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. R AUL AR C ILA,

De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30109

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00267-B R -3
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. FAB IAN SANDOVAL-R AM OS, De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-30110

D.C . No. 3:14-c r-00267-B R -1

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon Anna J. B rown, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

rc h 6, 2018 Portla nd, Ore gon 

# FIL ED MAR 19 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.B e fore : FISHER , N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . R a ul Arc ila and Fa b ia n Sandova l-R a

m o s (“ D e fe n da

nt s” ) we re c o nvic te d of
c onspira c y

to distribute

he roin re sulting in de ath. 21 U.S.C
. § 841(a )(1), (b)(1)(C ). The y a ppe a l the ir c onvic tions a

nd se nte nc e s. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla in e rror by

instruc ting thejury

to
answe r a spe c ia l ve rdic t que stion re ga rding whe the r de ath wa s a fore se e a ble re sult of the c onspira c y . Whe n a de fe nda nt doe s not obje c t

to jury instruc tions a

t tria l, we
re vie w those instruc tions for plain e rror. Unite d State s v . Sande rs , 421 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th C ir. 2005). “ A tria l c ourt c om m its pla in e rror whe n (1) the re is e rror, (2) that is pla in, a

nd (3) the e rror a ffe c ts substa ntia l rights.” Unite d State s v . Fuc hs , 218 F.3d 957, 962 (9th C ir. 2000). In Unite d State s v . Houston , we he ld tha t the de ath re sulting from the distribution of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e ne e d not ha ve be e n re a s ona

b ly fore se e a ble in orde r for the pe na lty

e nha nc e m e nt in § 841(b)(1)(C ) to a pply . 406 F.3d 1121, 1123 (9th C ir. 2005). W e note d tha t, a lthough other c a se s ha d re q uire d the gove rnm e nt to prove the de fe nda

nt’ s c o n duc t proxim ate l y c a use the re sulting injury , those
c a se s “ involve d c rim e s suc h a s involunta ry m ansla ughte r a nd c onspirac

y tha t

2im

pose c rim ina l c u l pa

bility only whe n the c onse que nc e s of the c rim i na l a c t are re a s ona bly fore se e a ble .” Id. (e m

pha sis a d de d). He re , the gove rnm e nt re que s te d the spe c ia l ve rdic t que stion, be c a use it wa s c onc e rne d tha

t the holding in Houston did not e xte nd to c onspira c ie s. B e c a use Houston im

p lie d c onspira c ie s m ay

re quire proof of proxim ate c a

use , the distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla i n e rror by

inc luding the s pe c ia l ve rdic t que stion. M ore ove r, De fe nda nts c annot show pre

judic e from the que stion; if, a s De fe nda

nts c onte nd, only

but-for c a

usation wa s re quire d, the spe c ia l que stion ve rdic t sugge s te d a highe r burde n of proof. 2. B e c a

use the distric t c ourt did not err in inc luding thespe c ia l ve rdic t que stion, it also did not c om m it pla in e rror by

a llowing the

gove rnm e nt to introduc e e vide nc e re ga

rding theha

rm ful a nd de a dly e ffe c t s of he roin usa ge . Suc h
e vide nc e wa s re le v ant to provetha t de ath wa s a

re a sona bly fore se e a ble re s ult of the
c onspira c y

to distribute

he roin. 3. De fe nda

nts’ a rgum e nt tha

t the distric t c ourt c om

m itte d pla in e rror by
a llowing the

gove rnm e nt to introduc e he arsay sta t e m e nts la c ks m e rit. The sta te m e nts we re not he arsay , be c a use the y we re not introduc e d for the truth of the
m atte r a sse rte d in thesta

te m e nts. Fe d. R . Evid. 801(c ). R athe r, the sta te m e nts we re introduc e d to show the e ffe c t the y ha d on the liste ne rs. Se e Unite d State s v . Torre s , 794 F.3d 1053, 1057 (9th C ir. 2015). W h e n e vide nc e c an be use d for two diffe re nt
3purpose s , one pe rm i ssiblean d one im pe rm issible , a

c ourt m ay

a l low the introduc tion of thee vide nc e for the pe rm issiblepurpose . Unite d State s v . Flore s , 802 F.3d 1028, 1047 (9th C ir. 2015). 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in a pply i ng the pe na lty

e nha nc e m e nt in § 841(b)(1)(C ). Se c tion 846 provide s tha t “ [a ] ny pe rson who a

tte m pts or c onspire s to c o m m it a ny offe nse de fine d

in this subcha

pte r shall be

subje c t to the

same pe naltie s a s those pre sc ribe d for the offe n se , the c om m ission of which wa s the obje c t of the atte m

pt or c onspira c y .” 21 U.S.C . § 846 (e m pha sis a dde d). De fe nda nts c onspire d to viola

te § 841(a ), i.e ., distribution of a c o ntrolle d substa nc e . The re fore , the y

are s ubje c t to thesa

m e pe na lty a s if the y

ha d a c tua lly viola te d § 841(a ). The pe na l ty

e nha nc e m e nt in § 841(b)(1)(C ) a pplie s whe n the use of the c ontrolle d substa

nc e distribute d in viola

tion of § 841(a

) is the but-for c a

use of a de at h. Burrage

v . Unite d State

s , 134 S. C t. 881, 892 (2014). Thus, the distric t
c ourt did not err in a

pply ing the pe na lty

e nha nc e m e nt provision, be c a

u se the he roin distribute d a s a

re s ult of De fe nda

nts’ c onspira c y

to viola te § 841(a ) c a

use d a de ath. 1

1 Whe the r the gove rnm e nt is re quire d to proveproxim ate c a usation in a ddition to ac tua l c a

usation in the

c a se of a c onspira c y ha s not y e t be e n a nswe re d dire c tly . He re , howe ve r, the jury found both a c tua l and proxim at e c a usation. 4The gove rnm e nt did not ne e d to prove tha

t the obje c t of the c onspira c y wa s to viola te the pe na lty e nh anc e m e nt provision in § 841(b)(1)(C ), i.e
. , to c a use de ath, be c a use a se nte nc ing e nha

n c e m e nt is not pa

rt of the unde rly ing offe nse . Se e Unite d State s v . Ve ra , 770 F.3d 1232, 1249 (9th C ir. 2014). (holding tha t the fa c tua l pre d ic ate to a

se nte nc ing e nha

nc e m e nt wa s m e re ly

“ the func tiona l e quiva le nt of a n e le m e nt tha

t ha d to be subm itte d to a jury and prove d

be y ond a re a sona

ble doubt for the purpose s of se nte nc ing a lone ” (quota tion m arks a

nd c i tation omitte d)). C onse que ntly , the distric t c o urt did not err in a pply ing the pe na lty e nha

nc e m e nt in § 841(b)(1)(C ). 5. The distric t c ourt se nte nc e d De fe nda nts to thesta

tutory m inim um se nte nc e . Thus, a ny e rror in c a lc u l ating the ir re spe c tive se nte nc ing guide line range s wa s ha rm le s s. AFFIRM E D.

5