T hi s di s pos i t i on i s nota ppr 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. BEA U LEE LEW I S, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 05- 10692 D . C . N o . C R -0 4 -0 0 2 1 7 -M JJ 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 o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia M a r t i n J . J e nki ns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d A ugus t14, 2007 S ubm i t t e d S e pt e m be r29, 2011 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , H A W K IN S , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. I n U n ite d S ta te s v . L e w is , 51 8 F . 3d 11 71 (9th C i r. 20 08 ) ( “L ew is I I ” ) , we re vers ed and rem anded t o t he di stri ctcourtthe qu es t i on of w hether the ori gi nal in d ic tm e n t a g a in s t L e w is s h o u ld h a v e b e e n d is m is s e d w ith o u t p r e ju d ic e . W e d ir e c te d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c o n s id e ra ll p e r io d s o f p r e - tr ia l d e la y le a d in g u p to



# FI LED SEP 30 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSIn the m ea nt i m e, the di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed the ent i re ty of the pre-tri al 1 de l a y be f or e the f i r s ttr i a l a nd de t e r m i ne d tha tdi s m i s s a l of the i ndi c t m e ntw i thout pr e j udi c e w a s pr ope r . L e w i s a ppe a l e d tha tde c i s i on, a nd a di f f e r e ntthr e e -

j udge p a n e l o f o u rc o u r t a f

f ir m e d . U

n ite d S ta te s v . L e w is , 611 F . 3d 1172 ( 9th C i r . 2010) (“L ew is I II ” ) . L e w i s ’ s f

i r s ttr i a l t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe r e w a s a S pe e dy T r i a l A c t( S T A ) , 18 U .S .C . § 3 1 6 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) , v io la tio n th a t r e q u ir e d d is m is s a l o f th e in d ic tm e n t w ith p r e ju d ic e , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e p r e c lu d e d L e w is ’s s e c o n d tr ia l a n d th is a p p e a l. W e di d s o pr i nc i pa l l y be c a us e w e de t e r m i ne d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm i s c ons true d our r e m a n d o r d e rin L e w is ’s a p p e a l f r o m h is f ir s t tr ia l, U

n ite d S ta te s v . L e w is , 349 F . 3d 11 16 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( “L ew is I ”) . W e e x p re ss ly re tain ed ju risd icti o n o v er L ew is’s n o n - S T A c l a i m s o f

e r r o ra n d a d d r e s s th e m n o w. 1 1. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note r ri n i ns truc t i ng the j ur y on the l a w of e ntr a pm e nt . L e w i s a r gue s tha tthe l a s ts e nt e nc e of the i ns truc t i on, i ns truc t i ng the j ur y tha ti t“ m a y f

i nd tha tthe r e w a s e ntr a pm e nta s t o s om e of the a c t s butno e n tr a p m e n t a s to o th e ro f th e a c ts ” w ith w h ic h h e w a s c h a r g e d w a s in e r r o r . T ha te r r or , L e w i s s pe c ul a t e s , a l l ow e d the j ur y t o r e a c h w ha the be l i e ve s i s the unt e na bl e c onc l us i on tha tL e w i s ha d be e n e ntr a ppe d dur i ng the s m uggl i ng of the f i r s tF e d E x p a c k a g e b u tn o td u r i n g th e l a t e rf i v e p a c k a g e s . E n tr a p m e n th a s two di s t i nc te l e m e nt s : “ gove r nm e nti nduc e m e ntof the c r i m e a nd the a bs e nc e of predi sposi t i on on the partof the defendant . ” U n i t ed S ta t es v. Sa n d o va l -Men d o za , 4 7 2 F .3 d 6 4 5 , 6 4 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I f e ith e re le m e n t is a b s e n t,th e d efen se o f en trap m en ti s n o tav ai l ab l e. H o w ev er, th ere i s n o th i n g i n o u r case

l aw supp ort i ng the prop osi t i on thatan i ni t i al entrapm entnece ss ar i l y dem on stra t es th atb o th el em en t s are p ro v ed fo r al l fu tu re cri m es. A j u ry m ay det er m i ne thatan in itia l e n tr a p m e n t c a r r ie s o v e rto s u b s e q u e n t a c ts . Sh erm a n v. U n i t ed S ta t es, 356 U . S . 36 9, 37 4 (19 58 ). A l t ernat i vel y, a j ury m ay w el l fi nd , as i tapparent l y di d h er e, thatthe go vernm entdi d n oti nd uce the defendantt o com m i tsom e of the cr i m i nal ac t s w i th w hi ch he w as char ged. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s i nstruct i on s e ncom pass ed bo th sce nari os, ac cura t el y gui ded t he j ury’ s del i bera t i on and correc t l y i nstruct ed th e ju r y o n th e la w o f

