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 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 ES US PADI LL A- GO NZALEZ , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 10056 D . C. N o . 4 : 0 4 - c r - 0 2 4 9 8 - RCCB P V -6 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 M a y 11, 2010 S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 23, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , W . F L E T C H E R , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ju ry c o n v ic te d J e s u s P a d illa - G o n z a le z o f tw o c o u n ts : ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c y to po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 200 po un ds of m ar i j uana (21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), b ( 1 ) ( D ) a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 ) ; a n d ( 2 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te 7 1 .9 pounds of

m a r i j ua naa nd a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng ( 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) , b( 1) ( D ) a nd 

# FI LED FEB 25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

18 U . S . C . § 2) . P a di l l a - G onz a l e z w a s s e nt e nc e d t o 70 m onths i n pr i s on f orthe c o n s p ir a c y c o n v ic tio n a n d 6 0 m o n th s in p r is o n f o rth e p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c onvi c t i on, t o run c onc urr e nt l y w i th the c ons pi r a c y c onvi c t i on. T he d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o im p o s e date rm o f f iv e y e a r s s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . P a d illa - G o n z a le z c h a lle n g e s h is c o n v ic tio n in tw o w a y s . F ir s t, h e a s s e r ts th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d c le a re rr o rin d e n y in g h is m o tio n to s u p p r e s s h is i nc ul pa t ory s t a t e m e nt s t o pol i c e , be c a us e he di d notknow i ngl y , i nt e l l i ge nt l y a nd v o l u n t ari l y w ai v e h i s Mi r anda ri gh t s. S ec on d, he cl ai m s thatno ra t i on al j ury

“ c oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the of f e ns [ e ] c ha r ge d be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . ” U

ni ted Stat es v. R osal es , 516 F . 3d 749, 752 ( 9th C i r . 2008) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . P a d illa - G o n z a le s a ls o c h a lle n g e s th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, c l a i m i ng ( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr ori n f i ndi ng he w a s not el i gi bl e f or sa fe ty val ve re l i ef

un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) ; and (2) the di stri ctcourt abused i t s di sc re t i on w hen i tov errul ed hi s obj ec t i on s t o the P re se nt ence I n v e s tig a tio n R e p o r t ( “P S R ” ) .I n r e s pons e t o thi s c our t ’ s or de rr e m a ndi ng f orf ur the rf i ndi ngs 1 re gardi ng the Mi r anda w a iv e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is s u e d a n o r d e re lab o r a tin g its f a c tu a l f in d in g s o n A u g u s t 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 . See U ni ted Stat es v. P ad i l la-G on zalez , N o. 0 4 - c r - 0 2 4 9 8 - R C C - B P V - 6 ( D . A r iz . f ile d A u g . 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 ) . 3 Mot i on to Sup

pres s – Mi randa W

ai ve r T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i tcl ea r e rr or i n fi nd i ng thatP adi l l a- G on za l ez si g n ed h i s Mi r anda w aiv erk n o w in g ly an d in tell ig en tl y. T h e d istrict co u rt’s 1

“ es se nt i al fa ctual fi nd i ng s” re gardi ng the Mi r anda w ai ver i ncl ud ed thatthe P adi l l aG onz a l e z ’ s ps y c hol ogi c a l e va l ua t i ons di d notpr e ve nthi m f r om know i ngl y a nd i n t el l i g en t l y w ai v i n g h i s Mi r anda ri gh t s, thatthe w ai ver w as re ad t o P adi l l aG o n z a le z in h is n a tiv e to n g u e ( S p a n is h ) , a n d th a t h e s ig n e d th e w a iv e r . C on si dera t i on of these fa ct ors w as approp ri at e und er U n i te d S ta te s v . Cr e ws , 502 F . 3d 1130, 1140 ( 9th C i r . 2007) . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d notc om m i tc l e a re rr or i n h o l d i n g th atP ad i l l a-G o n zal ez k n o w i n g l y an d i n t el l i g en t l y w ai v ed h i s Mi r anda r ig h ts . T he di stri ctcourtal so di d n oterr i n fi nd i ng thatP adi l l a- G on za l ez ’ s w ai ver o f h i s Mi r anda ri gh t s w as vo l un t ary. T he di stri ctcourtapprop ri at el y c on si dere d P a d illa - G o n z a le z ’s s ig n a tu r e o n th e w a iv e rf o rm , th e f

