T h e H on or abl e Rona l d Le e G i l man , Se n i or Ci r cu i t J u dg e f or t h e U

. S. * C o urt of A p p eal s f

o r t he Sixt h C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. F OR P UB LIC AT ION



### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

U NI TED S T A T ES O F A M ERI CA ,

Plaintif f-Appellee ,

v.

B I L L Y M I R ANDA F L ORES ,

Defendant-

Appellant

. No. 12-30078

D.C. No. 3:09-cr- 05810- RBL -1

OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court for the Wester

n District of Washington Ronald B. L eig hton, District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted J une 7, 2013—Seattle, Washing ton Filed August 2, 2013

Be fore : Arthur L . Alarc ón, Ronald L ee G ilman, *

and Sand ra S. Ikuta , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. Opinion by

J udg e Alar cónU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y **

Crim inal L aw

Vac ating a sente nce a

nd rema nding f or re sentenc ing, the p an el h el d

th atan y err o ri nes t i m at i n g th e qu an t i ty o f d ru gs attributable t o a conspira cy to distribute ox y codone w as harmless, but that the district court er red in imposing w ithout an ad eq u ate f

actua l basis an enha

nceme nt under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 f or use of a per son less than eig hteen year s of ag e.

CO UN SEL

J onath anI

. E d e ls te in , L awO f f ic e o f A la nE ll is , N e wY o r

k, Ne w Y or k, fo r D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt.

Tea l Luthy Miller, Assistant United States Attorney (ar g ued),
an d Je n n y A

. D ur

k an , U n it e d St ate s A tt o r

n e y , O f f ic e of the United States Attorney , Seattle, Washington, for Pl aint iffAppellee

.

OP IN ION

ALARCÓN, Circuit J udg e: Billy Miranda F lores (“ Flore s”) wa s conv i cted on one count of c onspiracy

to distribute ox y codone, thr ee c ounts ofU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 3

Flores al so co nt end s tha t th e d is t ri ct co urt err ed i n i m p o si ng a 1

s u bs t an t i v el y u n r ea s on abl e s en t en ce

. G i v en ou r h ol d i ng, we do n ot
a d d re ss th e su b sta n tive re a so n a b le n e ss o f t h e se n te n c e

. See Uni t ed St at es
v. Ki l by , 44 3 F.3d 1 1 3 5 , 1 1 4 0 (9 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (holdi ng that if a revi ewing

co urt fi nd s a m at eri al e rr o r i n the G ui d el i nes cal cul at i o n, i t “ wi l l remand f or r es ent enc i ng , wi t hout r eac hi ng t he ques t i on of whe t her t he s ent enc e a s a who l e i s reasonab l e”). dis tr ibut ion

of oxy c od on e , o ne c ount o f p os se ssi on wi th intent to dist ribute methadone , and one count of possession of a fire arm in fur

thera nce of the methadone ch ar g e. The dis tr ic t c ourt

se nte nc e d F lo r e s t o 2 4 0 months imp ri so nme nt— 180 months for the drugchar g es and 6 0 months for the fi re arm c ha

rg e , imp os e d c on se c uti ve ly

. F lor e s a pp e als his conviction of the gun char g e and his s en tence . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). In th is o pin ion , w e c on sid e r o nly F lores ’s cha lle ng e s to his sentenc e. In a conc urre ntly filed memora

ndum disposit ion,
we addre ss F lores’s separ ate challeng es to his co nviction. See United States v. Flores , __Fe d. App’x __ (9th Cir. 2013).

Flore s argues that in imposing the s entenc e, the district
c ourt e rr e d in e sti matin g the qu anti ty of dr ug s attr ibuta

ble to the conspira cy

under the United States Sentencing Guideli n es , and in applying a two-leve l sentencing enhanc ement under

United States SentencingGuidelines Manual § 3B 1.4 for use of a pe rson less th an ei gh t een y ear s of ag e in the conspira cy to distribute ox y co d o n e. We 1
co n cl u d e t h atan y

erro r i nes t i m at i n g t h e qu an t i ty o f d ru gs attributable to the c onspiracy was ha rmles s , but that the district court er

red in imposing the sentenc ing e nhance ment wi tho ut a n a de qu ate fa c tua l ba sis . We a c c ording ly va c a te Fl o re s ’s s en t en ce an d

re m an d fo r r es en t en ci n g.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 4

At t r i al , t he at t orn ey s and wi t nes s es ( and c ons equen t l y t he pres ent enc e 2

r e po r t , t r a n s c r i pt s , pa r t i e s ’ pa pers , a n d o r de r s ) u s e d t h e t e r ms “o xyco d o ne ” a nd “O xyC o nti n” i nterc ha ng ea b l y. “O xyco d o ne ” is a generi c o p i o i d pa i n rel i ever f o und i n a num b er of

prescri p t i o n m ed i cat i o ns
an d i s t h e s ol e ac t i v e i n g r edi en t i n O x y Cont i n , a wi del y u s ed pr es cr i pt i on
n a r c o tic m a n u fac tur e d b y P u rd u e P h a rm a L .P

. See U

. S. G o v ’t A c c o unt ab i l i t y O f

f i ce, G A O

- 0 4

- 1 1 0 , P res cri p t i o n D rugs : O xy C o nt in A b use and D i vers i o n E f f o rt s t o A d d res s t he P rob l em 1– 2 , 8– 9 , 11 (20 0 3 ). O x yc o d o n e is cla ssified a s a S c h e d u le II c o n tro lled su b sta n c e “b e c a u se it has hi gh pot en t i al f

or a bu s e an d ma y l ea d t o s ev er e ps y ch ol og i ca l or phy s i cal dependenc e. ” Id

. at 2 & n. 6

. W e use t he t erm s “oxycod o ne” and “O xy C o nt i n” i nt erchangeab l y i n our o p i ni o n to ref l ect t hei r us age i n t he

r ec or d.

T h e r e c o rd is un c le a r a s to the sta rt d a te o f t h e two se p a ra te 3 i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t h a t e v e n t u a l l y m e r g e d i n t o t h e j o i n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n

. DEA Inves tigat o r E rr i n Jewell t est i f i ed t hat he was i nf

o rme d of an o ngo i ng D E A i nv es t i gat i on i n J un e 200 8. H e l ea rne d t hat t he i nv es t i gat i on “ had po t ent i al t o be ver y comp l ex, a bi gg er i nv es t i gat i on i nv ol vi ng t he I ndi an Sm o ke Sho p

. . . a n d [he] was as si gned as t he l ead i nvest i gat o r on t he inv e stiga tio n .” F B I S p e c ia l A g e n t D o n a ld T r e a t te stif ie d tha t t h e F B I’s S o u th S o u n d G a n g T a sk F o rc e w a s c o n d u c ting a n inv e stiga tio n b e fo re it j oi ned wi t h t he D E A ’ s T acoma N ar cot i cs E nf orce ment T eam t as k f

orce
ar ou n d e ar l y t o mi d- 2008. I

This case arises out of a joint Feder al B urea

u of Investig ation (“F BI ”) and Drug Enforc ement Ag ency (“D EA”) investigation into ox y codone and methadone 2 traff icking on Puy allup tribal land in Washington State. Sometime before t he summer of 2008, law enf

orce ment 3 beg an investig atingFlore s and the smoke shop he mana g ed, the Indian Smoke Shop (the “Shop”), which is l ocate d on the Puy allup rese rvation. The inve stigation employ ed phy sical and ele ctronic sur

veillance , telephone toll re cords, tra p and trac e devic es on targ et telephone s, a pole c amer a installedU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 5 outside the Shop, co n fi dential informants, a nd controlled purcha ses of pills by

underc over a g ents and c ooperators. The investigation ended on Oc t o b er 20, 2009, when law
e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs arr e ste d F lor e s and his c od e fe nd ant s: Bill C. Flore s (“F lores Senior” ), F lores’s f ather ; Tiny

Be anFlore s (“Tiny

Be an”) , Flore s’s half- brother a nd an employ ee of the Shop; Danny L ee Sher wood (“ Sherwood” ), F lores’s relative and an e mploy ee of the Shop; Tim othy

Morehe ad, a purcha ser; and Shelbie I ng ham (“ Ing ham ”), F lores’s g irlfriend at the time.

