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.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y f i nds thi s c a s e s ui t abl e f

orde c i s i on w i thout ** o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 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. R E NE B OU DE WI JN K OH L E R , AK A S e a l A, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 08- 50527 D . C . N o. 8: 07 -c r- 00 02 4-A H S -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 C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A l i c e m a r i e H . S t ot l e r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r7, 2009 ** 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 , T R O T T an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R en e B o u d ew i

j n K o h l er ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n o f fi v e co u n t s o f fi l i n g fal se t a x r e turns i n vi ol a t i on of 26 U . S . C . § 7206( 1) a nd hi s r e s ul t i ng s e nt e nc e . W e ha ve 

# FI LED DE C 22 2009 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

j ur i s di c t i on pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e a f f i rm M r . K ohl e r ’ s c onvi c t i on but r e m a nd f orr e - s e nt e nc i ng. 1. M r . K ohl e rc ha l l e nge s the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f a i l ur e t o s e pa r a t e l y i ns truc tthe j ury on hi s good f

a i th de f e ns e . B e c a us e he f

a i l e d t o obj e c tt o the j ury i ns truc t i ons in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . U

n i te d S ta tes v . Cr o we , 563 F . 3d 9 6 9 , 9 7 2

– 7 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . H e r e , th e ju ry in s tru c tio n s “f a ir ly a n d a d e q u a te ly covered the i ss ues pre se nt ed. ” U ni ted Stat es v. M

art i nez-M

art i nez , 369 F . 3d 1076, 1084 ( 9th C i r . 2004) . B e c a us e the di s tr i c tc our ta l s o pr ope r l y i ns truc t e d the j ury on the w i l f ul ne s s e l e m e ntof

the c r i m e , a n a ddi t i ona l good f a i th i ns truc t i on w a s not n e c e s s a ry . Se e U

n ite d S ta te s v . P o m

p o n io , 4 2 9 U .S . 1 0 , 1 3 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; U ni ted Stat es v . Solom on , 8 2 5 F .2 d 1 2 9 2 , 1 2 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . A s a r e s u lt, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t co m m itp lain er ro r in fa il in g to se p ar ately in stru ct th e ju ry o n M r. K o h ler’s go od fa i th d ef

ense . 2 . N o rd id th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p la in ly e rrb y r e q u ir in g M r . K o h le rto c o o p e r a te w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t in o b ta in in g h is D N A a s a c o n d itio n o f h is s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . D i stri ctcourt s a re st atut ori l y obl i gat ed t o i m po se thi s c on di t i on of supervi se d re l ea se on al l conv i ct ed fe l on s. 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(d), 42 U . S . C . § 1 41 35 a( a) (2), ( d) ( 1) . M r . K ohl e rw a s c onvi c t e d on f i ve f e l ony c ount s , una m bi guous l y br i ngi ng h im w ith in th is r e q u ir e m e n t.3

I ti s true tha tunde r18 U . S . C . § 3583( c ) di s tr i c tc our t s m us tc ons i de rva r i ous § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors in im p o si n g a su p erv i sed rel ease co n d i t i o n . T h ese req u i rem en t s, h o w e v e r , ap p ly o n ly to th o s e c o n d itio n s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m a y , b u t n e e d n o t, i m pos e ; the y do notappl y t o the i m pos i t i on of s t a tut or i l y r e qui r e d c ondi t i ons of s u p e rv is e d r e le a s e . C

f . U ni te d State s v . J

ac k s on , 189 F . 3d 820, 823 ( 9th C i r . 1999) ( “ I n i m pos i ng a t e rm of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , or de r i ng di s c r e t i ona ry c ondi t i ons of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd m odi f y i ng the c ondi t i ons , the c our t s a r e t o c ons i de r , a m ong o th e rth in g s , th e d e te rr e n t, p r o te c tiv e , a n d r e h ab ilita tiv e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g . . .