a c t th e f o rm w a s r e a d to P a d illa - G o n z a le z in S p a n is h , a n d th e f a c t th a t P a d illa - G o n z a le z w a s a llo w e d to c a ll4

a n d c h e c k o n h is c h ild r e n w h ile in c u s to d yin f in d in g th e w a iv e rto b e v o lu n ta ry . Se e U ni te d State s v . A m ano , 2 2 9 F .3 d 8 0 1 , 8 0 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . C onv i c t i on P ad i l l a-G o n zal ez’ s assert i o n th at“ v i ew i n g th e ev i d en ce i n th e l i g h tm o st f a vor abl e t o the pr os e c ut i on, [ no] r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f

th e o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t” la c k s m e r it. See R osal es , 51 6 F . 3d at75 1-52 . T he go vernm entprov i ded am pl e e vi dence r e ga r di ng the c ons pi r a c y f r om w hi c h aj ury c oul d f i nd gui l t , i nc l udi ng phy s i c a l a nd e l e c tr oni c s urve i l l a nc e a nd r e c or de d c onve r s a t i ons tha ti nc l ude d di s c us s i ons of the am ou ntof drug s i nv ol ved i n the cr i m es . F rom such evi dence, a j ury “ m aydraw an i nfer ence of an agree m ent . ” U n i te d S ta te s v . Lo , 44 7 F . 3d 12 12 , 12 26 (9th C i r. 2006) . I n a ddi t i on, the gove rnm e nts ubm i tt e d e vi de nc e of a n a c ti n f

ur the r a nc e of th e c o n s p ir a c y –th e tr ip to C a lif o rn ia . R e g a r d in g th e p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a nd a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng, “ ana r c ot i c s di s tr i but i on c ha r ge m a y be es t abl i shed w i tho utproo f of posse ss i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . Min c o

ff , 574 F . 3d 1186, 1 1 9 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . Se nte nc i ng T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d w h e n it ru le d th a t P a d illa - G o n z a le z w a s n o t e lig ib le f ors a f e ty va l ve r e l i e f

due t o the a m ountof

m a r i j ua nai n the c ons pi r a c y a ndT h e a m o u n t o f d ru g s in v o lv e d in th e c r im e is n o t av a lid f a c to rin 2 det erm i ni ng el i gi bi l i ty f or sa fe ty val ve re l i ef

. T he fa ct ors acourtm ustconsi der ar e: (1) the defendantdo es no thave m ore than 1 cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt , as d e te rm in e d u n d e rth e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s ; (2) the defendantdi d n otuse vi ol ence or cr edi bl e threa t s of vi ol ence or po ss es s afi re arm or other dangerous w eapo n (or i nd uce a no ther p a r tic ip a n t to d o s o ) in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e o f f e n s e ; ( 3) the of f e ns e di d notr e s ul ti n de a th ors e r i ous bodi l y i nj ury t o a ny p e r s o n ; ( 4) the de f

e nda ntw a s nota n or ga ni z e r , l e a de r , m a na ge r , ors upe rvi s or of others i n the offens e, as det erm i ned u nd erthe se nt enci ng gu i del i nes a n d w a s n o t e n g a g e d in ac o n tin u in g c r im in a l e n te rp r is e , a s d e f in e d in s e c t i on 408 of

the C ontr ol l e d S ubs t a nc e s A c t ; a nd (5) notl at erthan the t i m e of the se nt enci ng hear i ng , the defendanthas truthful l y provi ded t o the G ov ernm ental l i nform at i on and evi dence the de f e nda ntha s c onc e rni ng the of f e ns e orof

f e ns e s tha tw e r e pa r tof the s a m e c our s e of

c onduc torof

ac om m on s c he m e orpl a n, butthe f a c t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t h a s n o r e le v a n t o ru s e f u l o th e rin f

o rm a tio n to pr ovi de ortha tthe G ove rnm e nti s a l r e a dy a w a r e of the i nf orm a t i on shal l no tprec l ud e adet erm i nat i on by the courtthatthe defendanthas c o m p lie d w ith th is r e q u ir e m e n t. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( f

