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 and 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. 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. J UA N MAN UE L ME ND I OL A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 10- 30268 D . C . N o. 3: 08 -c r- 00 11 9-JK S -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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

A l a s ka J a m e s K . S i ngl e t on, S e ni orD 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 M a y 22, 2013

A nc hor a ge , A l a s ka B efo re: T A S H IM A , T A L L M A N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J ua n M e ndi ol aw a s c onvi c t e d of drug tr a f

f i c ki ng c ons pi r a c y , drug p o s s e s s io n , a n d r e la te d f ir e a rm s o f

f e n s e s , in c lu d in g p o s s e s s io n o f m a c h in e g u n s in f u r th e r a n c e o f

d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) . H e ap p e a ls h is conv i ct i on s on tw o fi re arm po ss es si on coun t s, and the tw o res ul t i ng m andat ory 

# FI LED JU N 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s he r e c e i ve d. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291 a nd 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he exi st ence of a pri or conv i ct i on i s ase nt enci ng fa ct or, ra ther than an e l e m e ntof

the c r i m e , a nd ne e d notbe c ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e ntorf ound by the j ury— e ve n i f

i ti nc r e a s e s the s e nt e nc e tha tothe rw i s e w oul d be a va i l abl e f orthe c h a r g e d o f

f e n s e . A lm enda rez- T

orres v . U

ni ted Stat es , 523 U . S . 224, 235, 241 (199 8). T hu s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr w hen i tse nt ence d M endi ol a t o 2 5 years f orhi s s e c ond c onvi c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) e ve n though the f a c tof the p r io rc o n v ic tio n w a s n o t c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t o rf o u n d b y th e ju ry . N o rd id the di s tr i c tc our te rrby i m pos i ng the e nha nc e d pe na l ty f oras e c ond ors ubs e que nt § 9 2 4 ( c ) c o n v ic tio n w h e r e b o th c o n v ic tio n s w e r e o b ta in e d in th e s a m e p r o s e c u tio n . See D eal v. U ni ted Stat es , 5 0 8 U .S . 1 2 9 , 1 3 5 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ; U ni te d State s v . N

e al , 976 F . 2d 60 1, 60 2 (9th C i r. 19 92 ). S ub st ant i al m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence s f or vi ol at i on s of § 92 4(c) w here the conv i ct i on s are base d o n a P i nker ton v. U ni ted Stat es , 32 8 U . S . 64 0 (19 46 ), th e o ry o f v ic a r io u s liab ility d o n o t a m o u n t to c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n is h m e n t in v io la tio n o f

th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. See U n i ted S ta tes v. H

u n g erf o rd , 465 F . 3d 1113, 1118 ( 9th 2006) . M e ndi ol a ’ s 30- y e a rs e nt e nc e f orpos s e s s i ng am a c hi ne gun i n f ur the r a nc e of

drug tr a f

f i c ki ng i s the r e f

or e notc rue l a nd unus ua l , e ve n i f the3

conv i ct i on w as base d ent i re l y on a P i nke r ton theory of l i abi l i ty. F urtherm ore, s uf f i c i e ntdi r e c te vi de nc e w a s pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l t o s uppor tM e ndi ol a ’ s c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on of

am a c hi ne gun. AF F I RME D.U

n ite d S ta te s v . Me n d io la , N o. 10- 30268 T A S H I M A , C ir c u it J u d g e , c o n c u rr in g in th e ju d g m e n t: D ef endantJuan M endi ol a w as conv i ct ed of a drug tra ff i cki ng conspi ra cy a n d r e la te d f

ir e a rm s o f

f e n s e s . F o rth e s e c r im e s , p r im a r ily b e c au s e o f th e w a y in w hi c h f e de r a l f i r e a rm s s e nt e nc e s a r e s truc tur e d a nd the s t a tut ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s the y i m pos e , de f e nda ntw a s s e nt e nc e d t o a65- y e a rt e rm of i m pri sonm ent . A tse nt enci ng , the experi ence d D i stri ctJudg e not ed thati f he “ had g r e a te rd is c r e tio n , [ h e ] w o u ld im p o s e as e n te n c e f a rle s s th a n 6 5 y e a r s .” I n h is c ons i de r e d opi ni on, “ as e nt e nc e of 65 y e a r s [ w a s not ] ne c e s s a ry t o a ddr e s s the sen t en ci n g g o al s o f [1 8 U . S . C . § ] 3 5 5 3 . ” I ag ree. A sen t en ce o f 6 5 years’ i m pri sonm ent , for these cr i m es , on thi s r ec ord, i s w aybeyond the pal e of a n a c c e p tab le f

a ir , ju s t, a n d r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e in ac iv iliz e d , h u m a n e s o c ie ty . See U n i ted S ta tes v. H

u n g erf o rd , 4 6 5 F .3 d 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 8 - 2 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ( R e in h a r d t, J ., c onc urr i ng i n the j udgm e nt ) . F ur the r , w e r e thi s s e nt e nc e s ubj e c tt o r e vi e w f or subst ant i ve re as on abl enes s, abse ntthe consecut i ve and i ncre as i ng l y har sh st atut ory m in im a , I d o u b t th a t it w o u ld s u rv iv e u n s c a th e d . Se e U ni te d State s v . R e s s am , 679 F . 3d 10 69 , 10 86 -88 (9th C i r. 20 12 ) ( en banc). N on ethel es s, I a m com pel l ed t o con cur i n the j ud gm entbecause the se nt ence and the m aj ori ty’ s a ff

i rm ance of thatse nt ence ar e s ol i dl y groun ded i n the st atut ory ma n d a t e t o i mp o s e c o n s e c u t i v e mi n i mu m s e n t e n c e s , a s i n t e rp r e t e d b y th e Su p r e me 

# FI LED JU N 05 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

C o u r t a n d th is C ir c u it. I th u s c o n c u rin th e ju d g m e n t.