T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr 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 N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT 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. L UI S E NR I QU E C AL DE R ON QU I NO NEZ, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 50028 D . C . N o. 3: 07 -C R -034 08 -B E N -1 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 o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia R oge rT . B e ni t e z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J a nua ry 13, 2010

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G O O D W IN , C A N B Y , an d F IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ui s E nri qu e C al deron-Q ui no nez ( “ C al deron”) w as foun d g ui l ty of i m po rt at i on of cocai ne and p osse ss i on of cocai ne w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e a ft era s tip u la te d - f

a c ts b e n c h tr ia l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s e n te n c e d C a ld e r o n to a9 7 - m o n th t e rm of i m pr i s onm e nt , f

i ve y e a r s of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , f

i ne d hi m $808 a nd a dde d a 

# FI LED APR06 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSW e r evi ew de no vo the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on of prob abl e c ause , as 1 w e ll a s a lle g e d v io la tio n s o f F e d e r a l R u le o f

E v id e n c e 6 0 5 . See O rnelas v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 1 7 U .S . 6 9 0 , 6 9 9 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ( p r o b ab le c a u s e ) ; U ni ted Stat es v. N

i ckl , 427 F . 3d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 9 3 ( 1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( R u le 6 0 5 ) . 2 sp eci al assessm en to f $ 2 0 0 . C al d ero n ap p eal s th e d en i al o f h i s m o t i o n t o su p p ress, a s w e l l a s tw o a s p e c t s o f h i s s e n t e n c e . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de ny i ng C a l de r on’ s m ot i on t o s uppr e s s . T he 1 reco rd d o es n o tsu p p o rtC al d ero n ’ s co n t en t i o n th atth e d i stri ctj u d g e act ed as a w i tness i n v i ol at i on of F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 605 . F urtherm ore, deni al w as prop erbecause C al deron’ s a rr es tand the se ar ch and sei zure thatfol l ow ed i tw er e s u p p o r te d b y p r o b ab le c a u s e . T h e f ir s t s e a r c h o f

C a ld e r o n ’s v e h ic le u p o n h is a rr iv a l a t th e P o r t o f

E n try in C a le x ic o , C a lif o rn ia , w a s ap r o p e rb o r d e rs e a r c h . See U ni ted Stat es v. Kes sler , 4 9 7 F .2 d 2 7 7 , 2 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 4 ) ( “[ A ] c a ra n d its p a s s e n g e r s a r e s u b

je c t to s e a r c h w ith o u t p r o b ab le c a u s e u p o n th e ire n try to th is coun try . ”) . A s are sul tof thi s s ea rc h, the arre st i ng offi ce r knew thatse vera l packages of w hi t e pow der w rapp ed i n d uctt ape w er e hi dd en behi nd the ri gh tre ar qua r t e rpa ne l of

C a l de r on’ s ve hi c l e , pr ovi di ng pr obabl e c a us e t o a rr e s tC a l de r on f orthe c r i m e of

i m por t i ng c oc a i ne a nd t o s e i z e the pa c ka ge s . T hus , e ve n i f the d is tr ic t c o u r t, in c o n c lu d in g th a t th e r e w a s p r o b ab le c a u s e to a rr e s t, im p r o p e r lyW e r e vi e w f orc l e a re rr orthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha tC a l de r on i s not 2 e n title d to ad o w n w a r d a d ju s tm e n t f

o rh is p u rp o r te d m in o rr o le in th e o f f e n s e , U ni ted Stat es v. R osal es -R odri gu ez , 2 8 9 F . 3 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) , a n d we d o n o t r e v e r s e if

a n e rr o rin ap p lic a tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s w a s h a rm le s s , se e U ni ted S ta te s v . C a n tr e ll , 43 3 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 79 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). 3 rel i ed u p o n o th er factors fo r w h i ch th ere w as an i n su ffi ci en tfo u n d at i o n , su ch as a d ru g d o g al ertan d a fi el d t esto f th e w h i t e p o w d er, th i s erro r w as h arm l ess. Ital so i s of no con se qu ence thatC al deron w as no ti m m edi at el y a rr es t ed, bu tra ther w as perm i tt ed t o ent erthe U ni t ed S t at es un der s urvei l l ance for aperi od of m i nu t es be f or e he turne d a r ound a nd a tt e m pt e d t o r e turn t o M e xi c o. H e w a s a rr e s t e d a tthe por tof e ntry by the s a m e of

f i c e rw ho ha d c onduc t e d the i ni t i a l s e a r c h a nd nothi ng ha d unde rm i ne d the of

