n t to s e x u a l in te r c o u r s e r e n d e r s f o r c e u n n e c e s s a r y to
ov er com e am i no r’ s r es i st ance , “ ac tual consent. . . [doe s] no tre m ov e the po t ent i al
r i s k of phy s i c a l i nj ur y [ due t o s e xua l l y tr a ns m i t t e d di s e a s e ]
. ” 439 F
. 3d 1046, 1053 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). U nl i ke the c r i m e of s t a tut or y r a pe , the m i nor ’ s c ons e ntt o e nga ge i n pr os t i tut i on doe s not a l l e vi a t e the s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k tha t phy s i c a l f or c e w i l l be us e d a ga i ns tthe m i nor by both the pi m p a nd thi rd p arty “ c us t om e r s , ” a s de s c r i be d i n C art er . 26 6 F
. 3d at 1 0 9 1 ; s e e a l

s o Wi l l i a ms , 5 2 9 F. 3 d a t5
- 7 ( n o t i n g th a tth e c o mme r c i a l a s p e c to f 18 U . S
. C
. § 2423( a ) , a s oppos e d t o s i m pl e s e duc t i on of a m i nor , i nc r e a s e s the l eve l of7

r is k to th e m in o rb e c a u s e it in c r e a s e s th e r is k o f p h y s ic a l a b u s e f r o m m u ltip le p a r tn e r s ) ; a cco rd

S y lv ia A . L a w , C om m e r c i al Sex : B e y ond D e c r i m i nal i

z at i on, 7 3 S. C al
. L . R ev. 52 3, 53 3 n .4 7 (2 0 0 0 ) ( no t i ng a “ stud y of 130 stre etprost i tut es i n S an F ra nsi sc o fou nd that82 % had b ee n p hysi ca l l y a ss aul t ed, 83 % h ad been threa t ened
w i th a w e a pon, [ a nd] 68% ha d be e n r a pe d w hi l e w or ki ng a s pr os t i tut e s ” )
. T hus , the
ac tof tra nspo rt i ng a m i no r w i th t he i nten t th at sh e eng age i n p rost i tut i on i s aprop er p r e d ic a te f

o rW e ic k s ’ 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n . W ei cks a l s o c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i on unde r§ 924( c ) on the gr ound tha tthe fi re arm , w hi ch the evi dence es t abl i shed he po ss es sed , w as no tused “ i n furthera nce”
o f a c r im e o f

v io le n c e . H e r e , th e v ic tim te s tif ie d a t tr ia l th a t, p r io r to th e ir f ir s t tr ip to L a s V e ga s , W e i c ks s how e d he ra gun, c l a i m i ng tha t i t w a s f or he r“ pr ot e c t i on. ” T he vi ct i m further t es t i fi ed that W ei cks sa i d h e pl anned t o t ake the gu n w i th t hem t o L as V eg as “ i n case an y b o d y w o u l d h u rt ” h er. W ei ck s’ st at em en tth ath e i n t en d ed t o u se the gun t o pr ot e c t the vi c t i m i t s e l f pr ovi de s a s uf f i c i e nt ba s i s f

or the j ur y t o ha ve f

ound tha tW e i c ks pos s e s s e d the gun w i th a purpos e t o “ pr om ot e orf a c i l i t a t e the unde r l y i ng c r im e ” o f

h a v in g th e v ic tim to p r o s ti t u t e h e r s e lf f o rh is b e n e f

it. U ni t ed St at es v. Kro u se , 3 7 0 F .3 d 9 6 5 , 9 6 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )
. II I8

W ei cks m akes tw o argum ent s w i th res pectt o t he suff i ci en cy o f t he evi dence
re l at ed t o t he 18 U . S
. C
. § 2 42 3 (b ) (i l l i ci tse xu al cond uct ) c harges
. F i rs t , he ar gu es thatw i th res pectt o W eick s’ se cond tri p t o L as V egas w i th t he vi ct i m , the evi dence
w as i nsuffi ci en t to es tabl i sh thatthe se xu al cond uctw i th t he vi ct i m occurre d aft er W ei ck s cr o ss ed st at e l i nes. W ei cks a l so ar gu es thatthe go vernm enthad n otprov en th a t th e r e w a s a s u f

f i c i e n t n e x u s b e tw e e n in te r s ta te tr a v e l a n d th e c r im in a l s e x a c t. O u r r e v ie w o f th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th a t W e ic k s ’ a r g u m e n ts la c k m e r it. U ni t ed St at es v. Fox , 42 5 F . 2d 99 6, 99 9 (9t h C i r. 19 70 ). IV W e ic k s c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld n o t h a v e a d m itte d e v id e n c e o f h is 19 94 fe l on y c on vi ct i on fo r d is tri bu t i ng a c on trol l ed subst ance , 19 96 thi rd-degree f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n f