The same day , law enf

orce ment office rs sea

rche d the Shop and Flor es ’s hous e pursua nt to searc h war

rants and
uncover ed evi d ence of a dr ug conspirac y . Offic ers discovere d cash and two bottles of methadone , and a loa ded Smit h and Wesson, Model 29, .44 Mag num revolver in an unlocked dr awe r appr ox imately one fo o t from a sa fe where the office rs rec overe d the bottles of methadone. Th e s ear ch of F lor e s’ s h ou se yie lded app ro ximate ly se ve n e mpt

y presc ription bottl es—five of which we re for ox y codone a nd
a ll o f whic h w e re pr e sc ri be d to pe rs on s o the r t ha n F lor e s.

Ba sed on this evidence , Flore s and his codef endants we re ind ic te d a nd c ha rg e d in 34 c ounts . F lor e s w a s in dic te d w ith
one c o un t o f

c o n s p ir in g to d is tr ib u te o xy c o d o n e and methadone in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), ( b)(1) (C), and 846, five counts of substantive distribution of ox y codone in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), (b)( 1)(C), one count of possession with intent to distribute methadone in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) (1), ( b)(1) (C), and one count of possession of a fi re arm in fur thera nce of the methadone c ount in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 924(c )(1) (A). Ti ny B e an, Ing ham, M or e he a d, and F lor e s Se nio r e nte re d into plea a g ree ments. Flore s and Sherwood proce eded to tr ial. AU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 6

T he j ur y ac qui t t ed Fl ores of cons pi r i ng t o di s t r i but e met hadone. 4 jur y fo un d F lor e s guil ty

of c on sp ir ingto d ist

ri bute
ox y codone, distributing ox y codone, posse ssing metha done wi th i nte nt t o dis tr ibute it, and po sse ssi nga

g un in further ance of the metha done cha rg e. 4

In calc ulating F lores’s b as e offense le vel, Flor es’s Presentenc e Report ( “PSR”) adopted a s t ar t date f or the conspirac y

of Oc tober 2007 and estim ated that the c onspiracy
s o l d 1 , 0 0 0 t o 1 , 5 0 0 8 0

- m i l l i g r am p i l l s o f o x yc o d o n e p e r d ay. PSRrec ommended a two- level upwar d adjustment for use of Shelbie Ing ham, a pe rson under eig hteen year s of ag e, in the
c on sp i r a c y

. F l o r e s f

i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o th e P S R

i nhis sentenc ing me morandum. Specific ally , he assert ed that (1) the PSR ’s estimate of the quantity of drug s attributable to the
c on sp ir a c y

wa s to o h ig h, and

(2 ) t he re wa s n o e vid e nc e to support the enha

nceme nt for use of

a minor.

At Flore s’s sentenc ing hear ing, Sher wood testified that he joi ne d th e c on sp ir a c y

in M ay 20 09 and e ve ntu a lly

so ld u p to 1,000 pills daily for Flore s. The district cour t concluded that a “c ons ervative estimate” pla ced the start date of the conspirac y i n Dec ember 2007, based on a

n unindicted coconspirator’s trial testi m o n y . The c ourt noted that it had hear d “a lot of t estimony

about the volume of the sales” a nd
c on c lud e d th a t 50 0 8 0- mil lig ra m pi lls of

oxy c od on e wa s a “conse rvative[]” estimate of the amount of pills t hat moved thr o u g h th e c o n s p ir a c y d a il y b e tw e e n D e c e mb e r 2 0 07 and October 2009.

The district court explained that the marijuana equivalent for that amount of ox y codone w as “w ell over” 30,000 kil o g rams of ma

rijuana, which is the smallest quantity thatU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 7

Fe der al s en t en ci n g cou r t s u s e t h e D r u g Q u an t i t y T abl e i n § 2D 1. 1 of 5 t h e Fe der al Se n t en ci n g G u i del i n es t o ca l cu l at e t h e bas e of f en s e l ev el f

or
o f f en ses invo l ving c o ntro l l ed sub st an ce s. W he re, as h ere , an o f f en se i nvo l ves a drug t hat i s no t li st ed i n t he D rug Q uant i t y T ab l e, s ent enci ng
c o u rts u se th e D ru g E q u iva le n c y T a b le s in § 2 D 1 .1 to c o v e rt the d ru g into

a n e q u iva le n t am o u n t o f m a riju a n a

. See U

. S. Sent enc i ng G ui del i nes M anu al § 2D 1. 1 cmt

. n. 8(A) ( 2 0 1 2 )

. T he D r ug E qui val enc y T abl es pr ov i de t h at on e g r am of a ct u al ox y codon e equ al s 6, 700 g r ams of mari j uan a.

H er e, us i ng t he di s t r i ct co ur t ’ s st ar t d at e o f t he cons pi r acy , D ece mb er 2 0 0 7 , m eans t he co nspi racy l ast ed 68 9 da y s. M ul t i p l y i ng 6 8 9 d ays by t he di s t r i ct cou r t ’ s es t i mat e of 500 pi l l s per day r es u l t s i n a t ot al of 344, 500 80

- mi l l i gr am pi l l s

. M ul t i pl y i ng t hi s amo un t by t he 80 mi l l i gr ams i n e ach pi l l r es ul t s i n 27, 56 0, 00 0 m i l l i gr ams, or 27 , 56 0 gr ams, of oxy codo ne. Final l y , af

t er conve rt i ng oxyco d o ne t o i t s m ari juana eq ui val ent us i ng t he 1 :6 ,7 0 0 gr a m ra tio in the D ru g E q u iva le n c y T a b le s, the d istric t co u rt’s adopt ed s t ar t da t e an d da i l y qua n t i t y y i el d a t ot al of 184, 652 k i l og r ams of

m ari juana. P urs uant t o t he D rug Q uant i t y T ab l e, any am o unt of m ari juana

o v e r 3 0 ,0 0 0 kilo g ra m s r e su lts i n the hig h e st b a se o ff e n se lev e l, w h ic h is 38. trig g ers the hig hest base of fense level, 38, in t he Dr ug Quantit y T able. See U.S. SentencingGuidelines Manua l § 2D1.1 (Dr

ug Quantity

Table)

