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 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 ORGE BR ET ON - RODRI GU EZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N os . 08- 10266 a nd 08- 10400 D . C. N o . CR 0 5 - 0 1 4 2 4 - 0 0 1 - RCC ( HCE) 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 r i z ona R a ne rC . C ol l i ns , 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 S e pt e m be r14, 2009 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , R E IN H A R D T an d H A W K IN S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J or ge B r e t on- R odr i g u e z ( “ B r e t on- R odr i gue z ” ) appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on a nd
se nt ence for a tt em pt ed m ansl augh t erand a ss aul t , ar gu i ng thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n: perm i tt i ng the use o f h i s c on fe ss i on — t aken i n v i ol at i on of Mi r anda— t o i m peac h the de f e nda nt ’ s i n san i ty e xpe r t ; f i ndi ng B r e t on- R odr i gue z w a s note nt i t l e d t o a



# FI LED NO V 25 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

red u ct i o n i n h i s o ffen se l ev e l u n d er th e G u i d el i n es fo r accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty; a n d c o n s id e r in g a c q u itte d c o n d u c t in c a lc u la tin g h is s e n te n c e in v io la tio n o f h is S ix th A m endm entri gh t s. H e a l so appeal s the court ’ s r es t i tut i on order, ar gu i ng the court
w a s w ith o u t ju r is d ic tio n to is s u e it a f te rh is tim e ly ap p e a l. A . C on vi ct i on an d se n te n ce In ch al l engi ng hi s c on vi ct i on , B re t on -R od ri gu ez fi rs turges us t o con si der
w hether J

a m e s v . I llin o is , 49 3 U . S . 30 7 (19 90 ), perm i t s the use of an u n M iran d i ze d butvol unt a r y s t at em e ntt o i m pe a c h a w i tne s s othe rtha n the de f e nda nt . B e c a us e he op en ed the do or du ri ng the di re ctexam i nat i on of D r. B arry M orenz, un der O hl erv. U ni t ed St at es , 529 U . S . 753 ( 2000) , B r e t on- R odr i gue z w a i ve d the r i ghtt o c ha l l e nge th e im p e a c h m e n t o n ap p e a l. I n s e n te n c in g B r e t o n - R o d r ig u e z , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e r rw h e n it de ni e d hi m a dow nw a r d de pa r tur e f or a n a c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty . W hi l e B r e t onR od ri gu ez di d exp re ss re m orse du rin g h i s s ent enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourt c or r e c t l y ba s e d i t s de t e r m i na t i on on B r e t on- R odr i gue z ’ s pr e - tr i a l c onduc ta nd
s ta te m e n ts , a n d n o t o n h is s ta te m e n ts in h is s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . See U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 n. 2 (the “ det erm i nat i on thata def endanthas a cc ept ed re spon si bi l i ty [ i s] base d pr i m a r i l y upon pr e - tr i al s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n d u c t” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) .3

T he use of a cqui tt ed cond uct t o s up po rt a se nt enci ng enhancem enti s perm i tt ed if s u c h c o n d u c t h a s b e e n p r o v e n b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . U

ni t ed St at es v . W a tts , 5 1 9 U . S . 1 4 8 , 1 5 7 (1 9 9 7 ). H ere, B ret o n -R o d ri g u ez’ s acq u i tt al fo r th e U se of a F i r e a r m D ur i ng a C r i m e of V i ol e nc e , 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) , doe s notprecl u d e the
c our t ’ s f i ndi ng by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e f or purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng tha the
u s e d a n d d is c h a r g e d th e f ir e a r m in q u e s tio n . Se e U ni t e d Stat e s v . Me r c ado , 474 F . 3d 654, 657 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . T he r e f or e , the di s tr i c t co u rt d i d n o te r ri n us i ng B r e t onR o d ri g u ez’ s acq u i tt ed co n d u ctfo r sen t en ci n g p u rp o ses. B . R es ti tu ti on O rd er B re t on -R od ri gu ez ’ s f

i l i ng of hi s fi rs t no t i ce of appeal di d n otdi vestthe di stri ct c o u r t o f ju r is d ic tio n o v e ris s u in g its a m e n d e d r e s titu tio n o r d e r , b e c a u s e f o ra ll p r a c tic a l p u rp o s e s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in its f ir s t o r d e rd id n o t e n te ra r e s titu tio n a m o u n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. O rtega-L op ez , 9 8 8 F .2 d 7 0 , 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( a n ap p e a l d iv e s ts the di stri ctcourtof i t s j uri sdi ct i on ov er on l y tho se as pect s of the ca se i ncl ud ed i n t hat
appe a l ) . A l though the f

i r s t w r i tt e n j udgm e nt ha d a n e ntr y of “ 0” unde rr e s t i tut i on, the d is tr ic t ju d g e s ta te d u n a m b i g u o u s l y th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t h a d 9 0 d a y s to s u b m it a
r e s t i tut i on f

i gur e . T he c our tthe n i s s ue d a s e c ond r e s t i tut i o n o rd er o nc e i tha d the in f o r m a tio n r e q u e s te d f

r o m th e g o v e r n m e n t. Cf . U ni t e d Stat e s v . N

aj j or , 253 F . 3d 9794

(9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( i nv ol vi ng tw o d i st i nctre stitu ti on orders w i th am ou nt s gre at erthan $ 0 ) . T he di s tr i c t c our t i n i t s s e c ond or de rde l e ga t e d r e s t i tut i on dut i e s t o the pr oba t i on of f i c e r . W hi l e w e ha ve appr ove d de l e ga t i on t o a pr oba t i on of f i c e rof “ t h e t a s k of det erm i ni ng the m etho d o f pay m entfor r es t i tut i on , ” U n i t ed S ta t es v. S i

g n o ri , 844 F . 2d 6 3 5 , 6 4 1 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) , w e h a v e h e l d th a t “ [ u] nd e rth e [ M a n d a t o r y V i c t i ms R e s t i tut i on A c t ] , the di s tr i c t c our t i s ul t i m a t e l y r e s pons i bl e f ors e tt i ng a s c he dul e f

or m aki ng re st i tut i on . ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . G unni ng , 3 3 9 F .3 d 9 4 8 , 9 4 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ; se e al s o U ni t e d Stat e s v . L e m oi ne , 5 4 6 F .3 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; U ni t ed Stat es v. B e tts , 51 1 F . 3d 87 2, 87 7 (9t h C i r. 20 07 ). H er e, the di stri ctco u rt ’ s orderprov i ded that “ [r ] es t i tut i on paym ent s s ha ll b e pai d atthe di sc re t i on of the prob at i on offi ce r. ” G i ve n the c our t ’ s de l e ga t i on of the pa y m e nt s c he dul e , w e r e m a nd the r e s t i tut i on o r d e rto th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to e s ta b l is h a p a y m e n t s c h e d u le w h ile ta k in g in to c o n s id e r a tio n o u rc a s e la w c o n c e r n in g d e le g a tio n o f s u c h m a tte r s . C . C on c l u s i on H avi ng op ened the do or du ri ng di re ctexam i nat i on , B re t on -R od ri gu ez w ai ved the r i ghtt o c ha l l e nge on appe a l the i m pe a ch m en t o f h i s e xpe r t . T hus , w e a f f i r m the
conv i ct i on . W e al so af

fi rm the se nt enci ng det erm i nat i on and u se of ac qu i tt ed cond uct5

t o s e nt e nc e B r e t on- R odr i gue z , butr e m a nd the r e s t i tut i on or de rs o tha tthe di s tr i c tj udge
m ay es t abl i sh a pay m entsc hedu l e. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; R EVER SED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T.