. ”) . M r. K oh l er ’ s r ea di ng of § 3 58 3 w ou l d d es troy the di st i nct i on betw ee n m andat ory a nd di sc re t i on ary c on di t i on s of s up ervi se d rel ea se — a r es ul tthat di r e c t l y c onf

l i c t s w i th the pl a i n l a ngua ge a nd s truc tur e of the s t a tut e . T hus , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otpl ai nl y e rrby i m po si ng the cond i t i on pert ai ni ng t o M r. K o h l er’ s D N A w i th o u treferen ci n g an y 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. 3 . W e rev i ew th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s i n t erp ret at i o n o f th e G u i d el i n es de no vo , its appl i c a t i on of

the G ui de l i ne s f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on, a nd i t s f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs f or c le a re rr o r . Cr ow e, 56 3 F . 3d at97 7. M r. K oh l erfi rs tchal l enges hi s G ui del i nes ca l cul at i on on the grou nd thatun der U ni ted Stat es v. B oo ke r , 54 3 U . S . 22 0 (20 05 ), i tw a s e rr orf

orthe di s tr i c tc our t , a nd nota j ury , t o f i nd tha tthe t a x l os s r e s ul t i ng f r o m h is u n r e p o r te d in c o m e w a s $ 6 3 8 ,2 8 6 . H o w e v e r , B oo ke ra nd i t s pr oge ny doT h e cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce” st an d ard i s i n ap p l i cab l e h ere b ecau se 1 the t a x l os s c a l c ul a t i on di d notha ve a n ex tr e m e ly d is p r o p o r tio n a te i m pa c ton the u ltim a te s e n te n c e im p o s e d . U ni ted Stat es v. B er

ger , — F . 3 d —, 2 0 0 9 WL 4 1 4 1 4 7 8 , a t * 8 ( 9 th C ir , N o v . 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) ; se e al s o U ni te d State s v . J

or dan , 25 6 F . 3d 92 2, 92 8 (9th C i r. 20 01 ) ( ci t i ng fa ct ors re l evantt o the “ di spropo rt i on at e i m pact ” a nal ys i s) . 4 no tforbi d j ud i ci al fa ct -f i nd i ng ; ra ther, tho se ca se s a l l ow a j ud ge t o “ fi nd addi t i on al fa ct s, so l on g as the j ud ge tre at [s ] the G ui del i nes a s a dv i sory . ” U ni ted Stat es v. W i l l i am s on , 4 3 9 F .3 d1 1 2 5 , 1 1 4 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; se e al so U ni ted Stat es v. Hi ckey , 58 0 F . 3d 92 2, 93 2 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( “ B ec ause the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes a re advi sory af t er B oo ke r , the S i xth A m e ndm e ntdoe s notr e qui r e tha tthe l os s be pr ove d t o a ju ry b ey o n d a r ea so n ab le d o u b t. ”) . A d d it io n ally, b ec au se th e g o v er n m en t’ s e v id e n c e m e e ts th e “p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e ” s ta n d a r d g e n e r a lly ap p lic ab le t o G ui del i nes f

ac t -f i nd i ng , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rri n arr i vi ng atthe t ax lo s s f ig u r e . U ni ted Stat es v. Stat en , 46 6 F . 3d 70 8, 71 9 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). 1 H o w e v e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in ap p ly in g th e v e r s io n o f U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 thatappeare d i n the 20 07 G ui del i nes M anual t o the ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem enti nst ea d o f the vers i on i n the 20 05 m anual . G ener al l y, the G ui del i nes M a nua l t o be appl i e d by the di s tr i c tc our ti s the G ui de l i ne s M a nua l i n e f f e c ta tthe tim e o f s e n te n c in g . U

ni te d State s v . R is i ng Sun , 52 2 F . 3d 98 9, 99 2 n . 1 (9th C i r. 2008) . H ow e ve r , " the E x P os tF a c t o C l a us e of the U . S . C ons t i tut i on r e qui r e s theM r . K ohl e rdi d notobj e c tt o the us e of the 2007 G ui de l i ne s i n c onne c t i on 2 w ith th e o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t; n o rd id h e r a is e a n E x P o s t F a c to c h a lle n g e . H o w e v e r , M r . K o h le rd id n o t w a iv e th is p o in t a s h e d id n o t “e x p r e s s ly a gr e e [ ] ” t o the us e of

