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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. LORENZO GONZALEZ, AKA Grum py , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50348

D.C . No. 2:11-c r-00050-GAF-5 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d De c e m

be r 11, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : WARDLAW

and B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd SM ITH, Distric t Judge . ** Lore nz o Gonz a le z a

ppe a ls his c onvic t ion a

nd se nte nc e following a

jury tria l in whic h he wa s found guilty of ra c k e te e ring c o nspira c y (C ount One ) and of two c ounts of c om

m i tting a viole nt c rim e in a id of a ra c ke te e ring e nte rprise 

# F IL ED MAY13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent ex cept as provided by

9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable W illiam E. Smith, Chief United States District J udg e for the District of Rhode I sland, sitting by desig n ation.(“ VIC AR ” ): c o nspira c y to m urde r riva l ga

ng m e m be rs (C ount Two) a

n d c onspira c y

to m urde r Edwa

rd C la rk (C ount Te n). In a

c onc urre ntly file d

opinion, we a ddre ss Gonz a le z ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the distric t

c ourt’ s instruc tions to the jury on C ount Two viola

te d his right to a

una nim ous jury

ve rdic t. Se e Unite d

State s v . Gonzale z , __ F.3d __ (9th C ir. 2015). In this me m orandum disposition, we

a ddre ss Gonz a le z ’ s re m a ining c ha lle nge s to his c onvic tion a nd se nte nc e . W e a ffirm

in pa rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m and for re se nte nc ing. 1. Gonz a le z c la i m s tha

t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e with re spe c t to C ount Te n a nd the ove rt-a c t e le m e nt of C ount Two. Viewing thee vide nc e in the light m ost fa vora ble to the prose c ution, wec onc lude tha t a rationa l trie r of fa c t c ould have found thee sse ntia l e l e m e nts of thec rim e s c ha rge d in C o unts Two a

n d Te n be y ond a re a sona

b le doubt. Se e Unite d State s v . N e v ils , 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th C ir. 2010) (e n ba

nc ). The e vide nc e re lat ing to theVIC AR c onspira c y to m urde r C la rk c ha rge d in C ount Te n wa s suffic ie nt. Afte r be ing inform e d by Jose Villa se nor of a

the ft of prope rty from Villa se nor’ s ga

ra ge , Gonz a le z dire c t e d Alfre do R e ve l e z to se arc h

2the n e ighborhood for the va n drive n by

the suspe c te d thie f. 1 Gonz a le z told R e ve le z , “ W e ne e d

to ge t tha t m othe rfuc k e r.” Although he wa s he sita

nt to discuss the d e ta ils ove r the te le phone , Gonz a le z told R e v e le ztha t he would be we l l c om pe nsate d for his a ssista

nc e . Late r that da

y , Gonz a l e z pre s sure d

Villa se nor for a m one ta ry figure : “ Give m e a

num be r . . . . ’ C a

use it’ s gonna ha

ppe n. It’ s gonna ha ppe n ASAP . . . .” Gonz a le z told Villa se nor tha t he kne w whe re the thie f live d, but tha t “ those guy s [a

re ] not gonna

do it for nothing . . . . [be c a use ] if the y

ge t c a ught, y ou a lre a dy

know the y ’ re gonna

bust the m

so, te ll y our brothe r to offe r the m som e t hing good.”A fe w da

y s late r, Villa se n or inform e d Gonz a le z that he would pa y $2,000. Two da

y s la te r, Gonz a l e z inform e d

Villa se nor’ s brothe r that

“ it’ s a go on tha t. I’ m gonna m e e t with thehom ie tom orrow.” Gonz a le z the n c a lle d R e ve le zand told him

“ it’ s a go on tha

t” and “ [t] he soone r, the be tte r.” G onz a le z a ske d R e v e le z whe the r he “ a lre a dy got som e body ,” and R e ve le z re sponde d in the a ffirm ative . Vie wing this evide nc e in the light most fa vora ble to the Gove rnm e nt, a rationa l trie r of fa c t c o uld ha v e found tha

t Gonz a le z inte nde d a

nd a gre e d to kill C la rk and tha t ove rt a c t s we re c om

m itte d in furthe ra

nc e of this a gre e m e nt. Se e Pe oplev . Von Villas , 11 C a l . App. 4th 175, 244 (1992) (“ [O] nc e a punisha ble

