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 o n an d 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 panel un ani m ou sl y fi nd s thi s c as e s ui t abl e f or deci si on w i tho utoral ** ar gu m ent . S ee F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2).

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 ctJudg e, *** 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. P AT R I C K K . MOR AN , D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 10037 D . C t . N o . 2 : 0 9 c r - 0 1 3 1 4 - G MS 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 C e ntr a l D i s tr i c tof A r i z ona G . M ur r a y S now , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i t t e d N ove m be r2, 2010 ** S a n F r a n s c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B ef ore: G O U L D , C A L L A H A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and K O R M A N , D i stri ctJudg e. *** O n O c t obe r24, 2008, a n of f i c e rof the U ni t e d S t a t e s D ep artm e ntof V e t e r a ns 

# FI LED NO V 12 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A ffai rs ci t ed d efen d an tP atri ck K . M o ran fo r f o u r c la s s B m i sd em ean o r o ffen ses: di sorder l y c on du ct , 38 C . F . R . 1. 21 8(b)(11); u n au th ori ze d p osse ss i on of an i n c a p a c i t a t i n g l i q u i d , 3 8 C. F. R. 1 . 2 1 8 ( b ) ( 4 0 ) ; p o s s e s s i on o f k n i v e s , 3 8 C. F. R. 1. 21 8(b)(39); and d i stri bu t i on of pam ph lets, 3 8 C . F . R . 1. 21 8(b)(21). A ft era bench tr i a l , the U . S . m a gi s tr a t e j udge f ound the de f

e nda nt gui l ty of thr e e of the m i s de m e a nor of f e ns e s : di s or de r l y c onduc t ; una uthor i z e d pos s e s s i on of a n i nc a pa c i t a t i ng l i qui d; a nd di stri bu t i on of pam ph l et s. T he ci t at i on for the po ss es si on of kn i ves had been d is m is s e d b e f

o r e tr ia l. O n O c t obe r8, 2009, the U . S . m a gi s tr a t e j udge s e nt e nc e d the de f e nda ntt o f

i ve y e a r s pr oba t i on. A f

i ne w a s noti m pos e d be c a us e the de f e nda nta ppa r e nt l y di d not ha ve the m e a ns t o pa y i t . U nha ppy w i th thi s di s pos i t i on, the de f e nda nt a ppe a l e d the p r o b a tio n a r y s e n te n c e to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. O n th e a p p e a l, h e c h a lle n g e d th e v a lid ity of the s e nt e nc e o n t h e g ro und tha the c oul d notbe i nc a r c e r a t e d i f he vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of

pr oba t i on. T hi s a r gum e ntde r i ve d f r om the f

a c ttha tpr i ort o tr i a l the U . S. A t t o r n e y h a d i n f

o r me d th e U . S. ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e th a t i mp r i s o n me n tf or t he c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e s w o u ld n o t b e s o u g h t, a n d th e r e f o r e M o r a n w a s d e n ie d c o u n s e l. C o n s e q u e n tly th e d e f

e n d a n t c o u ld n o t b e s e n te n c e d t o a t e r m o f im p r is o n m e n t, A r g e rs in g e rv . H

a m lin , 40 7 U . S . 25 , 37 (197 2), no r c ou l d i m pri sonm ent be i m po se d a s a s a n c tio n f

o r a p r o b a tio n v io la tio n . U n ite d S ta te s v . Fo s te r, 9 0 4 F .2 d 2 0 , 2 1 ( 9 th3

C i r . 1990) . T he di s tr i c tj udg e r e j e c t e d the de f

e nda nt ’ s a ppe a l a nd a f f i r m e d the s e n te n c e o f

f iv e y e a r ’s p r o b a tio n . T h e d e f e n d a n t n o w a p p e a ls f

r o m th a t o r d e r . T h e d efen d an tag ai n arg u es th atth e p ro b at i o n ary sen t en ce i s “ i l l eg al , ” b ecau se he c a nnotbe s e nt e nc e d t o a t e r m of i nc a r c e r a t i on i f he vi ol a t e s a ny of the c ondi t i ons of pr oba t i on. M or e ove r , he a r gue s tha ts uc h a s e nt e nc e c r e a t es a “ pot e nt i a l f or prej ud i ce . ” S peci fi ca l l y, he sugg es t s that“ [i ] f the defendantent er s the cr i m i nal j ust i ce s yst em i n the f

utur e , hi s r e c or d w i l l r e f l e c ta vi ol a t i on of

pr oba t i on a nd m a y be c o n s id e r e d b y th e c o u r t in f u tu r e s e n te n c in g s .” S u c h c o n s id e r a tio n , h e a r g u e s , w o u ld be unf a i rbe c au se “ the c our tw i l l notne c e s s a r i l y be a w a r e tha ta hy br i d f or m of prob at i on w hi ch ca rr i ed no ‘ i ncent i ve’ of go od perf orm ance w as previ ou sl y i m po se d up on the defendant . ” T h e s e c la im s a r e f r iv o lo u s . P a s s i ng ove rthe f