. The district cour t theref ore 5 conclude d that Flore s’s b as e off ense le vel was 38. The district court imposed a four-leve l enhanc ement for Flore s’s leade rship role in the c onsp i ra cy and a two- level enhanc ement for

use of a minor. Howeve r, the district cour t did not make an e x press find i n g as to Ing ham’s ag e at the time of her involv ement in t he conspira cy . The c ourt imposed a two-level downwar d adjustment for F lores’s
acc eptanc e of r esponsibility , resulting in a tot al offe nse leve l of 42. The c ourt corr ectly stated that the Guidelines ra ng e for an off ense le vel 42 and c riminal history cate g ory Iis 360 months to l ife.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 8

The district c ourt did not rely solely on t h e G uidelines rang e in determining its ultimate sentence . Noting that the Fe dera l Sentencin g Guidelines ar e advisory , the cour t explai n e d th a t th e “ b ig is s u e is n o t s o mu c h th e math , the calc ulations; it ’s the qualitative issues that are so distressing . . . . May be S helbie I ng ham was broken before Billy Miranda Flore s g ot his claws in he r, but she is de finitely broken now .” The c ourt also stated:

There is a lot of human wre ckag e in this case, and we don’t eve n know how p er v asive the
rea ch of th is conspirac y

went, not those who
a g r e e d to p e r f o r m s a le s , b u t j u s t t

h e r e a c hof the conspira cy , the people who boug ht, the p e o p l e w h o s o l d

an d m o r e

— m o s t i m p o rt an t l y, those people who used.

T h e d i s tri ctco urt fu rt h er

o p i n edth atth e “ b i gges tch al l en ge for a ny judge who sentenc es someone” is de t erminingthe differ ence betwee n a cr iminal “who is ignor ant or dumb or stu pid

. . . [and ] in n e e d o f a

br e ak” and

tho se wh o “ are re a lly bad.” “ Iput Billy

Miranda F lores amongthat [l atter] g roup” beca use F lores “pr ey s on people,” “has no e mpathy for other pe o p le , ” an d

“ h a s h ar me d s o ma n y p e o p le

. ” B a s e d

o n“ the seriousness of the offe nse, the pe rsonal cha rac teristics, the need t o p ro m ote the rule of law a nd to deter pe ople from committ i n g the same of

fense s that he has c ommitt ed,” the court imposed a total of

240 mon ths of imprisonment—180 months of imprisonment on the drug char g es, half ofthe lowend of the advisory

Guidelin es ra

ng e, and 60 months on the firea rm offe nse, whi ch is the mandator y minimum sentenc e for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 9

Flore s raises two issues on appeal re lating to the
c a lc ulatio n o f h is F e de ra l Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r ang e . F ir st, Flore s argues the district cour t err ed in calculating the amount
o f drugs attributable to the conspirac y by employi n g a method that was not sufficiently reliable and by failingto “er

r on the sid e of

c a uti on ” as r e qu ir e d b y

Ni nth Cir c uit p r e c e d e n t. Se c o n d , F lo r e s a s s e rts th a t t h e tw o
- le v el
en h an ce m en t fo r u s e o f ap er s o nun d er ei gh t ee ny ea rs o f a ge in the conspirac y

was not supported by

the re cord.

II

We first addre ss Flore s’s challeng e to the district cour t’s
c a l c u l a t i o no f

th e dr u g qu an t i ty at tr i b u t a

b l e t o th e c o n s p i r a c y.

“ Whe n w e re vie w a

se nte nc e , th e fi rs t ste p is to de te rm ine if the district court made a mater ial err or i n i ts Guidelines calc ulation that serves a s the startingpoint for its sentencing decision.” Kilby , 4 4 3 F. 3 d at1 1 4 0 (c i t i n g United St a t es v. Can tre ll , 433 F.3d 1269, 1280 (9th Cir. 2006)). I f we find a materia l err or in the Guidelines c alculation, “w e will rema nd for r esente ncing , without reac hing the question of whethe r the sentenc e as a whole is rea sonable.” Kilby , 443 F.3d at 1140 (citation omitted). I f the dist rict court did not err in applying the Guidelines, we then consider challeng es to the
rea sonabl en es s of the ove rall sentenc e in light of the fa ctors specifie d in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id.

This Court

re vie ws de novo “whe ther a district court’s
me tho d o f a

pp ro ximatio n o f t

he re le va nt dr ugqu anti ty
c o n f o r ms to th e G u id e li n e s

. ” Id. (c i t i n g United States v. R o s a c ker , 314 F.3d 422, 425 ( 9th Cir. 2002)). Afte r United Sta tes v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), we revie w a district
c ourt ’s se nte nc ing de c isi on s, inc lud ingits fa c tua l f ind ing s, for a buse of discr etion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 10 (2 00 7) ; Un ite d S

tates v . Ca rty , 520 F. 3 d984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (e n banc) . Under

the law of this Circuit, a dis trict court is r e qu ir e d to re so lve fa c tua l disp ute s re g ard ingdr ugqu anti ty by applying the prepond er ance of the e vidence standard. Kilby , 4 4 3 F

. 3 d

at1 1 4 0 ; s ee Rosacke r , 314 F.3d at 429–30 (h o l d i n g th e c l e ar an d c o n v i n c i n g s t an d ar d th a t a p p lie s to
c a se s wh e re a se nte nc ing fa c tor ha s an e xtre me ly disproportionate e ffe ct on the sentence does not apply to drug quantity approximations).

Severa l dif

fer ent witnesses testified about the qua ntity of drug s sold by

the conspira cy . Most of the evidenc e at tria l relating to the quantity of drug s over the life of the c onspiracy
came from code fenda

nt Tiny Be an, unindicted c oconspirator s L eslie L arson ( “L arson” ) and D ennis Hilsendeg er (“H ilsendeg er” ), law enfor ceme nt of fice rs who surve illed the Shop, and an under cover

office r who m ade thr ee c ontrolled buy s from Flores. I n addition, Sherwood testified at Flore s’s sentenc ing he aringreg ardingthe amount of drug s Sherwood
s o l d f o r th e c o n s p i r a c y. A short summary

of the c oconspirators’ testimony relating to the qua

ntity of drugs they

individually

sold for Fl o re s i s u s ef

u l h er e. L ar s o nt es t i fi eds h e b ega ns el l i n g dru gs for F lores in appr ox imately Fe bruar y of either 2007 or 2008, while the other

coconspirators testified they beg an sellingfor Flore s as ear ly

as January

2008 and as late as mid-2009. L arson testified that she sold drug s fo r Flores for approximately

one y ear until h er arr est on April 16, 2009. Over this one-y ear

period, L arson testified she started se lling
a few pills per day and eventua lly incre ased to s elling hund re ds of pil ls pe r d ay . H ils e nd e g e r t e sti fi e d h e so ld p ill s for F lores for

approximately

six mont h s, starting with a fe w pil ls a da

y in Janu ary or F e br

ua ry 20 08 and

e ve ntu a llyU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 11

A l t ho ugh 33 2 m et had o ne p i l l s were sei zed f rom Flores’ s o f

f i ce, t he 6 jury ac q uit t ed F l o res o f co nsp i ring t o d i st ribu t e m etha d o ne

