N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. B R ANDEN PETE, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 17-10215

D.C . No. 3:03-C R -00355-SM M -04 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ste phe n M . M c Nam e e , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 16, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED OCT 18 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R
. App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : HAW KINS and HUR W ITZ, C irc u it Judge s, a

nd R O SENTHAL, *** Distric t Judge
. This is the

se c ond a ppe a l following B rande n Pe te ’ s c onvic tions for se c ondde gre e m urde r, fe l ony

m urde r, and c onspira c y

to m urde r. Pe te wa s 16 whe n he and thre e othe rs ra

pe d a nd kille d C ha

rlotte B rown. In thefirst a ppe a l, this c ourt va c ate d Pe te ’ s se nte nc e of 708 m onths’ im prisonm e n t

and re m ande d for re se nte nc ing. On re m and, the distric t c ourt se n te nc e d him to a 648-m onth prison te rm . 1 W e a ffirm
. 1. Pe te argue s tha

t M ille r v . Alabama , 567 U.S. 460 (2012), i nva lida te d U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 a

nd ba se offe nse le ve l 43 for juve nile offe nde rs, a nd tha t his Guide line s se nte nc e c a l c ulation wa s e rrone ous. The argum e nt is fore c lose d by Unite d State s v . Brione

s , whic h he ld tha

t M ille r did not overrule the Supre m e C ourt’ s instruc tion tha

t “ a distric t c ourt should be gin all se nte nc ing proc e e d ings by c orre c tly c a lc ulat ing the a

pplic a ble Guide line s ra

nge .” Se e 890 F.3d 811, 816–17 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting Gall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007)). Pete ’ s c la im a lso fa ils be c a

use it inc orre c tly

a ssum e s tha

t using ba se offe nse le ve l 43

* * * The Honora

ble Le e H. R ose ntha l, C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Te x a s, sitting by de signa tion. 1 Se e Unite d State

s v . Pe te , 819 F.3d 1121 (9th C ir. 2016); Unite d State s v . Pe te , 525 F.3d 844 (9th C i r. 2008); Unite d State s v . Pe te , 277 F. App’ x 730 (9th C ir. 2008); Unite d State

s v . Brandon P. , 387 F.3d 969 (9th C ir. 2004).

2re quire s a

life se nte nc e . The Guide line s a re a dvisory , U

nite d State

s v . Book e r , 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005), a

n d the distric t c o urt se nte nc e d Pe te to a te rm of y e ars, not life
. 2 2. Pe te a lso c onte n ds tha t ba se offe nse le ve l 43 is unla wful be c a use it doe s not givea “ range ,” a s 28 U.S.C . § 994(b)(1) re quire s. Pe te re c y c le s this a rgum e nt from his 2014 a

ppe a l. Se e Pe te , 819 F.3d a t 1134–35. The

prior pa ne l re je c te d this argum e nt be c a

u s e offe n se le ve l 43 is c onsiste n t with thefe de ra l m

urde r statute , 18 U.S.C . § 1111. Id. The argum e nt is both wrong a nd fore c lose d

by the la wof the c a se . Gonzale

z v . Arizona , 677 F.3d 383, 389 n.4 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ). 3. Pe te furthe r argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing U.S.S.G. § 2A1.1 inste a d of § 2A1.2 be c a use the jury

a c quitte d him

of pre m e dita

te d firstde gre e m urde r an d c onvic te d him

of se c ond-de g re e m

urde r. B ut the jury

c onvic te d Pe te of fe lony

m urde r arising from

kidna ping or se xua l a

buse , whic h is gove rne d by § 2A1.1. U.S.S.G. §§ 2A3.1, 2A4.1 (c ross-re fe re nc ing § 2A1.1); se e § 2A1.1 c m t. 2(B ). The distric t c o urt did not err in a pply ing § 2A1.1. 4. Nor did thedistric t c ourt c om m i t pre judic ia l e rror in a

pply ing the e nha nc e m e nt for obstruc ting justic e . U.S.S.G. § 3C 1 . 1. W ithout the two-point

2 Mille r is not im plic ate d he re . In Mille r , the de fe nda nts we re juve nile s se nte nc e d to lifewithout pa role
. Mille r , 567 U.S. a

t 465. Pe te did not re c e ive a life se nte n c e without pa

role
. 3e nha

nc e m e nt, Pe te ’ s a djuste d offe nse le ve l would ha ve be e n 45 inste a d

of 47. It would still ha

ve de fa ulte d to 43, thele ve l from

whic h the distric t

c o urt be g an the c a lc ulat ion of his sente nc e . If the re wa s e rror, it wa s ha rm le s s. AFFIRM E D.

4