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. JOHN GOR

DON B A DEN, AKA John Gordon B a de n,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 15-50427

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00277-GPC -3 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Gonz a lo P. C urie l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, W . FLETC HER , a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. John Gordon B a de n a

ppe a ls his se nte nc e of 108 m onths’ im prisonm e nt following his c onvic t ion of c om pute r ha c king in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1030(a)(4) and (c )(3)(A), wire fra ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1343, a nd c onspira c y

to c om m it wire fra

ud in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1349. W e have



# FIL ED DEC 20 2016 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.jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd 18 U.S.C . § 3742. Re vie wing for pla in e rror, we va c at e B a de n’ s se nte nc e an d re m a n d for re s e nte nc ing. 1. To e s ta

blish plai n e rror, B a d e n m ust de m onstra

te (1) the re wa s “ an e rror[,] ” (2) the e rror wa s “pla i n[,] ” and (3) “ the e rror . . . a ffe c te d the de fe nda

nt’ s substa ntia l rights, which in theordina ry c a se m e ans tha

t he or she m

u s t show a re a s ona ble proba bility tha t, but for thee rror, the outc om e of the proc e e ding would have be e n diffe re nt.” Molina-Martine z v . Unite d

State s , 136 S. C t. 1338, 1343 (2016) (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). “ Onc e the se thre e c onditions ha

ve be e n m e t, the c ourt of a ppe a ls should e xe rc ise its disc re tion to c orre c t the forfe i te d e rror if [(4)] the e rror se riously a ffe c ts the fa irne s s, inte grity or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Id. (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). 2. The gove rnm e nt c onc e de s tha t the first two prongs a

re satisfie d be c a use the distric t c ourt pla inly e rre d in a pply ing thetwo-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt for “ the ft from

the pe rson of a

nothe r” unde r § 2B 1.1(b)(3) of the Unite d State s Se nte nc i ng Guide line s (the “ Guide line s” ). 3. As to thethird prong, “ in the ordina ry c a se a de fe nda nt will sa tisfy his burde n to show pre

judic e by pointing to the

a p plic ation of a

n inc orre c t, highe r Guide line s ra

nge and the se nte n c e he re c e i ve d the re unde r.” Id. at 1347. This is a

n

“ ordina ry ” c a se , a

nd B a d e n m ake s suc h a

showing. Inde e d, the distric t c ourt re lie d 2on the e rrone ous Guide line s c a l c ulation in fa shioning B a d e n’ s se nte nc e and did not

ba se his se nte nc e sole ly

on “ fa c tors indepe nde nt of the Guide line s.” Se eid. B e c a use the re c ord is “ sile nt a s to wha t the distric t c ourt m ight ha ve done ha d it c onside re d the c o rre c t Guide line s ra nge ,” the e rror a ffe c te d B a de n’ s substa ntia l rights. Id. 4. B a de n sa

tisfie s the fourth prong by de m onstra

ting tha t the e rror

“ se riously a ffe c t s the fa irne ss, inte grity , or public re puta t ion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Unite d State s v . J ose ph , 716 F.3d 1273, 1281 (9th C ir. 2013) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks omitte d). “ W e have re g ula rly de e m e d the fourth prong of the pla in e rror sta

nda rd to ha ve be e n sa

tisfie d whe re , a s he re , the se nte nc ing c ourt c om m itte d a le ga l e rror that m a

y have inc re a se d

the le ngth of a

de fe nda nt’ s se nte nc e .” Id. (quoting Unite d State s v . Tapia , 665 F.3d 1059, 1063 (9th C ir. 2011)). Ac c ordingly , we va c ate B a de n’ s se nte nc e and re m and for re s e nte nc ing. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

3