) . 5 p o ssessi o n ch arg es t o t al i n g o v er 1 0 0 k i l o g ram s. Se e U ni te d State s v . Me

j i a- 2 P i m e ntal , 477 F . 3d 1100, 1109 ( 9th C i r . 2007) ( “ E rr or s i n the de t e rm i na t i on of sa fe ty val ve el i gi bi l i ty r equi re re se nt enci ng even w here the di stri ctcourthas in d ic a te d th a t it w o u ld n o t h a v e s e n te n c e d b e lo w th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m .” ) .6

E v e n th o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d e rr o rin d e te rm in in g e lig ib ility f o rs a f e ty val ve re l i ef

, w e nee d n otre m and for res ent enci ng i f the go vernm entdem on stra t es the error w as “ harm l es s. ” I d. T h e g o v ern m en tassert s th atth e erro r w as h arm l ess, because P adi l l a- G on za l ez di d n ot“ answ erany quest i on s r egar di ng ” the charges u n d er1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f )( 5 ). T h e g o v er n m en t p o in ts to P ad il la-G o n za lez’s r e f us a l t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n apr e s e nt e nc e i nt e rvi e w a s e vi de nc e of “ nota c c e pt [ i ng] r e s pons i bi l i ty f

orhi s c r i m i na l c onduc t . ” P S R ¶ 54. H ow e ve r , i n s e nt e nc i ng, a c c e pt i ng r e s pons i bi l i ty i s adi f f e r e ntc ons i de r a t i on tha n e l i gi bi l i ty f ors a f e ty va l ve r e lie f . Me j i a- P i m e ntal , 4 7 7 F .3 d at 1 1 0 8 . In fa ct, i n it iall y c o n fe ss in g all o f o n e’s know l e dge a nd the n r e c a nt i ng a nd pr oc e e di ng t o tr i a l doe s notdi s qua l i f y one f r om e lig ib ility f

o rs a f e ty v a lv e r e lie f

u n d e r§ 3 5 5 3 ( f

) ( 5 ) . I d. a t1105 ( c i t i ng U

ni ted State s v . Shr e s tha , 8 6 F .3 d 9 3 5 , 9 4 0 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . G i ve n tha tal a r ge por t i on of thi s appe a l c onc e rns P a di l l a - G onz a l e z ’ s m ot i on t o sup pres s hi s c on fe ss i on , there i s no q uest i on thatP adi l l a- G on za l ez prov i ded at l ea stsom e i nform at i on t o the go vernm ent . T hu s, the go vernm enthas notca rr i ed i t s bur de n of

de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe e rr orw a s ha rm l e s s a nd w e m us tr e m a nd t o theA s w e a re re m andi ng for r es ent enci ng , w e nee d n otre ac h P adi l l a- 3 G o n z a le z ’s c la im th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b y o v e rru lin g h is obj e c t i ons t o the P S R ’ s f a i l ur e t o gi ve hi m adow nw a r d de pa r tur e due t o hi s ( 1) m i norr ol e , ( 2) s t a tus a s apr ovi de rf orhi s f a m i l y , or( 3) m e nt a l hi s t ory . W hi l e the di stri ctcourtaddres se d som e of these ar gu m ent s, w e not e that“ w hen a party r ai se s a s peci fi c, no nfri vo l ou s a rgum entt ethere d t o a re l evant§ 3 55 3(a) fa ct or i n sup po rt of ar e que s t e d s e nt e nc e , the n the j udge s houl d norm a l l y e xpl a i n w hy he a c c e pt s or re j ec t s the party’ s posi t i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 52 0 F . 3d 98 4, 99 2-93 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( en banc). 7 di s tr i c tc our tt o de t e rm i ne w he the rP a di l l a - G onz a l e z i s e l i gi bl e f ors a f e ty va l ve re l i ef un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) . 3 Th e c o n v i c t i o n i s AFFI RM ED . T h e s e n t e n c e i s VA C AT E D A ND R E MAND E D F OR R E S E NT E NC I NG .