. T hu s, t ho se pi l l s ar e not i ncl uded i n t he quant i t y dru gs at t r i but abl e t o t he cons pi r acy t o di s t r i but e oxy codo ne. incre asing to 50 or 100 pills per day . Tiny Be an testified he
so ld p ill s f

or F lor e s w he n F lor e s w a s o ut o f t ow n a nd sold
a pp ro ximate ly

10 0 to 30 0 p ill s o ve r te n o r t we lve we e ke nd s, or 5 0 to 1 00 pil ls p e r d ay , b ut o nc e so ld a ro un d 1 ,0 00 pil ls
over one wee kend. Sherwood testified he sold pills for Flore s for a round six months starting in May 2009, though he believed that Flore s beg an sellingpills i n 2007. Sherwood testified he sold hundre ds of pills per day when he started a

nd eventua lly

incre ased to 1,000 pi l l s per da y . Sherwood
e sti mate d th a t e ig ht t o te n o the r p e rs on s so ld d ru g s f or F lor e s. Th e wi tne sse s te sti fi e d th e y pr ima ri ly so ld 8 0- mil lig ra

m pi lls

. Th e PSR e sti mate d th at th e c on sp ir a c y so ld 1 ,0 00 to 1 , 5 0 0 8 0 -m i l l i gra m p i l l s p er d ay fr o m Oc t o b er 2 0 0 7 th ro u gh October 2009. The district c ourt adopted Dec ember 2007 as the start date of the conspirac y and used 50 0 80-milligram pills as a “conse rvative” estimate of the volume of oxy codone p i l l s m o v e d

b y th e c o n s p i r a c y p e r

d ay.

T h e ac cura cy

of this estimate is important beca use the
a pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s r ang e fo r a dr ugtr a ff ick in g c ri me depends upon the weig ht of drug s involved. United States v. Culps , 300 F.3d 1069, 1076 ( 9th Cir. 2002); U.S. S entenc ing Guidelines Manua l § 2D1.1(a) , (c) (2 0 0 4 ). W here , as her e, none of the total drug s alleg edly sold by the conspira cy

wer e 6 seized, the district court may approximate the weig ht of the drug s. Kilby , 4 4 3 F. 3 d at1 1 4 1 (c i t i n g United States v. Au gu st , 86 F.3d 151, 154 (9th Cir. 1996) ; U .S. S en t en cingU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 12

T he co m m en t p ro vid es: 7

In ma k i ng t hi s d et erm i nat i o n, t he co urt m ay co nsi d er, f o r ex a m p le, t he p ri ce general l y ob t ai ned f o r t he cont r ol l ed s ubs t anc e, f

i nan ci al or ot her r ecor ds, s i mi l ar tra n sa c tio n s in co n tro lled su b sta n c e s b y the d e fen d a n t,
an d t h e s i ze or c apa bi l i t y of a n y l abor at or y i n v ol v ed.

U

. S. Se n t en ci n g G u i del i n es M an u al § 2D 1. 1, c mt

. n

. 5. Guidelines Manua l § 2D1.1, cmt. n.5). Be cause a sente nce 7 wi ll v ary g re a tly ba se d o n th e se a pp ro ximatio ns , c ourt s mu st exercise c aution in selectingt h e method of ca lculation and meet the f

ollowing c riteria: (1) “the g overnme nt is require d to prove the a

pproxi mate quantity

by a pre pondera

nce of the
e vid e nc e

. . . [w hic h m eans that] [t]he dis tr ic t c ourt mus t
c on c lud e that th e de fe nd ant i s mo re lik e ly tha n no t a c tua lly
re sp on sib le fo r a

qu anti ty g re ate r t ha n o r e qu a l to the qu anti ty for whic h the def

endant is beingheld re sponsible”; (2) “ the inf or matio n wh ich s up po rt s an a pp ro ximatio n mu st p os se ss su ff ic ie nt i nd ic ia

of re lia bilit y to s up po rt

its pr ob a

ble
acc urac y ”; and ( 3) bec a

u se the de fenda

nt’s “sente nce de pends in larg e par

t upon the amount of drug s . . . and appr ox imation i s b y d e f i n i t i o ni mp r e c i s e , th e d i s tr i c tc o urt mu s t err on the side of caution ” in appr ox imating the dr ug quantity

. Culps , 300 F.3d at 1076 (empha sis added) (interna l quotation marks
and c itatio n o mitte d) ; United St ates v. W alton , 908 F.2d 1298, 1302 (9th Cir. 1990) (“ [W ]hen choosin g b etwee n a number of pl ausible estim ates of drug quantity , none of which is more likely than not the cor

rec t quantity , a cour

t m u s t er r o n the side of ca ution.”). This Court previously

has appr oved the “ multipl ier method” employ ed by

the district court, whic h estimates the total quanti t y o f drug s sold by “sele cting a time per iod overU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 13

which it is more likely

than not that the def

endant wa s dealingin that quantity

and multiply ing the se two fa ctors toge ther.” Culps , 300 F.3d at 1077 (holding the multipli er me th o d i s an a c c e p t a b l e m e an s o f

c a l c u l at i n g dr

u gqu anti ty “[p] rovided that the approxim ation has a r eliable e videntiary basis and that the c ou rt p ro cee ds with caution”). A pplying the multipli er me thod in this case require d the district court t o d e t e r m i n e th r e e d at a p o i n t s : th e l e n g tho f th e c o n s p i r a c y, the number of pills sol d by the conspira cy

per da y , and the tablet streng th of t h e p i l l s . We examine the district court’s fi nd ing s a s to e a c h d ata

po int

. We beg in wit h t h e ea siest data point first: the tablet streng th. Several witnesses involved in the conspirac y testified they

primarily

so l d 8 0-milligram pills , and no wi tne ss c on tr a dic te d th is te sti mony

. In a dd iti on , F lor e s so ld 70 to 100 80-milli g ram pills to an underco v er agent dur ing three controlled buy s. Consequently , the district court’s adoption of an a

vera g e tablet stre ng th of 8 0-milligrams was not an abuse of discre tion.

The next data point we consider is the quantity o f d ru gs attributable to the c onspiracy p er d ay . The district cour t dis c ounte d it s ba se lin e e sti mate of 1, 00 0 p ill s p e r d ay

by fi ft y perc ent to s at i s fy

its duty to acc ount for a ma

rg in of err or. See id. at 10 8 1 (st ating fifty perc ent re duction of base line estimate ordinar ily

will “satisfy the district court’s duty to err on the s ide of c aution[,] ” assumingthe amount being dis c ounte d is found e d o n r e lia ble e vid e nc e ); c

f. Au gu st , 8 6 F

. 3 d a t 1 5 4 ( p e r

mi tt in g th e me th o d o f c a lc u lating “ lab capa city ” as a

n approximation of the releva nt am o u n t of drug s that “could have bee n produce d during the cour s e of theoff e ns e ”) ( emphasis in orig inal). There was sca nt evidenc e at trial relating to the quantity of drug s sold duringU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 14

On l y L a r s on bo t h pl a c e d t h e da t e of t h e c on s pi r a c y du r i n g t h a t t i me 8 per i od and p ro v id e d in fo rm a tio n re g a rd ing the q u a n tit y o f p ill s sh e so ld dur i ng t hat t i me. H owever , L ar s on st at ed s he began sel l i ng pi l l s i n e i t her Fe b ruary 20 0 7 or Fe b ruary 20 0 8

. Sherwo o d i s t he o nl y other wi t ness who t es t i f i ed t hat t he cons pi r acy bega n i n 2007 ( t houg h h e was not i nv ol ved a t t hat ti m e), b ut he p rovided no inf o rma t i o n regard i ng the am o unt o f drugs sol d du r i n g t h at per i od. Se v er al wi t n es s es

