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, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. PATR IC K JONES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50120

D.C . No. 3:09-c r-01250-W -2 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 T hom a s J. W

he la n, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d June 6, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : GOULD, N.R . SM ITH, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Appe lla nt Pat ric k Jone s a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s im position of a

15-y e ar m andatory -m inim

um se nte nc e for viola

t ion of 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED JUL 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALS

* 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.In Unite d State s v . Av ila-Anguiano , 609 F.3d 1046 (9th C ir. 2010), we sta te d: Whe n a de fe nda

nt i s se nte nc e d to m

u ltiple c o unts a

nd one o f t

he m is late r va c at e d on a

ppe a l, the se nte nc ing p ack ag e be c om e s ‘ unbundle d.’ The distr i c t c ourt the n ha s the a uthority t o put toge the r a ne w pa c ka ge re flect i n g its c onside re d judgm e nt a s to the p unishm e nt the de fe n da nt de se rve [d] for the c rim e s of whic h he [wa ] s still c o nvic te d. Id. at 1049 (a lte ra tion in origina l) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). Thus, the distric t c o urt e rre d in c onc luding tha t it la c ke d jurisdic t ion to re c onside r Jone s’ s se nte nc e on re m and a fte r we re ve rse d Jone s’ s tra ffic king c onvic tion in his prior a ppe a l, Unite d State

s v . J one s , 459 F. App’ x 616, 617 (9th C ir. 2011), c e r t. de nie d , 132 S. C t. 1937 (2012). Howe v e r, we c onc l ude tha t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. The distric t c ourt c ould not ha ve se nte nc e d

Jone s to le ss tha

n the 15-y e ar m andatory

m inim um without a
m otion from

the gove rnm e nt. U

nite d State

s v . Vale nte , 961 F.2d 133, 134–35 (9th C ir. 1992). B e c a

use the distric t c ourt c ould not ha ve lowe re d Jone s’ s se nte nc e , Jone s inc urre d no pre

judic e whe n the distric t c ourt de c line d to re -se nte nc e him
. Se e Unite d State

s v . Gunning , 401 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th C ir. 2005) (c onc luding that fa i lure to re -se n te nc e is pre judic ia l “ whe n a

distric t c ourt c ould hav e lowe re d a de fe nda n t’ s se n te nc e . . . e ve n if we doubte d tha t the distric t c ourt w ould hav e done so” ). 2Furthe r, the la w of the c a se fore c lose s Jone s’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt c la im s. Se e Unite d State s v . C ote , 51 F.3d 178, 181 (9th C ir. 1995). In his prior a ppe a l, Jone s c ha lle nge d his c o nvic tion by c onte n ding tha

t the gove rnm e nt m

ust “prove sc ie nte r a s to them i nor’ s a ge in orde r to justify c rim ina l pe na ltie s of the m a gnitude se t forth in se c tion 2251.”In the a lte rnative , Jone s argue d tha t e ve n if we uphe ld his c onvic tion, we should still va c ate his se nte nc e . To support the se c la i m s, Jone s re lie d on the sam e argum e nts a n d a uthoritie s tha

t he now brings be fore us. Howe ve r, we pre viously

re je c te d Jone s’ s c la im

tha t the sc ie nte r de m ande d by the sta tute wa s ina de quate to support a c onvic t ion for a

c rim e with a

15-y e ar m andatory

m inim um se nte nc e . J

one s , 459 F. App’ x at

617. In doing so, we de c ide d Jone s’ s re sta

te m e nt of tha

t a rgum e nt—

that his 15-y e ar se nte nc e offe nds the Fifth Am e ndm e nt— “ by ne c e ssa ry im plic ation in the

pre vious disposition.” Se e Hall v . C ity of Los Ange le

s , 697 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th C ir. 2012). In other words, we disa gre e with Jone s (a n d the disse nt) tha

t sim ply re pa c ka ging a

rgum e n ts a lre a dy ra ise d in a

prior a ppe a l should allow Jone s a se c ond c ha

nc e to a p pe a l the sam e substa

ntive issue s. Jone s’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt c la im is not time ly , be c a

use he did not ra ise it in his first a ppe a l. The re fore , we de c line to a d dre ss it. Se e Unite d State s v . N a gra , 147 F.3d 875, 882 (9th C ir. 1998) (“ Whe n a pa rty c ould ha ve ra ise d a

n issue in a 3prior a

ppe a l but did not, a c o urt la te r he aring the sa

m e c a se ne e d not c onside r the
m atte r.” ). AFFIRM E D .