o r a s s a u l t o n a p o l i c e o f f i c e r , 1 9 9 8 mi s d e me a n o r c o n v i c t i o n f or p r o v id in g f

a ls e id e n tif

ic a tio n to a p o lic e o f

f ic e r , a b e n c h w a r r a n t r e s u ltin g f r o m h is fa i l ure t o app ea r t o fac e c harges re l at ed t o t hi s c as e, and t w o p rio r ar rest s f or i l l egal pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m . B e c a us e , W e i c ks vo l u nt e e r e d t e s t i m ony r e ga r di ng e a c h of the s e c r i m e s dur i n g h i s di r e c te xa m i na t i on, he m a y notc ha l l e nge the i ra dm i s s i on on a p p e a l. See U

ni t ed St at es v. O hl er , 52 9 U
. S
. 75 3, 75 5 (20 00 ); se e al so U ni t ed St at es
v . Wi l l i a ms , 93 9 F
. 2d 72 1, 72 5 (9t h C i r. 19 91 ).9

S e c ond, the i ntr oduc t i on of a be nc h w a r r a nt f or W e i c ks ’ f

a i l ur e t o a ppe a ra nd fa ce st at e c harges re l at ed t o t hi s c as e w as prop er ly all ow ed by the di stri ctcourtas
r e le v a n t e v id e n c e o f

f lig h t. See M

arcoux v. U

ni t ed St at es , 40 5 F . 2d 71 9, 72 1 (9t h C i r. 1 9 6 8 ) ; s e e al

s o U ni t e d S tate s v . G r e is er , 502 F
. 2d 1295, 1299 ( 9th C i r . 1974)
. T he st at e c harges fi l ed agai nstW eick s ari se ou tof the sa m e c ou rs e of c on du ctfor w hi ch W e i c ks w a s on tr i a l i n f

e de r a l c our t . A c c or di ngl y , the i s s ua nc e of a be nc h w a r r a ntf or W ei ck s’ fai l u re t o ap p ear i n st at e co u rtw as p ro b at i v e o f h i s g u i l treg ard i n g th atco u rse of cond uctand t here fore re l evantevi dence t o t hi s c as e. T h ir d , W e ic k s ’ p r io ra r r e s ts f o r ille g a l p o s s e s s io n o f

f ir e a r m s w e r e a d m is s ib le beca use W ei cks opened t he do or for q uest i on i ng on the m att erw hi l e t es t i fy i ng . W hen
as ked d uri ng cr oss e xam i nat i on w hether he kn ew that a conv i ct ed fe l on i s prohi bi t ed f r o m c a r r y i n g a f

i r e a r m, W e i c k s r e s p o n d e d w i th b r o a d s t a t e me n t s i n d i c a t i n g tha the di d notpos s e s s a gun a nd p o rt rayed hi m s e l f a s s om e one w ho a voi de d be i ng a r ound f ir e a r m s . I n r e s p o n s e , th e g o v e r n m e n t s o u g h t to in tr o d u c e W e ic k s ’ tw o p r io ra r r e s ts f orbe i ng a fel o n i n pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m f orthe s ol e purpos e of

i m pe a c hi ng W e i c ks ’ vol unt e e r e d s t a t e m e nt s . F e de r a l R ul e of E vi de nc e 607 a l l ow s the a dm i s s i on of extri nsi c e vi dence t o i m peac h s peci fi c errors or fa l se ho od s i n a w i tness ' vo l un t ee re d te s tim o n y . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . C a s tillo , 181 F
. 3d 11 2 9 , 1132- 34 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng tha tde f

e nda nt ’ s br oa d de ni a l s of drug i nvol ve m e ntw a r r a nt e d a dm i s s i on of10

e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e o f h is p r io r a r r e s t f o r c o c a in e p o s s e s s i o n ) ; bu t se e Mi chel

son v. U n i t ed St at es , 33 5 U . S
. 46 9, 48 2 (19 48 ) ( st at i ng thata pri or arre st , w i tho utm ore,

“ doe s not , i n l a w a ny m or e tha n i n r e a s on, i m pe a c h t h e i n t e gr i ty ori m pa i rthe
c r e d ib ility o f

a w itn e s s ” ) ; U

n ite d S ta te s v . P e n n ix , 313 F
. 2d 524, 529 ( 4th C i r . 1963) ( n o tin g th a t p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f p r i o ra r r e s t is “o v e r w h e lm in g ly o u tw e ig h e d b y its in e v ita b le te n d e n c y to in f la m e a n d p r e