— La r s on , H i l s en deg er , and Sher woo d— t es t i f

i ed t hey began s el l i ng s mal l amo un t s of pi l l s f or Fl ores in 2 0 0 8 o r 2 0 0 9 a n d e v e n tua lly inc re a se d the ir sa le s d ra m a tica lly. the e arl ie st months of the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se le c te d ti me fr ame f o r th e c o n s p i r a c y. T here was, howe ver, c oconspirator 8 testimony attributing hundr eds of pills per d ay to the conspirac y from J anuar

y 2008 throug h mid-2008 and then
ev e nh igh e r

amo un ts f

o r th e mo n th s th e r e a f

te r

. T h e d is tr ict
c ourt ’s e sti mate of

50 0 8 0- mil lig ra

m pi lls per

da y is sup p o rt ed by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Thus, the district co u rt did not abuse its discretion in estimating the d a i l y dr u g qu an t i ty at tr i b u t a

b l e t o th e c o n s p i r a c y. Finally , as to the last data point, the leng th of the conspirac y , the district court a dopted a star t date of De cembe r 20 07 . In s e le c tin g tha

t da te , th e dist ri c t c ourt

state d th a t it relied on L arson’ s testi m o n y . L arson testified that she purcha sed oxy codone f

rom Flore s for a

pproxi mately

one y ear

. At the sentenc ing he aring , the district court stated that L arson wa s arr ested in August 2008 and th at nine or twe lve months before her a

rre st would place he r en tranc e into the conspirac y

in “ October to D ece mber 2007.” L ater , the cour t stated:

Ibelieve the conspi ra cy beg an on or be fore Dec ember

2007. L es lie L arson wa s arr ested in Aug ust [ 2008]. S he wa s buying up to 300 pills per day

from Bi l l y Flore s for 9 to 12U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 15

months at t hat t ime. Takingthe conse rvative estimate would put that in Dec ember 2007.
Thus, to arrive at Dec em b er 2 007 as the star t date of the conspirac y , the district co u rt relied on Aug ust 2008 as the d ate L arson wa s arr ested a nd then counted ba ckwa

rds nine months to reach D ece mber 2007.

The e vidence at t rial, howe ver, doe s not support a finding that L arson wa s arr ested in August 2008. Althoug h L arson te sti fi e d th a t la

w e nf or c e me nt s e arc he d h e r ap artme nt at so me unspec if ie d d a te be fo re he r a

rr e st, sh e state d th a t he r “ fi rs t
arr est” for

selli n g drug s for F lores wa s not until April 16, 20 09 . L ars on te sti fi e d th at sh e wa s arr e ste d a g a in i n November

2009 (the da

y afte r Thanksg iving) for not appea ringin co u rt and then se rved six mont hs of imp ri so nme nt. A district court may

rely on a coc onspi ra t o r’ s testimony wh e re , a s h e re , th e te sti mony is g ive n unde r o ath a

nd is subject to cross- examination. See, e.g. , United States v. Alvarez , 358 F.3d 1194, 1213 (9th Cir. 2004) (holdingthree
c oc on sp ir a tor s’ e sti mate s o f d ru g wei gh t w e re su ff

ic ie ntl y re lia ble wh e re the y

te sti fi e d und e r o ath a

nd we re su bje c t to
cross-e x amination); Un ite d S tates v. Me lc ho r- Zaragoz a , 35 1 F .3 d 9 25 , 9 29 (9 th C ir . 2 00 3) (h old ingtha t a coconspirator’s testimony that twenty -three aliens we re taken hostag e by

conspirator s was suff

icient to suppo rt court’s fi nd ing , f or s e nte nc ingpurp os e s, tha t tw e nty -t hr e e vic tim s wer e involved in the conspiracy to commit host ag e taking ). Howeve r, there is no evidenc e i n the re cord to support the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing

that L ars on

wa s arr e ste d in

Au g us t 2008. Consequently , the district c ourt’s Dec ember 2007 start date of the conspira cy , which wa s based on the purportedU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 16 August 2008 arre st, also is not supported by L arson’ s t e s t i m o n y.
Sh e r w o o d w a s th e o n ly o th e r w it n e s s w h o te s ti f

ie d that Flore s was sellingdrug s in 2007. In response to Governme nt questioning at the sentenc ing he aring , Sherwood c onfirmed that he was not “awar e of a ny time period fr om [ an unspecifie d date in 2007] until [ Sherwood’s] arr est in 2009 when B illy

Flore s wasn’t sellingpills.” The re m ai ning witnesses t estified to enter ing the conspirac y in 2008 or 2009. Of tho se wi tne sse s, Hi lse nd e g e r t e sti fi e d to the e arl ie st involvement—in J anuar

y or F ebrua

ry of 2008.

Th e PSR p la ced th e sta rt date of the c on sp ir a c y

in October 2007, two months be fore the date the district court adopted. A “ court may

adopt t h e fa ctual finding s of the prese nt en ce re port . . . [but] may not . . . adopt conclusory statements unsupported by fac ts or the Guideli n es.” United Sta te s v . Na v arro , 9 79 F .2 d 7 86 , 7 89 (9thCir . 1 99 2) ; see United States v. Garc ia-Sanche z , 1 89 F .3 d 11 43 , 1 14 9 ( 9th Cir. 1999) (re versingestimate of c on s p irac y ’s wee kly drug sal es where g overnme nt offer ed only ag ent’s unexplained conclusi o n s that did not contain “suffic ient indicia of reliability t o support its probable ac cura cy” (c itation omitted)). Sherwood’ s t est imony g ives the district court’ s deter mination that the conspiracy started in De cembe r 2007
so me sli g h t s u

p p o rt

. B u t e v e n i f th e d i s tr i c t c o urt e r r e d in deter mining the star

t date, any

err or in the district court’s calc ulation of t he length of the conspiracy is harmless be y ond
a re asonab l e d o u b t. See A lvarez , 358 F.3d at 1213 (holding any err or was harmless wher e, in orde r to lower de fenda nt’s base of fense level, the qua

ntity of drug s would have to dr op below an a

mount that was not supported b y t h e re cord)

. Selectinga start date, base d on Hilsendeg er’ s testimony , ofU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 17

Janu ary or F e br ua ry 20 08 wo uld re su lt i n th e same ba se of fe ns e le ve l, as wo uld

a do pti ngF lor e s’ s su g g e ste d s tart date of September

25, 2008. Indeed, e ven if the le ng th of the
con s p i ra cy wer e cut in half , the number of

pills sol d by

the conspirac y

daily would have to drop below 170 80-milligr am pills t o lower F lores’s ba se off ense le vel from 38 to 36. Such a drop is not sup p o rt ed by the re cord. Thus, a

rec alculation of the Gu i d el i nes ra

ng e by the district court ba sed on a sh or te r c on sp ir a c y

le ng th w ou ld not le a d to a le sse r b a se offe nse leve l. See id. Consequently , any err or by the district court in cal cu lating the quantity of drug s attributable to the conspirac y

is harml ess. See Can tre ll , 433 F.3d at 1280; Un ite d S tates v . S c he e le , 2 31 F .3 d 4 92 , 4 99 –500 & n. 4 ( 9th Cir. 2000).