1 Althoug h the wiretap evidence did not refer to Clark by name, it was clear that the g ang suspected that the thief was Villasenor’s brother-in-law. I n addition to being Villasenor’s brother-in-law, Clark g enerally matched the phy sical description of the thief referred to in the taped conversations. 3a gre e m e nt is form e d, inte rna l disc ussions a nd a rrange m e nts be twe e n c oc onspira

tors c an e a sily

c onstitute

ove rt a c ts in furthe ranc e of the c onspira c y .” ). 2 W e re a c h the sa

m e c onc l usion with re spe c t to thee v ide nc e on the ove rt-a c t e le m e nt of C ount Two. Fra nk M arisc a l re porte d

to Gonz a le z that a

m an known a s

“ Spe e dy ,” a

m e m be r of the riva l ga

ng B M S or B ig M a c s, live d in 38th Stre e t Ga ng te rritory . Gonz a l e z re porte d this information to Re ve le z , a nd, a bout two we e ks late r c a lle d him

ba c k a n d told him : “ [T] he hom ie s . . . the y ’ re -the y ’ re a bout to ge t that B ig M a c [i.e . Spe e dy ] , fool. The y -the y a lre a dy know how they

wa nt a nd e ve rything. The y

poste d, the y ’ re wa iting for him right now, but the

y ne e d a he at.” R e ve le ztold Gonz a le z , “ Te ll him to c om e pic k it up.” Shortly the re a fte r, Gonz a le z c a lle d R e ve le z to inform

him that “ the y ’ re a lre a dy on the wa

y .” M inute s la

te r, R e ve le zc a l le d Gonz a le z to te ll him that “ [t] he m fools a lre a dy

c am e through.” Gonz a le z told R e v e le z , “ I told the m to re turn it to y ou a s soon a s the y we re done ,” and he wa rne d R e ve le z to “ [b] e on a le rt whe n the y c om e and drop it off.”A rationa l fa c tfinde r c ould ha ve found on the ba sis of this evide nc e tha t a n ove rt a c t wa s ta k e n in furthe r of a

c onspira c y

to m urde r Spe e dy , a

riva l ga ng m e m be r. Se e Von Villas , 11 C a l. App. 4th a t 244.

2 The violent crime underly ing the VI CAR offenses charg ed in Counts Two and Ten was conspiracy

to commit murder in violation of Cal. Penal Code §§ 182 and 187. 4Additionally , on a nothe r oc c a sion, R e ina ldo R e se nde z c a lle d Gonz a le z to te ll him tha t B M S m e m

be rs we re “ kic k ing it” at a pa rtic ula r inte rse c tion in 38th Stre e t Ga ng te rritory . Whe n Gonz a le z offe re d to “ c a ll som e hom ie s,” R e se n de z inform e d him : “ If the y

wa nt som e thing, thebig one is he re , y ou know wha t I m e an? So the y

c an do, so they

c an do som e thing.” Gonz a le z re sponde d: “ Ye ah, he ll y e ah! Fuc k the m B ig M a c s.” Gonz a le z the n c a lle d M ario Jim e ne z , inform e d him of the situa

tion, told him

to “ [g] e t a

hold of thehom i e s,” and re late d tha t R e se nde z “ ha s som e thing big . . . so tha t the y c o uld use it.” Afte r ta lking with Jim e n e z , Gonz a le z c a lle d R e s e n de z and told him tha t Jim e ne z wa s “ d o wn,” that

“ he ’ ll proba

bly c om e through a

nd se e y ou,” and tha

t “ [h] e knows e xa c tly

whe re [the B ig M a c s a

re ] at.” From

this e vide nc e , a

rationa l fa c t finde r c ould ha ve found that an ove rt a c t wa s ta

ke n in furthe ranc e of the a g re e m e nt to kill the B ig M a c s R e se nde z sa

w at the inte rse c tion. Se e Von Villas , 11 C a l. App. 4th a t 244. 3 2. W e find m e rit in Gonz a le z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a pply ing a two-le v e l e nha

nc e m e nt for use of a

m inor in a

c rim e pursua

nt to Unite d Stat e s Se nte nc i ng Guide line s M anua l § 3B 1.4. A distric t c ourt m ay a pply this