a c ttha ta de f

e nda nti s l e gal l y obl i ga t e d t o c om pl y w i th the c ondi t i ons of pr oba t i on, a c i r c um s t a nc e tha ts houl d pr ovi de good r e a s on f orhi m t o do s o, the ve r y f

a c ttha ta vi ol a t i on of

thos e c ondi t i ons c oul d a f f e c ta s ubseq u e nt s e n te n c e , if

th e d e f e n d a n t c o m m itte d a n o th e rc r im e , s e e , e .g . , U . S . S en t e nc i ng G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 4 A 1 .1 ( d ) ( 2 0 0 9 ) , s h o u ld p r o v id e a n in c e n tiv e f o rh im to c o m p ly w i th the c ondi t i ons of pr oba t i on notw i ths t a ndi ng the f a c tth athe c oul d notbe i nc a r c e r a t e d f

ornonc om pl i a nc e . I nde e d, w he n he i m pos e d the s e nt e nc e of pr oba t i on, the U ni t ed S t at es m agi stra t e j ud ge spec i fi ca l l y i nform ed the defend an t th atfuture4

c o u r ts w o u ld c o n s id e rw h e th e rh e c o m p lie d w ith th e c o n d itio n s o f p r o b a tio n in de t e r m i ni ng w he the rhe w oul d be r e l e a s e d pe ndi ng tr i a l . T hus , he t ol d the de f e nda nt tha t the vi ol a t i on “ be c om e s pa r tof one ’ s r e c or d” a nd tha t“ w he n I s i ti n the de c i s i onm aki ng capaci ty a s aj ud ge and I eval ua te p as t c on du ctof defendant s, i n p ar t i cul ar w i th res pectt o w hether or notth ey ca n b e r el ea se d d uri ng the t i m e thatthey a re pend i ng tri al , on e of the thi ng s I l oo k t o i s w hether or notthey have a pas ttra ck re cord of com pl yi ng w i th t hei r t erm s of probat i on . ” N o ris th e r e a n y m e r i t t o th e a r g u m e n t th a t th e p r o b a tio n a r y s e n te n c e is

“ i l l e ga l . ” C ongr e s s s pe c i f i c a l l y a uthor i z e d the t e r m of pr oba t i on tha tw a s i m pos e d on th e d e f e n d a n t h e r e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 6 1 ( 2 0 0 9 ) . C o n tr a r y to th e d e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n t, th e f a c t t h a t h e “c a n n o t n o t r e c e iv e im p r is o n m e n t u p o n r e v o c a tio n ” d o e s n o t v io la te “th e s ta tu to r y m a n d a te th a t im p r is o n m e n t b e a n a v a ila b le r e m e d y u p o n r e v o c a tio n .” T he r e i s no s uc h al l -enc om pa s s i ng s t a tut or y m a nda t e . I m pr i s onm e ntf ora vi ol a t i on o f p ro b at i o n i s m an d at ed i n o n l y fo u r i n st an ces: w h en th e p ro b at i o n er (1 ) p o ssess c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e s ; ( 2) pos s e s s e s f i r e a r m s ; ( 3) r e f

us e s t o c om pl y w i th drug t e s t i ng; or (4) f ai l s a drug t es t three t i m es w i thi n a y ea r. 18 U . S . C . § 3 56 5(b) (200 9). T he fa ct thi s m a nda t e c oul d notbe c om pl i e d w i th he r e , a s s um i ng s uc h a vi ol a t i on w e r e t o t a ke pl a c e , pr ov i de s no ba s i s f or c on c l ud i ng tha t the s e nt e nc e w a s “ i l l e ga l . ” S ee U ni t ed Stat e s v . W

i l s on , 2 8 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 3 ( E .D . V a . 2 0 0 3 ) , af f’d sub n om . U

ni t ed5

S ta t es v. P o l la rd , 3 8 9 F .3 d 1 0 1 ( 4 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . M o r a n c ite s n o c a s e th a t s u p p o r ts h is c o n te n tio n th a t a s e n te n c e o f p r o b a tio n is ille g a l w h e r e th e d e f

e n d a n t, b e c a u s e h e w a s d e n ie d c o u n s e l, c a n n o t b e s e n te n c e d to i m pr i s onm e nt . E ve n i n Foster , w h ic h d e f e n d a n t r e lie s u p o n a n d q u o te s a t le n g th , th is courtfoun d n o f

aul t w i th the un derl yi ng se nt ence of prob at i on even tho ug h F ost erhad be e n de ni e d c ouns e l a t tr i a l . 904 F . 2d a t 21- 22. D e f e nda ntha s notde m ons tr a t e d a ny le g a l e r r o rin h is s e n te n c e . A FFI R M ED .