III

Flore s nextargues that the district cour t committed proce dural e rror

in imposi ng a sente nci ng enhanc ement for
u s e o f a p e r s o n un d e r

e i g h t e e nye ar s o f

a g e i nth e c o n s p i r a c y. F lor e s ma int a ins the re wa s n o e vid e nce i n th e re c or d a s to S h e l b i e In g h am ’ s a g e atth e t i m e s h e e n t e r e d th e c o n s p i r a c y. We a g re e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se d its di scre tio n in imposing this sentencingenhancement be cause the cour t fa ile d to se t f

or th i ts r e a so ns fo r f

ind ingthat Ing ham w a s a m i n o r w h e ns h e p art i c i p at e d

i nth e c o n s p i r a c y.
A

At trial, Flore s testified that he met Shelbie I n gh am aro un d N ov e mbe r o r De c e mbe r 2 00 8. Af te r m e e tin g Ing ham, F lor e s sa id h e did

no t se e he r fo r f

our t o s ix months be c a

us e Ing ham made his g irlfriend at the time, L arson, “ very upset,” and L arson t old Flore s not to talk to I ng ham. Flor es starte dU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 18 talking to Ing ham ag ain af ter she br oug ht he r car to the Shop for re p a ir s

. Inh is te s ti mo n y , F lo r e s a dmi tt e d to s e ll ing Ing ham oxy codone in the summer of 2009, when s he wa s ar o un d ei gh t ee n y ea rs o l d

. T i n y Be an t es t i fi ed h e so l d dru gs to Ing ham sometime befor e he stoppe d selling dr ug s for Flore s in J u n e 2009. In August or September 2009, la w enfor ceme nt made a c ontrolled buy from Ing ham. Flor es admitted to bein g i ntimate with I ng ham “at the end,” be fore he wa s arr est ed on October 20, 2009. Flore s estimated that Ing ham turned eig hteen about four months be fore she wa s arr ested, plac ing he r birthday around June 2009.

The PSR recommende d a two-le vel upwar d adjustment fo r F lor e s’ s use of “ a pe rs on

. . . le ss t ha n 1 8 ye ars of

a g e to
c omm it the of

fe ns e .” F lor e s’ s PSR r e fe rr e d to I ngham a s a minor and stated that Ing h am was a ddicted to pills and beca me a membe r of the c onspiracy to support her a ddiction. F lor e s o bje c te d to the PSR’ s c ha ra c te ri zat ion of

Ing ham a s a minor at the t ime she was involved in the conspirac y , arguing there was no evidenc e to suppor t that f inding. The probation of fi c e de c lin e d to ame nd

the PSR, howev e r, statin g tha t it s information of I n gh am’s ag e wa s based on the f ollowing languag e fr om I ng ham’s PSR : “Flor es provided a residenc e and vehic le for Ing ham, who was the y oung est member of the conspirac y , and bar ely

sevente en whe n she bec ame involved with Ox y contin and met F lores.”

In its SentencingMemorandum, the G overnme nt did not
re qu e st a n e nh anc e me nt f

or us e of a min or purs ua

nt t o § 3B1.4, nor

did it allege fa ct s demonstratingthat Ing ham
was a minor. I t indicated at the sentencinghear ing, how ever , that it did not “disagr ee w ith the Court that there is evide nce there to find it.”U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 19

The district cour

t f ai l ed t o point to any

evidenc e in the
rec ord establishingIng ham’s ag e at the time of her involvement in t h e conspiracy . Duringthe sentenc ing he ari ng , d e fe ns e c ouns e l argue d th at th e e nh anc e me nt f or us e of a minor in the conspira cy should not apply , and the district court re sponded: “I

can te ll y ou that . . . there ’s a two- level incre ase on use of a pe rson under [eightee n]. I kn o w t hat from—I know [I ng ham], and Iknow the cir cumstan ce s.” After lis t en i n g to Sherwood’s testimony , the ar g ument of counsel, a

nd Flore s’s allocution , t h e district cour t imposed the two-leve l enhanc ement for using a person l ess t han eight een year s of ag e in the conspira cy . The district cour t’s
v agu e s t at em en t ab o u t k n o wi n g I n gh am an dthe circ umstances did not set fo rt h any fac ts to just ify

the imposit ion of the enha

nceme nt.

B

Pos t- Booke r , we r eview a district court’s sente ncing decisions, including its factual f indings, for ab u s e of discretion. Ga ll , 5 52 U. S. at 49 ; Car ty , 5 2 0 F. 3 d at 993. A two-leve l sentencingenhanc em ent may be imposed under United S tates S entenc ing Guidelines Manual § 3B 1.4 “[i] f the defe ndant used or attempted to use a pe rson less than eig hteen y ea rs o f ag e to commit the offe nse or a ssist i n avoiding detec tion of, or apprehension for , the offe nse,” me aningthat the def endant dire c te d , c o mm a

n d ed, enc ourag ed, intimidated, counsele d, trained, pr ocure d, rec ruited, or solicited the minor. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 cmt. n.1 (2001) . The district c o u rt may impose the § 3B1.4 e nhance ment only if a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e demonstrates t h at t he def endant “ acte d aff irmatively

to involve the minor in the crime.” United States v. Jime nez , 300 F.3d 1166, 1069 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks a

nd citation omitted).U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 20

B e c a u s e th e d i s tr i c tc o urtd i d

n o tp r o v i d e a

f a c tu a l b a s is for imposing the enha

nceme nt for use o f a m i nor in the
c o n s p i r a c y , w e mu s t

d e t e r m i n e w h e th e r

an“ a d e qua te explanation” can be “infe rred from the PSR or the rec ord as a whole.” Car ty , 5 20 F .3 d at 99 2; se e als o United States v. Jordan , 2 91 F.3 d 109 1, 10 99 (9 th C ir . 2 00 2) (“ A m e re ly
s p e c u lati v e lo g ic c an n o t d is p la c e th e n e e d f o r e v ide nce on [t he question of whe ther a defe ndant’s conduc t justi fied a leade rshi p -role e nhance ment], which cannot be de cided by assumption or infere nce not ba sed o n fac t.”). He re, ne ither the PSRnor the re cord supply an ad equate explanation for thi s e nh anc e me nt.

At tr ia l, F lor e s a dmi tte d that he c on sp ir e d wi th I ng ham to sell ox y codone but de n ied that she wa s a minor when she began selling for

him. There w as no other e vidence at trial
r e g ar d i n g In g h am ’ s a g e w h e ns h e e n t e r e d th e c o n s p i r a c y. The PSR refer s to Ing ham as a minor and states that Ing ham
was a ddicted to pills and beca me a membe r of the distribution
c on sp ir a c y

to s up po rt

he r o wn a dd ic tio n. Th e Ad de nd um t o the PSR , cre ated in re sponse to Flores ’s objection, copie d languag e from Ing ham’s PSR , which states that Fl o res provided Ing ham a r esidenc e and a v eh i cle and that she wa s