ju d ic e th e ju r y a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t” )
. M o reo v er, an y erro r reg ard i n g th e ad m i ssi b i l ity o f th e arrests i s h arm l ess b ec au se th e e v id en ce o f W eick s’ m er e arr es ts w as u n li k ely to h av e a ff ec ted th e ju ry ’s d e c is io n to d is c r e d it h is te s tim o n y . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . A n g w in , 271 F
. 3d 786, 798 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) (o v erru l ed o n o th er g ro u n d s b y U ni t ed St at es v. L op ez , 484 F
. 3d 1186, 12 00 n. 17 (9th C i r. 20 07 ). V T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e xc l us i on of the vi c t i m ’ s pr i or c onvi c t i on f or pe t ty l a r c e ny
w a s p r o p e r u n d e rF e d e r a l R u le o f E v id e n c e 6 0 9 ( a )
. Se e U ni t e d Stat e s v . G l e nn , 667 F . 2 d 1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 3 (9 th C i r. 1 9 8 2 ) (“ [T ] h eft cri m es ... d o n o ti n v o l v e d i sh o n esty o r fal se s ta te m e n t w ith in th e m e a n in g o f ru le 6 0 9 ( a ) ( 2 ) ” ) ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) ; c f. U ni t e d Stat e s v . O r t ega , 5 6 1 F .2 d 8 03 , 80 6 (9t h C i r. 19 77 ) ( “ A n absence of r es pect f orthe pr ope r ty of othe r s i s a n unde s i r a bl e c ha r a c t e r tr a i t , buti ti s nota n i ndi c i um of11

a p r o p e n s ity to w a r d te s tim o n ia l d is h o n e s ty ” )
. M o r e o v e r , e v e n if th e e v id e n c e c o u ld have been used for purpo se s of i m peac hm ent , du ri ng the course of th e trial, the j ury h e a r d s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e w h ic h r e n d e r e d th a t lin e o f q u e s tio n in g c u m u la tiv e . VI W ei ck s cont e nds tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o a ne w tr i a l be c a us e the gove r nm e nt i m pr ope r l y c om m e nt e d on hi s s i l e nc e a nd s hi ft ed t h e bur de n of pr oof t o W e i c ks duri n g i t s c l os i ng a r gum e nti n vi ol a t i on of the F i f th A m e ndm e nt . W e i c ks c a nnot cl ai m th atth e p ro secu t o r i m p ro p e r ly co m m en t ed o n h i s fai l u re t o t est i fy, b ecau se W e ic k s d id in f

a c t te s tif y o n h is o w n b e h a lf

. See U n i t ed S ta t es v. C a b rera , 201 F
. 3d 1243, 1250 ( 9th C i r . 2000)
. M or e ove r , w e he l d i n C a b rera th a t a p r o s e c u to ris p e r m it t e d to c o m m e n t o n th e w e a k n e s s o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s c a s e . I

d. ; see a l so U ni t ed Stat e s v . V

aande r i ng , 50 F
. 3d 696, 701- 02 ( 9th C i r . 1995) ( pr os e c ut orm a y c om m e nt on the de f

e nda nt ’ s f

a i l ur e t o pr e s e nt e xc ul pa t or y e vi de nc e , pr ovi de d the c om m e nt s do
no tca l l att ent i on to th e defe nd ant ’ s f ai l ure t o t es t i fy ). T he com m ent s her e a re a na l ogous . T he pr os e c ut orr e m i nde d the j ur y tha tthe gove r nm e ntha d the bur de n of p r o o f a n d s ta te d th a t W e ic k s f a ile d to p r o v id e e x c u lp a to r y e v id e n c e to c o r r o b o r a te h is te s tim o n y .12 V II W e ic k s c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s ly h e ld th a t th e r e w a s p r o b a b le
c a us e t o a r r e s thi m a nd tha t“ the a r r e s t a nd the e vi de nc e obt a i ne d the r e by i n vi ol a t i on of M r . W e i c k s ' Fo u r th A me n d me n t a n d Fo u r t e e n th A me n d me n t r i g h t s mu s tbe supp re ss ed. ” A ft erexam i ni ng the re co rd i n t hi s c as e, w e c on cl ud e thatthere w as pr oba bl e c a us e f

orW e i c ks ' a r r e s t ba s e d on the c or r obor a t e d i nf or m a t i on pr ovi de d by the vi ct i m and W ei cks' i ncon si st entand con tra di ct ory s t at em ent s a nd behavi or. V II I W e i c ks c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y c ons i de r e d t h e f a c tof W ei cks' pri or conv i ct i on s w hen i m po si ng se nt ence . U nd er A lm enda rez- T orre s v . U ni t ed St at es , 5 2 3 U . S
. 2 2 4 (1 9 9 8 ), th e d i stri ctco u rtp r o p e r ly co n si d ered W ei ck s' pr i orc onvi c t i ons dur i ng s e nt e nc i ng. C ON C L US I ON B a s e d on the f

or e goi ng, w e a f

f i r m the j udgm e ntof

c onvi c t i on a nd r e m a nd f or
r e s e nt e nc i ng. A F F IR M E D i n P art; V A C A T E D an d R E M A N D E D i n P art.