e n tr a p m e n t. S ee U

n i t ed S ta t es v. Kessi , 868 F . 2d 1097, 1101 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . 2. T he di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y de ni e d L e w i s ’ s R ul e 29 m ot i on f orj udgm e nt of ac qu i t t al . T hi s m ot i on w as base d o n sup po se d i ncon si st enci es i n t he j ury v erd i ct s o n th e q u est i o n o f en trap m en tan d th e arg u m en tth ath e w as en trap p ed as a m a tte ro f la w . T he r e i s no e vi de nc e tha tL e w i s ’ s ve r di c tf or m s a r e i nc ons i s t e nton the m att erof entrapm ent . T he j ury di d n otm ake f i nd i ng s r egar di ng entrapm entw here it f o u n d L e w is n o t g u ilty . I n d e e d , o n ly f o rth e c o u n ts w h e r e th e ju r y f o u n d L e w is gu i l ty di d i tm ake a spec i fi c f i nd i ng thathe w as no tentrapp ed. L og i ca l i nfer ence s tha tL e w i s m a y dr a w f

r om the s e f

i ndi ngs a r e notpe r m i t t e d t o be us e d a ga i ns tthe g u ilty v e r d ic ts . U

n ite d S ta te s v . P o w e ll , 4 6 9 U .S . 5 7 , 6 5 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( “I t is e q u a llypos s i bl e tha tthe j ur y , c onvi nc e d of gui l t , pr ope r l y r e a c he d i t s c onc l us i on [ on the gu i l ty ver di ct ] and t hen t hrou gh m i st ake, com prom i se , or l eni ty, arri ved atan in c o n s is te n t c o n c lu s io n .” ) . T he courtdi d n oterr by r ej ec t i ng L ew i s’ s a rgum entthathe w as entrapp ed as a m a t t e rof

l a w . T o de m ons tr a t e e ntr a pm e nta s a m a t t e rof l a w , L e w i s m us t“ poi nt t o undi s put e d e vi de nc e m a ki ng i tpa t e nt l y c l e a rtha ta n othe r w i s e i nnoc e ntpe r s on w as i nd uced t o com m i tthe i l l egal ac tby tri ckery, pers uasi on , or fr aud o f a go vernm entagent . ” Sa n d o va l -Men d o za , 472 F . 3d a t649. T he gove r nm e nt s tr o n g ly c o n te s te d th a t L e w is w a s in d u c e d to c o m m it th e c r im in a l a c ts in q u e s tio n . I te ve n pr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tL e w i s e nga ge d i n s m uggl i ng a c t i vi t i e s tha tt ook pl ac e w i tho utthe kn ow l edge of t he un derc ov ergo vernm entagent . T he j ury had the op po rtun i ty t o l i st en t o and as se ss nu m er ou s r ec orded con vers at i on s betw ee n the gove r nm e nta ge nta nd L e w i s . W he the rL e w i s w a s e ntr a ppe d w a s a que s t i on p r o p e r ly e n tru s te d to th e ju r y . 3. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d nota bus e i t s di s c r e t i on w he n i ts truc k a pr os pe c t i ve j ur orf orc a us e a f

t e rthe j ur orr e c ount e d a n e xpe r i e nc e w hi c h he c ons i de r e d t o be hi s ow n cas e of e nt rapm ent . T he j uror t ol d t he di stri ctcourtj ud ge thatthe i ss ues of entrapm ent“ spar k[ed] a m em ory c l ea rl y” of w hen t he j uror had b ee n arr es t ed f o rm a r iju a n a p o s s e s s io n . T h e c o u r t th e n q u e s tio n e d th e ju r o r , o b s e r v in g h is dem ea no r a nd cond uct . D uri ng the j uror’ s e xp l anat i on of hi s e nt rapm entepi sode,the j ud ge had t o ask hi m t o “ keep your vo i ce do w n j usta l i t t l e bi t . ” T he di stri ct

c our tj udge ’ s phy s i c a l pos i t i on w a s w e l l s ui t e d t o obs e r ve the j ur or ’ s de m e a nora nd there by as se ss the j uror’ s abi l i ty t o rem ai n i m part i al . T he j ud ge det er m i ned t hat th e ju r o r ’s s ta te m e n ts w e r e m a r k e d b y a n “e m o tio n a l f e r v o r ” th a t r e n d e r e d h im b ia s e d in f

a c t. U ni t ed St at es v. G on zal es , 214 F . 3d 1109, 1111- 12 ( 9th C i r . 2000) ( “ B e c a us e de t e r m i na t i ons of i m pa r t i a l i ty m a y be ba s e d i n l a r ge pa r tupon d em ean o r, [w e] typ i cal l y acco rd [] d eferen ce t o th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d et erm i n at i o n s, a nd r e vi e w [ ] a c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng a c tua l j ur orbi a s ‘ f orm a ni f e s te r r or ’ or abuse of di sc re t i on . ”) (c i t at i on om i t t ed). 4. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notpl a i nl y e r ri n a dm i t t i ng s t i pul a t i ons f r om the f i r s ttr i a l i nt o e vi de nc e . A s t i pul a t i on e nt e r e d i nt o pr i ort o a tr i a l r e m a i ns bi ndi ng d u ri n g su b seq u en tp ro ceed i n g s b etw een th e p art i es. B ai l B onds by M