“ ba re ly se ve nte e n whe n she be c ame inv olv e d w ithOxy c on tin
and me t F lor e s. ” Th is factu al asse rt ion do e s n ot s up po rt

a finding that she bec ame a member of

the conspi ra cy

befor e she re ache d the ag e of e ighte en.
The fir st question, then, is whether these statements in the PSRmay serve as a prope r basis for the district court’s decision. This Court has held that a dis trict court may rely on an u n challenged P S R at s e n t e n c i n g t o f i n d b y a p re p o n d er an ce o f t h e e v i d en ce th atth e f ac t s un d er l y i n g a sentenc ing e nhance ment have be en esta blished. S

e e U nitedU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 21

Sta te s v . Ch ar le

swo rth , 217 F.3d 1155, 1160–61 (9th Cir. 2000) (whe re de fenda

nt failed to challeng e ac cura cy of information in prese nt en ce report and fa iled to offer any evidenc e to contra dict presentence repor t, sentencingcourt did not err in re lying on pr es entence re port in denying defe ndant’s re quest for se ntence reduc tion); United St ates v. Marin-Cuevas , 147 F.3d 889, 895 ( 9th Cir. 1998). Howe ver, the dis tr ic t c ourt

“ may no t . . . a do pt c on c lus or

y state me nts unsupported by

the fa cts or t he Guidelines.” Culps , 300 F.3d
a t 1078 (c itatio ns omi tte d) (h old inga c on c lus or

y state me nt i n a PSR reg ardingthe ave rag e tra nsaction size in a drug conspirac y

could not sustain district court’s adoption of that
s i z e w h e r e “ th e f

a c tu a l un d e r

p i n n i n g f o r th a t a s s e rt i o n , i f

an y, was not explained”).

The re cord doe s not provide an e x planation of the fa ctual
un de rp inn ingfo r the a sse rt ion in the PSR th a t Ing ham w a s a minor when she pa

rticipated in the c onsp i ra cy . Flore s objected to the PSR and argued ther e wa s n o ev i d ence of Ing ham’s ag e whe n she joined the c onspiracy . He did not submit evidence r eg ardingher a g e whe n she joined the conspirac y . Flore s’s failure to s ubmit such evidence is not dispositi ve. We previously have held that “whe n a def endant raises obje ctions to the PSR , the district court is obli gated to resolve the fac tual dispute, and the gove rnm en t bears the bu rd e n o f proo f . . . . The c ourt may

not simpl y

rely on the fac tual s t atements in t he PSR.” United States v. Showalter , 569 F.3d 1150, 1160 ( 9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis adde d) (c iting United States v. Ame line , 409 F. 3 d1073, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) ; Fe d. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(3)( B) (re quiring court to rule on disputed matters at sentencing )). Th us, Flore s’s fa ilure to p ro vid e a dd iti on a l e vid e nti ary su pp or t f or his
c on te nti on

did no t a lte r t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ob lig a tio n toU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 22

I n i t s an s wer i ng bri ef

, t he G over nment s t at es t hat In gh am’ s bi r t hday 9

“ wa s i n J u l y 20 0 9

. ” T h e G ov er n men t de t er mi n ed I n g h am’ s bi r t h day by l oo ki ng at Ing ham’ s P r es ent enc e R eport , “t o whi ch t he di s t r i ct cour t ha d

access. ” Ingham ’ s P SR i s no t p rop erl y b ef o re t hi s C o urt , how ever, b e c a u se it w a s n o t i n the re c o rd b e lo w . T h e G o v e rn m e n t alte rn a tiv e ly argues t hat t he P SR A d d end um pro vi d ed Flores access t o t he rele v ant info rm a tio n fro m In g h a m ’s P S R re g a rd ing he r a g e . T h is is i n c o rr e c t, h owe v er , be ca u s e t h e Adden du m di d n ot i n cl u de I n g h am ’ s bi r t h day n or d id it s ta te t hat s he was a minor when she becam e i nvo l ved i n t he

co nspi racy

. A d d i t i o nal l y , t he d i st ri ct co urt co ul d not b ase i t s co ncl usi o ns
r egard i ng I n g h am’ s a g e an d h er i n v ol v eme n t i n t h e con s pi r ac y on info rm a tio n to w h ic h F lo re s w a s n o t p riv y. See A p p el l ant ’ s O p eni ng B r. at 34 (n ot i ng t hat d ef

ens e couns el d i d not have acces s t o In gh am’ s s eal ed P S R ). D u rin g o ra l ar g u m e n t, the G o v e rn m e n t cla im e d tha t In g h a m ’s S e n te n c ing M e m o ra n d u m sta te s tha t he r b irthd a y is J u ly 9 , 1 9 9 1 . T h is

m a y b e tru e , b u t ev e n if tha t m e m o ra n d u m w e re p a rt o f t h e re c o rd in this

c a se , w h e the r In g h a m ’s b irthd a y w a s in Ju n e o r Ju ly 2 0 0 9 is im m a te ria l, b e c a u se the re is no e v id e n c e i n t h e re c o rd tha t es ta b lishe s b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e tha t In g h a m p a rtic ip a te d in the c o n sp ira c y b e fo re J u ly 2009. resolve this fa ctual dispute nor e x cuse the Governme nt’s failure to meet its burden of pr oof.

The e vidence in the rec ord simil arly does not provide the
nece ssary

fac tual underpinning fo r i m p o s i n g the enhanc ement. The only

evi dence in the rec ord of Ing ham’s ag e ca me from F lores, who e stimated that she turned e ighte en in J une 2009. None of the events the Gover nment relies on 9 to connec t I ng ham to the conspira cy took place befo re June 20 09 . The Go ve rnme nt i de nti fi e s a c tiv iti e s th a t to ok pla c e in the “summer,” but “ summer” falls both be fore an daf ter Ing ham’s birthday . Nor doe s evidenc e that I n gh am was “close ” with Flores or in a relationship with him before she turned e ighte en esta

blish by a prepondera

nce of the evidenc e that sh e wa s invo lve d in

the c on sp ir a c y

at th a t ti me . T he on ly evidenc e af

firmatively linking Ing ham to the conspira cy —asU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 23

o p p o s e d to me r e ly li n k in g h e r to F lo r e s

— w as law enforceme nt’s control l edp urc h as e f ro mIn gh am i nS ep t em ber 2009, which occ urre d after J une 2009, the m o n t h Flore s t e s t i f i e d th a tIn g h am ’ s e i g h t e e n thb i rth d ay t o o k p l a c e

. In addi ti o n , th e PS R d o e s n o t, c o n tr ar y to th e G o v e r

n me nt’s
a sse rt ion , s tate that Ing ham wa s sev e nte e n whe n she “ be c ame inv olved in the conspiracy ,” only that she wa s seventee n when she beca

me involved with Oxycontin and met Flores

. Ing ham’ s a dd ic tio n to Oxy Contin and he r r e latio ns hip wi th Flore s when she w as seve nt ee n do not demonstrate that Ing ham joined the conspira cy at t h at t ime. There fore , we conclude t hat the Gove rnment did not meet its burden of establishing that Ing ham was a minor when she p ar ticipated i nc o n s p i r a c y. When a par

ty raises a specific, non-fr ivolous argument that is re le va

nt t o s e nte nc ing , “ the jud ge sh ou ld n or ma lly explain why

he ac cepts or r ejec ts th e party ’s position.” Car ty , 520 F.3d at 992–93 (citation omitted). The district
co u rt ’s failure to do so is not procedura l error wher e “ade quate e x planation” may “be inf err ed fr om the PSR or the
rec ord as a

whole.” Id. at 992. T h e fac tual basis for the district court’s imposi tion of the enha nceme nt here cannot be inferr ed fr om the PSRor the re cord as a wh ole. See Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 50 (“[A cour t] must adeq u at ely

explain the chose n s entence to allow for meaning ful appe llate re view

. . . . ” ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr ov ide d n o f

a ctu a l ba sis fo r i ts
con clus ion and fa iled to resolve a fac tual dispute raised by Flore s. T h e f

a c ts in th e PS R a

r e in c o n c lu s iv e a s to w h e ther Ing ham was a minor whe n she joined the c onspiracy , and the trial rec ord does not illuminate the issue. On this limi ted evidentiar y rec ord, we cannot c onclude that this enha nceme nt was supporte d by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Thus, we must c onclude that the district c ourt abused its discretion byU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 24 imp os ing the e nh anc e me nt w ithou t pro vid ingan a de qu a te fa c tua l ba sis