3 To be sure, the evidence with respect to some of the particular potential intended victims of the conspiracy to murder rival g angmembers that were discussed in the wiretap evidence may

have been insufficient to support a finding of guilt for a conspiracy

to murder those particular victims. However, contrary to Gonz alez ’ s assertion, this circumstance does not warrant reversal of Gonz alez ’s conviction on Count Two. S ee Griffin v. United States , 502 U.S. 46, 49-51, 56-60 (1991). 5se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt “ [i] f the de fe n da nt use d or atte m

p te d to use a pe rson le ss tha n e ighte e n y e ars of a ge to c om m it the offe nse or a ssist in a voiding de te c tion of, or a ppre he nsion for, the offe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.4. 4 Howe ve r, the e nha nc e m e nt m ay be im pose d “ only if a

pre ponde ra

nc e of the e vide n c e de m onstra te s tha t the de fe nda n t ‘ a c te d a ffirm ative ly

to involve

the m i nor in thec rim e .’ ” Unite d State s v . Flore s , 725 F.3d 1028, 1040 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Unite d State s v . J i me ne z , 300 F.3d 1166, 1169 (9th C ir. 2002)). In this c a se , the distric t c ourt ide ntifie d thre e re a s ons why it be l ie ve d tha

t a n e nha nc e m e nt unde r § 3B 1.4 wa s wa rrante d: (1) Gonz a le z “ w a s involve d in re c ruiting y ounge r m e m

be rs” ; (2) the te s tim ony

of fe llow ga

ng m e m be r Isa a c Alva re z i ndic ate d tha

t the 38th Stre e t Ga

ng use d m inors, inc luding Alva re z , to c om m it c rim e s; a

nd (3) the c ourt kne w, both from othe r gang c a se s and from se nte nc ing othe r 38th Stre e t Ga ng m e m be rs, tha t it wa s “ pre tty

c om m on tha t juve nile s are use d” by

ga ngs. Noneof the se re a sons withsta nd sc rutiny . At the outse t, the d i stric t c ourt’ s knowle dge of the pre va le n c e of the pra c tic e of ga ngs using juve

nile s a nd Alva re z ’ s te stim o ny that the 38th Stre e t Ga ng use d m inors te lls us nothing a

bout whe the r Gonz a le z “ a c te d a ffirm ative ly to involve

[a ]

4 The Guidelines provide that “‘[ u] sed or attempted to use’ includes directing , commanding , encourag ing , intimidating , counseling , training , procuring , recruiting , or soliciting . ” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.4 cmt. 1. 6m inor in the c rim e .’ ” Flore s , 725 F.3d a

t 1040 (quoting J

ime n e z , 300 F.3d a

t 1169). Additiona

lly , ne ithe r the distric t c ourt nor theGove rnm e nt ide ntifie d a ny e vide nc e tha

t showe d tha

t the “ y ounge r m e m

be rs” that Gonz a le z re c ruite d we re m inors. Fina lly , a lthough Alva re z joine d the ga

ng a nd c om m i tte d c rim e s be fore turning e ighte e n, ne ithe r the Gove rnm e nt nor thedistric t c ourt pointe d to a ny e vide nc e tha

t Gonz a le z use d or atte m

pte d to useAlva

re z whe n he wa s still a

m inor. Alva re z w a s nine te e n y e ars old whe n he wa s a rre s te d on Ja

nua ry 22, 2010. Thus, he wa s not a

m inor in July

2009, whe n Gonz a le z inform e d Alva re z whe re he c ould loc ate a gun. Although the

re is othe r e vide n c e in the re c ord whe re Gonz a le z argua b ly e n c oura ge d

Alva re z to c om

m it c rim e s on be ha lf of the ga ng, it is unc le ar whe the r the se e ve nts oc c urre d whe n Alva

re z wa s a m inor. The re fore , be c a

use the e vide nc e “ doe s not provide the ne c e ssa

ry fa c tua l unde rpinning for im

posing thee nha

nc e m e nt,” Flore

s , 725 F.3d a

t 1041, thedistric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion in im

posing it. This e

rror a ffe c te d the distric t c ourt’ s Guide line s c a lc u lation, so wem ust va c ate Gonz a le z ’ s se nte nc e on a ll c ounts a nd re m and for re se nte nc i ng. S e e id. at 1042. 5

5 This conclusion renders consideration of Gonz alez ’s challeng e to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence unnecessary . See F lores , 725 F .3d at 1042. 73. Fina lly , the Gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in se nte nc ing Gonz a le z in e xc e ss of the sta tutory m axim um for C o unts Two a

nd Te n. The VIC AR

offe nse s c h arge d in C ounts Two a nd Te n a re subje c t to a

te n-y e ar m a xim um prison se nte n c e . S

e e 18 U.S.C . § 1959(a)(5). The distric t c ourt in this c a se se nte nc e d Gonz a le z to c o nc urre nt te rm s of 300 m onths’ im prisonm e nt on e a c h c o unt. This wa s e rror.

AFFIRM E D IN PART , VACAT E D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

8