f i c e r ’ s pr obabl e c a us e t o a rr e s tC a l de r on f orha vi ng c o m m itte d ac r im e in th e o f f ic e r ’s p r e s e n c e . F in a lly , th e s e iz u r e o f th e c o c a in e in C a l de r on’ s ve hi c l e f

ol l ow i ng the a rr e s tw a s pr ope re i the ra s abor de rs e a r c h or b e c a u s e it w a s s u p p o r te d b yp r o b ab le c a u s e . N o r d o es th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f a m in o r r o le ad ju stm en t t o C ald er o n ’s g u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n r e q u ir e ar e m a n d . See U . S . S . G . S ent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 3 B 1. 2(b) (200 7). E ven i f the di stri ctcourterroneou sl y c om pare d 2 C a l de r on t o the ty pi c a l drug c our i e ri ns t e a d of t o c o- pa r t i c i pa nt s i n hi s of f e ns e , a ny error w as harm l es s. T he re cord ref l ec t s thatC al deron h ad been pai d t o con du ct s e ve r a l “ dry runs ” a c r os s the bor de ra nd tha tC a l de r on w a s appr e he nde d w i th aW e r e vi e w f orc l e a re rr orthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha tC a l de r on 3 h a s th e ab ility to p a y af in e . U ni ted Stat es v. B ri ckey , 2 8 9 F .3 d 1 1 4 4 , 1 1 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . 4 s u b s ta n tia l q u a n tity o f

n a r c o tic s . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . D a v is , 36 F . 3d 1424, 1436- 37 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ( de f

e nda ntw ho w a s m or e tha n as i m pl e c our i e rof drugs di d not pl aya m i no r r ol e i n the offens e) ; U ni te d State s v . Zakhar ov , 468 F . 3d 1171, 1181 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrb y d e n y in g am in o r - r o le a dj us tm e nton the ba s i s of the l a r ge qua nt i ty of

drugs i nvol ve d) . F ur the r , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n rej ec t i ng C al deron’ s a ss ert i on s thathe bel i eved th a t th e v e h ic le h e w a s d r iv in g c o n ta in e d m a r iju a n a , n o t c o c a in e . U ni ted Stat es v. O c am po , 9 3 7 F .2 d 4 8 5 , 4 9 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) ( “[ T ]h e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s e n title d to di sbel i eve [ the defendant ’ s] se l f- se rvi ng desc ri pt i on s of hi s ow n i nv ol vem ent [. ] ”) . O n thi s r e c or d, C a l de r on w a s i ne l i gi bl e f orthe a dj us tm e ntbe c a us e he w a s not

“ ‘ subst ant i al l y’ l es s c ul pabl e than h i s . . . co-part i ci pant s, ” U ni ted Stat es v. C a n tr e ll , 43 3 F . 3d 12 69 , 12 83 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). A ny l egal error the di stri ctcourt m ay h av e co m m i tt ed i n reach i n g th atco n cl u si o n w as h arm l ess. F i na l l y , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n a s s e s s i ng a n $808 f i ne , t o be p a id f r o m C a ld e r o n ’s f

u tu r e e a rn in g s in th e I n m a te F in a n c ia l R e s p o n s ib ility P r ogr a m ( “ I F R P ” ) . I n U n i ted S ta tes v. H

a g g a rd , w e a ff

irm ed th e d istrict co u rt’s 3 i m pos i t i on of

a$4, 000 f

i ne w he r e the c our tf

ound tha tthe de f

e nda ntc oul d pa y the5

f in e b y w o rk in g in th e I F R P . See 41 F . 3d 1320, 1329 ( 9th C i r . 1994) . A l though th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h e r e d id n o t e x p la in th e p a r tic u la r s o f th e I F R P o n th e r e c o r d , it is appa r e nttha tthe c our tunde r s t ood tha tthe pr ogr a m w oul d pr ovi de C a l de r on w i th a s o u r c e o f in c o m e w h ile s e rv in g h is p r is o n s e n te n c e , e n ab lin g h im to p a y th is m o d e s t f in e . Se e U

ni te d State s v . T

ay lor , 984 F . 2d 618, 622 ( 4th C i r . 1993) ( “ T he c our t s a r e pr e s um e d t o ha ve s om e pa s s i ng f a m i l i a r i ty w i th the c ondi t i ons of c o n f in e m e n t a t af

e d e r a l p r is o n , in c lu d in g h o w m u c h p r is o n e r s g e t p a id .” ) . A F F I R M E D .