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. JUAN M ANUEL PER

E Z, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10528

D.C . No. 1:13-c r-00238-LJOSKO-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm i tte d June 14, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : D.W . NELSON, TASHIM A, a nd OW ENS, C i rc u it Judge s. Jua n M anue l Pe re z a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m otion to suppre ss, his c onvic tions, a nd his se nte nc e . W e a ffirm in pa rt, a nd va c a te and
re m and in pa

rt. 

# FIL ED
JUN 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing Pe re z ’ s m otion to suppre s s

e vide nc e found a

n d sta te m e nts m a de during these arc h of the struc ture in whic h Pe re z wa s loc a te d be c a

use the polic e ha d proba

ble c a use to be lie ve the struc ture at issue wa s Pe re z ’ s re side n c e . For the polic e to e nte r a re side nc e on the ba sis of a n a rre st wa rrant or on the ba sis of a pa role se arc h c ondition, the re m u st be proba

b le c a use to be lie v e tha

t the pe rson na m e d in the arre st wa

rra nt or the pe rson subje c t to the se arc h c ondition
re side s the re . Se e Unite d State s v . Harpe r , 928 F.2d 894, 896 (9th C ir. 1991) (arre st wa rra nt), ov e rrule d in part on othe r grounds by

Unite d State

s v . K ing , 687 F.3d 1189 (9th C ir. 2012) (pe r c uriam ); se e also United State s v . How ard , 447 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th C ir. 2006) (pa role se arc h

c ondition). Our c irc uit ha s “ a pplie d a
re lative ly stringe nt sta

nda rd in de te rm ining wha

t c o n stitute s proba

ble c a use tha t a
re side nc e be longs to a

pe rson on supe rvise d re le a se .” H ow ard , 447 F.3d a

t 1262.

“ [T] he fa c ts known to the offic e rs at the tim e of the se arc h m ust ha ve be e n suffic i e nt to support a

be lie f, in a

m an of re a sona

ble c a ution,” tha

t the pa role e live d
a t the re s ide nc e . Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c i tation omitte d). “ This is a highe r sta nda rd tha n a m e re we ll-founde d suspic ion.” Id. Give n the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

n c e s , the polic e he re ha d proba ble c a use to be lie ve the struc ture wa s Pe re z ’ s re side nc e . The re wa s a wa rra nt for Pe re z ’ s a

rre st 2be c a

use he fa ile d to ke e p a

n a ddre ss on file with his pa role offic e r. The polic e the re fore did not ha

ve an a ddre ss a

t whic h offic e rs c ould loc a te him (or any
a ddre s s to surve i l to de te rm i ne whe the r he live d at a re porte d a ddre ss, a s oppose d to the a ddre ss the witne ss re porte d). Se e id. a t 1265 (listing a s a n im porta nt fa c tor in the proba

ble c a use ana ly s is whe the r a

pa role e ha d an a ddre ss on file ). Furthe r, it
wa s re a sona

ble for the polic e to re ly

on the inform a tion provide d by the witne ss. She wa s not a c onfide ntia l or othe rwise suspic ious inform ant, but ra the r c am e to provide inform a tion to the polic e in pe rson. Additiona lly , he r inform a tion wa s
c orroborate d whe n

the polic e c o nfirm e d tha

t Pe re z wa s a

pa role e -a t-la

rge and whe n she le d polic e to Pe re z ’ s spe c ific loc ation a m ongst se ve ra l othe r struc ture s. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the distric t

c o urt’ s de nia l of Pe re z ’ s m otion to suppre ss. 2. The re w a s suffic ie nt e vide nc e for the jury to c onvic t Pe re z for posse ssion of the fire arm

in viola t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g)(1) unde r a c onstruc tive posse ssion the o ry . The fire arm

wa s found in his re side nc e , a nd the c a libe r of the fire arm
m a tc h e d the c a libe r of am

m unition tha

t Pe re z wa s c a

rry ing in his poc ke t. M ore o ve r, som e of the am m unition in Pere z ’ s poc ke t ha d the sa m e m anufa c ture r
m arkings a s the c artridge l oa de d in the we a pon. A re a sona

ble juror c ould ha

ve infe rre d tha

t Pe re z kne wof the fire arm ’ s e xiste n c e and ha d the powe r an d inte nt to 3c ontrol it. Se e Unite d State s v . Vasque

z , 654 F.3d 880, 885-86 (9th C ir. 2011). Thus, we a ffirm

Pe re z ’ s c onvic tion for fe lon in posse ssion fo a fire arm unde r § 922(g)(1). 3. Pe re z ’ s c o nvic tions a

nd se nte nc e s on c ount two (for fe lon in posse ssion of a fire a rm unde r § 922(g)(1)) a

nd c ount thre e (for fe l on in posse ssion of
am m unition under § 922(g)(1)) a re c um ulat ive punishm e nts tha

t viola te the Double Je opa rdy C la use . To be c onvic te d on two se pa ra te c o unts unde r § 922(g)(1), the gove rnm e nt
m ust de m onstra

t e tha t the fire arm s a

nd/or a m m unition “ w e re store d or a c quire d at diffe re nt tim e s a

nd pla c e s.” Unite d State

s v . W iga , 662 F.2d 1325, 1336 (9th C ir. 1981) (quota

tion omi tte d). Se pa

ra te n e ss of a c quisition or posse s sion m ust be found by a jury
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Szalk ie w ic z , 944 F.2d 653, 653-54 (9th C ir. 1991) (pe r c uriam ); se ealso United State s v . Ank e ny , 502 F.3d 829, 838 (9th C ir. 2007). He re , the distric t c ourt ga ve no instruc tions to the

jury re ga rding
se pa ra te ne ss of a c quisition or posse ssion. Thejury the re fore m a de no suc h finding
re ga rding se pa

rate ne ss of a c quisition or posse ssion of thefire arm and a m m unition Pe re z posse sse d. This is pla in e rror. Se e id. a t 839. Thus, we va c at e and re m and with instruc tions for thedistric t c ourt to va c a te the m

ultiplic itious c onvic tion, 4se nte nc e , a

nd spe c ia l a s se ssm e nt fe e . Se e Unite d State s v . Zalapa , 509 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th C ir. 2007). Thedistric t c ourt m a y , in its disc re t ion, c hoose whic h
m ultiplic itous c onvic t ion a

nd se nte nc e to va c at e . Se e Unite d State s v . He c tor , 577 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th C ir. 2009). 4. Pe re z c ha lle nge s his se nte nc e unde r the Arm e d C are e r C rim ina l Ac t (AC C A). Pe re z wa s se nte nc e d unde r the AC C A be c a u se the distric t c ourt de te rm i ne d tha

t he ha d be e n c onvic te d of thre e pre dic a te viole nt fe lonie s, one of whic h— the viola tion of C a l. Pe na l C ode § 69— wa s c o nside re d a

viole nt fe lony unde r the re sidua l c la

use . Se e 18 U.S.C . § 924(e )(2)(B )(ii). Sinc e Pe re z ’ s
se nte nc ing, the Supre m e C ourt de c ide d J ohnson v . Unite d State

s , 135 S.C t. 2551 (2015), holding tha

t the re sidua l c la

use is unc onstitutiona

l ly va g ue , in viola

tion of the D ue Proc e ss C la

use . Ac c ordingly , an d c onsiste nt with the position of both pa rtie s , we va c ate and re m and for re s e nte nc ing in light of J o hnson
. For the re a s ons sta

t e d in Pa rts 3 a n d 4, the se nte nc e is va c a te d a nd the c a se
re m ande d for re s e nte n c ing. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D in par t.

5