4Unite d

State s v . J o ne s , No. 12-50120 N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge , c onc urring: I a gre e with them a

jority ’ s disposition of this c a se . I write se pa ra te ly to a ddre s s the “ unbundling” issue . In m

y vie w, U nite d State

s v . Av ila-Anguiano , 609 F.3d 1046, 1048–49 (9th C i r. 2010), should not c om pe l us to hold tha

t Jone s’ s se nte nc e wa s “ unbundle d” whe n we va c ate d one c ount on his first a ppe a l. Av ilaAnguiano , broa d ly

sta te s tha t “ [w] he n a

de fe n da nt is se n te nc e d to m

ultiplec ounts and one of the m

is la te r va c ate d on a

ppe a l, the se nte nc i ng pa c k a g e be c om e s

‘ unbundle d.’ ” Id. at 1049 (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). “ Suc h ‘ unbundling’ is ofte n wa

rrante d be c a

use c onvic tion on the

re v e rse d c ounts m ay

have a ffe c te d the re m a ining c ounts.” Id. The A v ila-Anguiano ra tiona le m a de se nse in tha t c a se . The re , the distric t c ourt ha d se n te nc e d the de fe nda nt to 180 mo nths im

prisonm e nt. Id. at

1048. The se nte nc e c onsiste d of a

m andatory

m inim um of 120 m onths for onec ount to run c onse c utive to a 60 m onth se nte nc e for five othe r c ounts, with those c ounts running c onc urre ntly

with e a c h othe r. Id. W e late r va c ate d thre e of those five c ounts. Id. On the de fe nda nt’ s se c ond a

ppe a l, we c o nc lude d tha

t the distric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion to re se nte nc e de fe nda nt on thesurviving c o unts on re m and of the first a ppe a l, be c a

use t he se nte nc e be c am e unbundle d. Id. at 1049. Given the pote ntia l inte rpla

y be twe e n the m andatory

se nte nc e and the othe r c ounts, it is c le ar



# FIL ED JUL 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALShow the va c ate d c ounts c ould ha ve “ a ffe c te d” the origina l se nte nc ing. Jone s’ s origina l se nte nc e distinguishe s this c a se from Av ila-Aguiano. The re is no indic ation tha

t Jone s’ s se n te nc e s should ha ve be e n unbundle d on re m and, be c a use the re is no indic ation tha t the y we re “ b undle d” in the first pla c e . Jone s re c e ive d the m andatory

m i nim um for both c ounts to run c onc urre ntly . The distric t c ourt c ould not ha

ve im pose d le ss tha

n the m andatory

m inim um (without a gove rnm e nt m otion) a

n d c le arly did not wish to im

pose a gre ate r se nte n c e . Ac c ordingly , the va c ate d c ount c ould not ha ve “ a ffe c te d” the distric t c ourt’ s origina l se nte nc ing on theothe r c ount. Jone s c ite s no a

uthority a pply ing the “ unbundling” the ory to m andat ory se nte nc e s se t to run c onc urre ntly , a nd re se a rc h re ve a ls none . Whe n a ske d a bout the l a c k of supporting a

uthority at ora l a rgum e nt, Jone s c la im e d tha t Unite d State

s v . Be nne tt , 363 F.3d 947, 955-56 (9th C ir. 2004), supports his position. Howe ve r, Be nne tt is ina pposite . The re , “ t

he distric t c ourt did not differe ntia te am ong B e nne tt’ s [two] c o unts of c o nvic tion during sen te nc ing a n d ultim ate ly

se n te nc e d B e nne tt to 121 months im prisonm e nt ‘ a s to e a c h c ount, c onc urre nt.’ ” Id. at 956. Unlike the insta

n t c a se , the re wa s no indic at ion tha t the distric t c ourt m e ant to im pose the m andatory

m inim um (and nothing gre ate r). As suc h, Jone s’ s re lia nc e on Be nne tt

is m ispla c e d. Thus, I would hold tha t the distric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic tion to re s e nte nc e Jone s on the c o unt surviving his first a ppe a l.Unite d

