T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr 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. F R AN C I S C O J AV I E R S AN T I AG OHERNAN DEZ, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 50034 D . C . N o. 3: 11 -c r- 05 15 1-L A B -1 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia L a rry A . B urns , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t7, 2012 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , S IL V E R M A N , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ra nci sc o S ant i ago-H ernand ez appeal s the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ct courtfol l ow i ng hi s gui l ty pl eat o i l l egal re entryaf t erdepo rt at i on i n v i ol at i on of 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) . W e a f f irm . 

# FI LED AU G 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

S a nt i a go- H e rna nde z a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d r e ve r s i bl e e rr or by s uppos e dl y ne got i a t i ng the s e nt e nc e w i th hi m , r e l y i ng on U ni ted Stat es v. G onz alez - Me lc hor , 648 F . 3d 959 ( 9th C i r . 2011) . T he r e w a s no ne got i a t i on. T he r e c o r d s h o w s th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e w a s th in k in g o u t lo u d ab o u t h is p o s s ib le se nt enci ng op t i on s a nd i nv i t ed the defendantt o com m ent . T he defendantobj ec t ed t o one of the opt i ons , a nd the j udge i m pos e d the othe rone . T hi s i s unl i ke G o n za l ez-Melch o r, w here a r educed sent ence w as offe re d i n exchang e f or an ap p e a l w a iv e r . Se e i d. a t 9 6 5 . S ant i ago-H ernand ez al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed procedural error by f

ai l i ng t o exp l ai n suffi ci ent l y w hy a tw el ve-m on th p ri son sent ence f ol l ow e d by one y e a rof

s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e w a s notgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry unde r18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , gi ven thatthe courtw as al so cont em pl at i ng a possi bl e f i ve-y ea r pr oba t i ona ry s e nt e nc e . H ow e ve r , the c our te xpl a i ne d tha tthe de f e nda nt ’ s s e r i ous and rece ntpri or re cord and the dang ert o the pu bl i c he posed cal l ed for ase nt ence i nv ol vi ng bo th i ncar ce ra t i on and a peri od of supervi si on . T he se nt ence i m po se d w a s w e ll b e lo w th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m a n d n o t u n r e a s o n ab le . A F F I R M E D .1

U ni ted Stat es v. Sa nt i ag o-H erna nd ez , N o. 12- 50034 R E I N H A R D T , C ir c u it J u d g e , d is s e n tin g . T he “ bri gh tl i ne rul e” un der F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 (c )( 1) thatproh i bi t s j ud ges fr om part i ci pat i ng i n the pl eabargai ni ng proces s e xt ends t o the se nt enci ng ph as e, a nd ha s be e n r e c ogni z e d t o pr e c l ude c our t s f r om e l i c i t i ng w a i ve r s f

r om the de f e nda nt , i nc l udi ng w a i ve r s of the s t a tut ory r i ghtt o appe a l , orof obj e c t i ons t o a p r e s e n te n c e r e p o r t. U

ni ted Stat es v. B ruce , 97 6 F . 2d 55 2, 55 6 (9th C i r. 19 92 ); U ni te d State s v . G onz al ez -Me lc hor , 648 F . 3d 959 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ; U ni ted Stat es v. M a rkin , 2 6 3 F .3 d 4 9 1 ( 6 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A m o n g th e m a n y r e a s o n s f o re x te n d in g th is p r o h ib itio n is th e e x p lic it r e c o g n itio n th a t aju d g e w h o o f f e r s a s e n te n c e in e xc ha nge f

ora w a i ve rof

s om e r i ght“ m a y vi e w unf a vor abl y a r e

j e c t i on of

the w ai ver a nd t ake thatre

j ec t i on i nt o acc ou ntatse nt enci ng . ” G o n za l ez-Melch o r, 648 F . 3d a t964. T hi s l os s of i m pa r t i a l i ty , a s w e l l a s the thr e a tt o j udi c i a l i nt e gr i ty a nd th e u n ac ce p tab ly-h ig h risk o f c o er cio n th at u n fa il in g ly ac co m p an ies a ju d g e’s nego t i at i on w i th a cr i m i nal defe nd antexi st s w henever thatnego t i at i on t akes pl ac e, a n d n o m a tte rw h a t ty p e o f w a iv e ris s o u g h t a n d w h e th e rth a t n e g o tia tio n is s u c c e s s f u l. De s p i t e th e m a

j o r i ty ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t o th e c o n tr a ry , th e r e c o r d c l e a r l y s h o ws tha tthe j udge w a s notm e r e l y “ thi nki ng outl oud” w he n he of f e r e d S a nt i a go

# FI LED AU G 14 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

H e rna nde z the opt i on t o de l a y hi s s e nt e nc i ng i n or de rt o i m pos e a n unl a w f ul s e n te n c e o f

1 0 - m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t c o u p le dw ith a f iv e - y e a rte rm o f

p r o b a tio n . A tse nt enci ng , the j ud ge i nform ed S ant i ago-H ernand ez thathe i nt ended t o v ary u p w a r d f r o m th e g u id e lin e m a x im u m o f s ix m o n th s if

h e w e n t f

o rw a r d w ith s e nt e nc i ng tha tda y . H e pr e s e nt e d the de f e nda ntw i th the “ opt i on . . . t o pos tpone s e n te n c in g ,” s o th a t S a n tia g o - H e rn a n d e z w o u ld “c o m e b a c k in e a r ly A u g u s t w ith t i m e und erhi s bel t , ” a nd be se nt ence d atthatt i m e t o a fi ve-y ea r probat i on ary t erm