ar v i n N e l s on, Inc. v. C om m iss i on er , 8 2 0 F .2 d 1 5 4 3 , 1 5 4 7 - 4 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) ( h o ld in g th a t a s t i pul a t i on e nt e r e d pr i ort o the f i r s ttr i a l of

a c a s e a ppl i e s t o the de novo r e tr i a l of tha tc a s e ) ( c i t i ng U

ni t e d Stat e s v . B oothm an , 65 4 F . 2d 70 0, 70 3 (10 th C i r. 19 81 ), a nd U ni t e d Stat e s v . M

ar i no , 61 7 F . 2d 76 , 82 (5th C i r. 19 80 )) . T he autho ri ty c i t ed by L e w i s i s i na ppos i t e , a s the c a s e s he c i t e s i nvol ve pr oc e e di ngs w he r e the s e c ond tr i a l l a c k e d a mu tu a l i ty o f th e p a r t i e s . H e r e , th e s e c o n d tr i a l i n v o l v e d th e s a me pl a i nt i f f a nd de f e nda nt , r e l a t e d e ve nt s , oc c ur r e nc e s , tr a ns a c t i ons , pr ope r ty , a nd q u e s tio n s o f

la w a n d f

a c t.W e r ec og ni ze that , as w i th t he i nt erpret at i on of cont ra ct s, “ w e m usti nt erpret

[s t i pu l at i on s] so as t o carry ou tthe i nt ent i on of the part i es . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . P e tty , 80 F . 3d 1384, 1387 ( 9th C i r . 1996) . I nt e rpr e t a t i on of s t i pul a t i ons , t o de t e r m i ne w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y e f f e c tua t e d the i nt e ntof

the pa r t i e s , i s a n i s s ue o f la w r e v ie w e d d e n o v o . U ni t e d Stat e s v . L aw t on , 19 3 F . 3d 10 87 , 10 94 (9th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). W e fi n d n o b asi s i n th e st i p u l at i o n s t o su g g estth atth ey w ere l i m i t ed t o u se i n the f i r s ttr i a l . T hus , i n the a bs e nc e of di r e c ta uthor i ty orc l e a r e ri nt e nti n the s t i pul a t i ons , w e do notf i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpl a i nl y e r r e d i n a dm i t t i ng the s tip u la tio n s in th e s e c o n d tr ia l. 5. B e c a us e w e do notf i nd tha tthe r e w a s a ny tr i a l e r r or , w e do notr e a c h the qu es t i on of cum ul at i ve error. 6 . T h e d istrict co u rt d id n o t co m m itp ro ce d u ra l err o r in ca lcu lati n g L ew is’s s e nt e nc e . W e r e vi e w the s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf ora bus e of d is c r e tio n . U

n ite d S ta te s v . C a r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 9 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( e n b a n c ) ; se e al so G al l v. U ni t ed St at es , 55 2 U . S . 38 , 51 (200 7). W e w i l l re vers e the se nt ence o n ly w h e r e it w a s p r o c e d u r a lly e r r o n e o u s o rs u b s ta n tiv e ly u n r e a s o n a b le . C a r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d a t 9 9 3 . “I t w o u ld b e p r o c e d u r a l e r r o rf o rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t to f

a il to ca l cul at e – or t o cal cul at e i ncorrec t l y – the G ui del i nes r ange . . . . ” I d. ( c i t i ng G a ll , 5 5 2 U .S . a t 5 1 ) .T h e d i stri ctco u rtw as n o treq u i red b y U n ite d S ta te s v . Sc h e e le , 231 F . 3d 492 ( 9th C i r . 2000) , t o c ons i de rthe m a r gi n of e r r ori n c a l c ul a t i ng the m a r ke tva l ue of th e im p o r te d w ild lif

e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly c o n c lu d e d th a t Sc h e e le di d not appl y w here the courtre l i ed on “ pretty goo d evi dence of m ar ketval ue” a nd “ a f ar m or e s ubs t a nt i ve m e thodol ogy ” tha n us e d i n Sc h e e le . T h u s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id notc om m i tpr oc e dur a l e r r ori n de t e r m i ni ng tha tthe c ontr a ba nd ha d a va l ue of $ 7 0 ,8 5 0 a n d a s s e s s in g a s ix - le v e l in c r e a s e to L e w is ’s o f f e n s e le v e l. AF F I RME D.