State s v . J o ne s , No. 12-50120 GOULD, C irc u it Judge , c o n c urring in pa rt a nd disse n ting in pa

rt: I a gre e with them a

jority tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d whe n it c onc lude d tha t it ha d no disc re tion to re c onside r Jone s’ s se nte nc e on re m a nd. The e rror is unde rsta nda b le , be c a u s e our prior de c ision wa s a m b iguous a nd not c le ar in
m andate , but a s a

ge ne ra l rule , the distric t c ourt c an a c t whe n not pre c lude d by the
m andate . B ut I disa gre e tha

t the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. In a ffirm ing Jone s’ s 18 U.S.C . § 2251(a ) c onvic tion in his prior a ppe a l, we re lie d on U

nite d State

s v . U.S. Distric t C ourt (“ K antor II ” ). Unite d S

t ate s v . J one s , 459 F. App’ x 616, 617 (9th C ir. 2011)
c e rt. de nie d , 132 S. C t. 1937 (2012) (c iting K antor II , 858 F.2d 534 (9th C ir. 1988)). K antor II c am e to us on a

writ of m anda

m us be fore tria l be ga

n a nd a se nte nc e ha d be e n e nte re d, a nd it did not disc

uss se nte nc ing issue s. 858 F.2d a t 534. W he n we de c ide d Jone s’ s prior a p pe a l, we did not re fe r to his se nte nc e or se nte nc ing c la i m s. J

one s , 459 F. App’ x at 617. Applic ation of thela

w of the c a se is disc re tiona ry . Hall v . C

ity of Los Ange le s , 697 F.3d 1059, 1067 (9th C ir. 2012). B ut he re the distric t c ourt ha d no opportunity

to a p ply its disc re tion. Jone s did not pre se n t his c onstitutiona l c la im s to the distric t

c o urt in his first se

nte nc ing he aring, a

nd on re m and the distric t c ourt e rrone ously

c onc lude d it ha d no jurisdic tion to c onside r the m for the first tim e . 

# FIL ED JUL 10 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F A PPEALSWhe re a

distric t c ourt ha s not unde rtake n “ the tra d itiona l e xe rc ise of disc re tion by a se n te nc ing c ourt,” K

o on v . Unite d State

s , 518 U.S. 81, 98 (1996), we should be re luc ta nt to substitute

our judgm e nt a s to how tha t disc re tion would or should ha ve be e n e x e rc ise d on a

ny m atte rs of se nte nc ing. I se e no m e rit to a n e xpa nsive la w of the c a se ruling tha

t fore c lose s from

c onside ra tion a

non-frivolous issue

tha t ne ithe r the d istric t c o urt nor we have pre viously a ddre sse d. Jone s’ s a rgum e n ts a ga i nst his c onvic tion a nd se nte nc e we re sim ila

r, but sim ila r argum e nts c arry

distinc t m e anings whe n pose d in diffe re nt c o nte xts a nd to diffe re nt tribuna ls. The prior pa ne l kne w the se nte nc e would be c om e unbundle d on re m and a

n d I think would ha

ve e xpe c te d the distric t c o urt to he ar Jone s’ s c la im s whe n it re se n te nc e d him
. W ith the m a jority ’ s de c ision now, we know the distric t c ourt will ne ve r c onside r those c la im s. Thus I think a le gitim ate issue goe s unre vie we d. I c onc lude tha

t our prior de c ision doe s not re pre se nt the la w of the c a se . I would re m and to thedistric t c ourt to c onside r Jone s’ s se nte nc i ng a rgum e nt in the first insta nc e . I re spe c t fully

disse nt.