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. JOSE EDGAR

AM PAR O-PALOM ARES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50144

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-04360-LAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSE EDGAR

AM PAR O-PALOM ARES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50158

D.C . No. 3:10-c r-00929-B EN-1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

8, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED JUL 15 2014 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.B e fore : B ER Z ON a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a n d R OSENTHAL, Distric t Judge . ** The se c onsolida

te d a p p e a ls c onc e rn Jose Edga r Am pa ro-Pa lom are s’ (“ Am pa ro” ) c onse c ut ive se n t e nc e s for (1) ille ga l re e ntry in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326; a nd (2) viola

ting thete rm s of supe rvise d re le a se from a prior ille ga l re e n try c o nvic t ion. W e a ffirm . (1) The distric t c ourt did not proc e dura lly e rr in c onside ring e vide n c e re ga rding Am pa ro’ s 2005 c o nvic tion for fa lse im prisonm e n t

by fra ud or de c e it in viola tion of C a lifornia

Pe na l C ode §§ 236, 237(a ).

“ [I] n de te rm ining thepa

rtic ula r se nte nc e to be im

pose d,” the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to “ c onside r– . . . the ne e d . . . to prote c t the public from furthe r c rim e s of the de fe nda

nt.” 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a )(2)(C ). A de fe nda nt’ s “ pote ntia l for da nge r to the c om

m unity [is thus] a

§ 3553(a )(2) fa c tor tha

t m ay prope rly be c onside re d” by

a se n t e nc ing judge . Unite d State s v . Miqbe l , 444 F.3d 1173, 1175 n.3 (9th C ir. 2006). In m aking tha t de te rm ination, thedistric t c o urt wa s e ntitle d to look be y o nd the re c o rd of c o nvic tion to de te rm i ne whe the r the fa c ts supporting

** The Honora

ble Le e H. R ose ntha l, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion. 2Am

pa ro’ s a rre s t sugge ste d he would posesuc h a da nge r. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . C hriste nse n , 732 F.3d 1094, 1104 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2013). The c olloquy

at se nte nc ing m ake s c le ar that the distric t c ourt wa s a

ware tha t Am pa ro’ s c rim e did not “ involve viole n c e , pe r se ,” and tha t the c rim e to whic h Am pa ro ple a de d guilty wa s not thesa m e a s the one for whic h he wa s arre ste d or c ha rge d. What

the distric t c ourt c ha

ra c te riz e d a s Am

pa ro’ s “ da nge rousne s s” foc u se d on Am

pa ro’ s fa ilure to re turn the y oung girl to her m othe r, a n a c c urate de sc ription of wha

t oc c urre d e ve n on Am

pa ro’ s own a c c ount. Nor did the distric t c ourt viola te Am pa ro’ s due proc e ss rights by c onside ring he arsay sta t e m e n t s of the a lle g e d vic tim s c onta ine d in polic e re ports. C o urts m ay c onside r “ inform ation re le va nt to these nte nc ing de t e rm i nation ‘ without re ga rd to its a d m issibility

unde r the rule s of e vide nc e a pplic a ble at tria l, provide d tha

t the inform at ion ha s suffic ie nt indic ia of re lia bility to support its proba

ble a c c ura c y .’ ” Unite d State s v . Be rry , 258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th C ir. 2001) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a )). Give n the sim ila ritie s a m ong the witne sse s’ sta

te m e nts, a s we l l a s the sim ila ritie s be twe e n Am

p aro’ s own sta

te m e nt a nd those of the a lle ge d vic tim s, the polic e re p orts ha d “ t

h e re quisiteindic ia

of re l ia bility ” to a llow for the i r c onside ra tion a

t se nte nc ing. Unite d State s v . Mara , 523 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th C ir. 2008). 3(2) Am pa ro’ s 18-m onth se nte nc e for ille ga l re e ntry wa s not substa ntive ly unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt provide d a “ ra tiona l a

nd m e aningful” e xpla

nation of its de c ision to va

ry upwa rd from the Se nte nc ing Guide line s, re ly ing prim arily on the n e e d to de te r Am

p a ro from c om m itting future

im m igration viola

tions a nd the ine ffe c tive ne s s of othe r c ourts’ prior, shorte r se nte nc e s for the sa m e c onduc t. Unite d State s v . Ruiz-Apolonio , 657 F.3d 907, 911 (9th C ir. 2011) (quota t ion m arks a nd c ita tions omitte d). (3) Nor wa s Am

pa ro’ s 14-m o nth se nte nc e for viola ting thete rm s of his supe rvise d re le a se substa

ntive ly unre a s ona

b le . The distric t

c o urt did not punish Am pa ro for c om

m itting a ne w ille ga l re e ntry in viola tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326, but ra the r sa n c tione d him

for a bre a c h of the c ourt’ s trust. Se e Miqbe l , 444 F.3d a t 1182 (“ [A] t a

re voc ation se nte nc ing, a

c ourt m ay

a ppropria te ly sa nc tion a viola

tor for his ‘ b re a c h of trust,’ but m ay not punish him

for the c rim i na l c onduc t unde rly ing the re v oc ation.” ). The distric t c ourt wa s aw are that Am pa ro ha d a lre a dy be e n se nte nc e d to 18 m onths im p risonm e nt for the ne w ille ga l re e ntry c onvic tion, a

nd wa s e xe rc i sing its discre tion to sa n c t ion Am

pa ro for viola

ting the te rm s of his supe rvise d re l e a se . AFFIRM E D.

4