. C The Supreme Court has held that improperly calc ulating the Guidelines ra

nge may constitute “sig nificant proc edura l
err or.” Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. Thus, even where , as her e, the district court i m p o ses a se ntence well below the Guidelines rang e, it is difficult, if not impossi ble, to d et er mine whether the cour t would impose the same sente nce if it were to heed its im perative to keep the Guidelines ra n ge “in mind throug hout t h e proce ss.” Car ty , 5 20 F .3 d at 99 1; Ga ll , 55 2 U .S. a t 50 n. 6 ( “ [D]is tr ic t c ourt s mu st b e g in t he ir ana ly sis with the Guidelines and r emain cognizant of them throughout the se nte nc ingpr oc e ss. ” ); United States v. Munoz- Camarena , 631 F.3d 1028, 1031 ( 9th Cir. 201 1 ) (declining to find harmless a

district court’s incor

rec t application of a

n enhanc ement, eve n though the district co u rt sentenc ed the de fe nd ant a

bo ve the Gu ide lin e s r ang e and st ate d it w ou ld have imposed the sentenc e no matter the Guidelines calc ulation, beca

use t he Ninth Circuit was not convince d that the d is tr ic t c o urt w o u ld im p o s e th e s ame s e n te n c e if the
corr ect Guide lines rang e we re “ kept in mind throughout the proce ss”) (c itation omit ted).

In this case, the district c ourt ca lculated F lores’s total off en s e level as 42, which re sulted in a Guidelines ra ng e of 360 months to l ife. Removingthe incor rec t two-level enhanc ement would re sult in a corre ct total offe nse l ev el of 40, with an associated Guidelines ra ng e of 292 to 365
months . A lth ou g h th e tw o Guid e lin e s ra ng e s o ve rl a

p s lig htl y and the district cour

t sentence d Flore s to 180 months for the drugchar g es, which is be low both the orig inal and the c orre ctU NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 25

Guidelines ra

ng es, we cannot sa

y wheth er the district court would impose the same se ntence if it kept the corr ect Guidelines ra

ng e in m ind throug hout the proce ss. See Mu noz-Camarena , 6 3 1 F

. 3 d at 1 0 3 1

. B e c a

u s e w e c o n clude that materia l error s aff

ecte d t he district cour

t’s Guidelines calc ulation that se rved a s the startingpoint for its sentencing de c isi on , w e mus t va c ate F lor e s’ s se nte nc e and re mand thi s matter for rese ntencing

. Be cause we r emand on a proce dural
err or, we decline to r eac h Flore s’s argument reg ar d i n g the substantive rea sonablene ss of his sent ence. Se e Ga ll , 55 2 U. S. a t 51 (h old ing that “ the a pp e llate c ourt mus t

. . . f

ir st
ensure t hat the district cour t committed no significa nt proce dural err or” and should c onsider whether t h e sentence is substantively

rea sonable only i f “the dist rict cour t’s
se nte nc ing de c isi on is p ro c e dura lly so un d” ); Kilby , 443 F.3d at 1140 (“ I f there is a materia l err or in the Guidelines calc ulation, we will rema nd for r esen tencing , without
re a c hin g the qu e sti on

of wh e the r t

he se nte nc e a s a

wh ole is
re a so na ble

. . . in li g ht o f t

he fa c tor s sp e c if

ie d in 18 U. S.C. § 3553(a) .”).

D

Fin a ll y , th e p arti e s d is p u te w h e th e r w e s h o u ld

a ll o wthe district court to co n s ider ne w evidenc e on re mand. The def a u lt r u le is th at “ if a d is tr ic t c o urt e r r s in s e n te n c in g , we wi ll r e mand

fo r r e se nte nc ing o n a

n o pe n r e c or d—

that is , without lim itation on the evidenc e that the district cour t may consider.” Un ite d Sta te

s v . M att he ws , 278 F.3d 880, 885–86 ( 9 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( e n b an c ) ( “ O n r e ma n d , th e d is tr ict court g e ne ra lly sh ou ld b e fr e e to c on sid e r a ny matte rs rel eva

nt t o sent en cing, eve n those that may not have be en ra ised at the first sentenc ing he aring , as if it wer e sente ncingde novo.” (c i t i n g U n ite d S ta te s v . Ponce , 51 F.3d 820, 826 ( 9th Cir.U NI TED S T A T ES V

. F L ORES 26

19 95 ); United States v. Caterino , 2 9 F .3 d 1 39 0, 13 94 (9 th Cir. 1994))). We may d ep ar t from this ge nera l rule whe re

“ ‘a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e wo uld no t have c ha ng e d the out c ome or wh e re the re wa s a fa ilure of pr oo f af te r a fu ll inq

uir y int o the fa ctual question at i s sue.’” Culps , 300 F.3d at 1082 (q u o t i n g Ma tth e ws , 2 78 F .3 d at 88 6) ; se e als o United States
v . R e y es- Os e gu e ra , 1 0 6 F.3d 1481, 1484 ( 9th Cir. 1997) ( r e ma n d in g f o r r e s e n te n c in g o n a c lo s e d r e c o r d wher e g ov e rnme nt o ff

e red i ns uf

fi c ie nt e vid e nc e to s up po rt a rec kless endang erme nt enhanc ement).

H e r e , w e c an n o t c o n c lu d e th at t h e r e w a s a

f u ll in qu iry int o th e fa c tua l qu e sti on

at is su e or t hat it w ou ld b e futil e to introduce a dditional evidence reg ardingIng ham’s birthday
and he r p art ic ipatio n in

the c on sp ir a c y . T he Go ve rnme nt d id
no t r e qu e st a

n e nh anc e me nt f

or u se of

a min or in i ts sentenc ing me morandum. Rather , the enha nceme nt was
re c omm e nd e d b y

the pr ob atio n of

fi c e and imp os e d su a

sp on te by the district court at the sentenc ing hear ing be fore the cour t hear d argument from the Gove rnment. The Governme nt stated it did not disag ree with the di strict court that ther e wa s evidenc e to support t he enhance ment, but did not present any evidenc e in support of the dist ri ct cour t’s finding . Under the s e c ir c u ms ta

n c e s , w e le av e it

to th e d is tr ic t c o urt’s discretion to “a ssess the g overnme nt’s rig ht to submi t further evidenc e on t h is issue.” Jordan , 2 91 F .3 d at 10 29 ; se e als o United States v. Gonzales , 207 F.3d 906, 914 (9th Cir. 2002) (leaving the question whether to allow new e vidence upon rese ntencingto the district court’s discr etion wh er e the court’s initial inquiry

was i ncomplete) . We remand to the distri ct court with directions to reconside r its sentencing decision re g ardingthe enha nceme nt for use of

a minor.

VACATED and REMANDED for re sentencing.