–e f f e c tiv e ly im p o s in g a n u n r e v ie w ab le 1 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e in a d d itio n to pr oba t i on. A l though the j udge di d noti nf orm S a nt i a go- H e rna nde z w ha tthe a l t e rna t i ve s e nt e nc e w oul d be i f he e l e c t e d nott o w a i ve hi s r i ghtt o a s pe e dy se nt ence , the j ud ge di d t el l hi m that“ the det erm i nat i on w as hi s” and request ed that coun se l “ t al k t o h i m abou thi s opt i on s” before the proceedi ng s c on t i nu ed. S uch c onduc ti s c l e a r l y pr ohi bi t e d unde rR ul e 11, a nd i s e ve n m or e e xpl i c i t l y a n a tt e m pt a tne got i a t i on tha n the c onduc tr e c ogni z e d i n G onz al ez -Me lc hor , i n w hi ch the court m e r e l y s t a t e d tha ta “ pr om i s e ” f r om the de f

e nda nttha the w a s “ notgoi ng t o e xpe nd a ddi t i ona l r e s our c e s t o pur s ue thi s thi ng” w oul d “ go a l ong w a y ” t ow a r ds r e duc i ng th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . I d. a t 9 6 1 . I n thi s c a s e , the de f

e nda ntde c l i ne d the j udge ’ s e xpr e s s of f e ra nd, a f t e rthe d e f e n d a n t o b

je c te d , th e ju d g e a tte m p te d to r e - c h a r a c te r iz e th is o b v io u s a tte m p t to3

n e g o tia te w ith th e d e f

e n d a n t a s a m e r e “m e n tio n ” o f a “p o s s ib ility .” T h e m a jo r ity apparent l y a cc ept s the court ’ s di si ng enuo us expl anat i on of i t s behavi or and i gn ores the verbat i m re cord of the proceedi ng s i n w hi ch the j ud ge pres ent ed an offerof a 5 - y e a rp r o b a tio n a ry s e n te n c e in e x c h a n g e f o rS a n tia g o - H e rn a n d e z ’s w a iv e ro f h is ri gh tt o a spee dy se nt ence . T here i s no rea sonabl e i nt erpret at i on of the re cord that perm i t s the m aj ori ty’ s c on cl usi on thatno nego t i at i on t oo k p l ac e.

“ [ T ] hi s c i r c ui ta nd othe r s ha ve tr e a t e d s e nt e nc i ng a s i nc l ude d w i thi n the s p e e d y tr ia l g u a r a n te e ” p r o v id e d u n d e rth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, w h i ch i m p o ses a

“ const i tut i on al du ty of the st at e t o m ake adi l i gent , go od -f ai th eff ortt o sent ence . ” T in g h ite lla v . S ta te o

f C a l. , 718 F . 2d 308, 312 ( 9th C i r . 1983) . A f t e rbe i ng det ai ned for 10 1 d ay s, S ant i ago-H ernand ez ca m e bef ore the courtt o b e s ent ence d u n d e rh is p le a a g r e e m e n t in w h ic h b o th p a r tie s r e c o m m e n d e d a 6 0 - d a y s e n te n c e . A tse nt enci ng , the courtre j ec t ed the re com m endat i on s of the part i es . R ather than i m po si ng a s ent ence of ei ther at erm of prob at i on up t o fi ve ye ar s ora s e nt e nc e of i m pri sonm entfor up t o tw o yea rs al on g w i th u p t o a on e y ea r t erm of supervi se d r e le a s e –tw o o p tio n s th a t a r e a v a ilab le to th e c o u r t u n d e rth e s ta tu te , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3561; 18 U . S . C . § 3583( b) ( 3) – the c our ta tt e m pt e d t o i m pos e a t e rm of im p r is o n m e n t i n addi t i on to a pr oba t i ona ry t e rm of f i ve y e a r s by r e qui r i ng the de f e nda ntt o w a i ve hi s r i ghtt o be s e nt e nc e d a ttha tt i m e a nd i ns t e a d r e turn a f t e rhe4

h a d b e e n in c a r c e r a te d f

o rte n m o n th s . S u c h c o n d u c t d o e s n o t r e f le c t a“d ilig e n t, good- f a i th e f f or tt o s e nt e nc e , ” a nd w a s a bl a t a nta tt e m ptby the c our tt o c i r c um ve nt th e la w . A lth o u g h S a n tia g o - H e rn a n d e z d id n o t a c q u ie s c e in th e c o u r t’s a tte m p t to i m po se an un l aw ful se nt ence , capi tul at i on i s notre qu i re d for the exi st ence of a R ul e 11 vi ol a t i on. T he pr ophy l a c t i c purpos e be hi nd R ul e 11 i s nots e rve d by r e f u s in g to f

in d e rr o rw h e r e th e c o u r t p r e s e n ts th e d e f e n d a n t w ith a n o f

f e rin e x c h a n g e f

o rth e w a iv e ro f

h is r ig h t –p a r tic u la r ly w h e r e th a t o f f e rw o u ld r e s u lt in the i m po si t i on of an un l aw ful se nt ence . In thi s c as e, “ the re cord l ea ves unrebut t ed the i nf e r e nc e ” tha tthe c our t ’ s i m pa r t i a l i ty w a s c om pr om i s e d i n the w a ke of the d e f e n d a n t’s u n w illin g n e s s to a c c e p t th e c o u r t’s p r o p o s e d s e n te n c in g a rr a n g e m e n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . S to c kw e ll , 47 2 F . 2d 11 86 , 11 87 (9th C i r. 19 73 ). I w ou l d there fore hol d tha tthe c our t ’ s f

a i l e d ne got i a t i on w i th S a nt i a go- H e rna nde z c ons t i tut e d a vi ol a t i on of

R ul e 11, w oul d va c a t e hi s s e nt e nc e , a nd w oul d r e m a nd f or r e s e n te n c in g b e f

o r e a d if f e r e n t ju d g e .