the m or e r e c e ntG ui de l i ne s nordi d he “ a f f i rm a t i ve l y w a i ve consi dera t i on of the [post -a m endm ent ] vers i on of the gu i del i nes or aband on an ex po stfa ct o argum ent . ” U ni ted Stat es v. Chea , 2 3 1 F .3 d 5 3 1 , 5 4 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . R a the r , M r . K ohl e rha s pr e s s e d hi s a r gum e nta ga i ns tthe obs truc t i on e nha nc e m e nt th ro u g h o u tth ese p ro ceed i n g s u n d er th e st an d ard setfo rth i n th e 2 0 0 5 G u i d el i n es. 5 d e f e n d a n t to b e s e n te n c e d u n d e rth e g u id e lin e s in e f f e c t a t th e tim e o f

th e o f f e n s e if the G ui de l i ne s ha ve unde r gone s ubs t a nt i ve c ha nge s tha tw oul d di s a dva nt a ge the d efen d an t . " U

ni te d State s v . Ste v e ns , 4 6 2 F .3 d 1 1 6 9 , 1 1 7 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ; see a l so U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 11. S ubs t a nt i ve a m e ndm e nt s t o the G ui de l i ne s be tw e e n 2005— the l as tye ari n w hi ch M r. K oh l erengaged i n con du ctfor w hi ch he w as c o n v ic te d

— a n d 2 0 0 7 r e n d e ru s e o f th is M a n u a l e rr o rin th is r e s p e c t. 2 U nde rthe obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e ntpr ovi s i on i n the 2005 G u id e lin e s , th e d e f

e n d a n t m u s t h a v e " w illf u lly o b s tru c te d . . . o ra tte m p te d to obs truc t. . . , the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e dur i ng the c our s e of the i nve s t i ga t i on, p r o s e c u tio n , o rs e n te n c in g o f th e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n ." U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 (200 5). T he evi dence dem on stra t es thatM r. K oh l ercutthe l edgers i n M ay 2003— dur i ng the c i vi l a udi ta nd a l m os ttw o y e a r s be f or e the c r i m i na l i nve s t i ga t i on s t a r t e d. T hi s c onduc tdi d notoc c ur“ dur i ng the c our s e of the i nve s t i ga t i on . . . of6

the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on” a nd c oul d notf orm the ba s i s of

a n obs truc t i on of ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t. See U n i ted S ta tes v. Fo rd , 9 8 9 F .2 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . I n 2006, U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1 w a s a m e nde d t o r e m ove the s tr i c tr e qui r e m e nt th a t th e o b s tru c tiv e c o n d u c t o c c u rd u r in g th e c r im in a l in v e s tig a tio n o rp r o s e c u tio n . Se e R is i ng Sun , 5 2 2 F .3 d a t 9 9 6

– 9 7 ; see a l so U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 ap p . n o te 1 . W e p r e v io u s ly h a v e h e ld th a t th is a m e n d m e n t c o n s titu te da s u b s ta n tiv e c h a n g e . See R is i ng Sun , 52 2 F . 3d at99 7. B ec ause thi s a m endm entdi sa dv ant aged M r. K oh l er by expand i ng the sc op e of c on du ctthatcoul d sup po rtan ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem ent , i tw as error t o rel y on M r. K oh l er ’ s c ut t i ng of hi s l edgers i n 2 00 3 as a b a s is f o rim p o s in g th e o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y rel i ed o n fi n d i n g s th atM r. K o h l er u rg ed M s. B e r ge rt o l i e a nd s a i d tha the s houl d s tr a ngl e he ri n i m pos i ng the obs truc t i on of j u st i ce en h an cem en t . T h e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tcl earl y err i n ch o o si n g t o cred i tM s. B er ger' s t es t i m on y a s t o thi s c on du ctthatdi d o cc ur du ri ng the cr i m i nal in v e s tig a tio n . See U

ni ted Stat es v. B ri dg es , 56 9 F . 3d 37 4, 37 7 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). It m a y ve ry w e l l be tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw oul d ha ve i m pos e d the obs truc t i on enhancem enteven appl yi ng the vers i on of § 3 C 1. 1 i n the corre ctG ui del i nes M anual . H ow ever , w e have hel d thatE x P ostF ac t o v i ol at i on s a tse nt enci ng ar e n o t s u b je c t to h a rm le s s e rr o rr e v ie w , s e e W i l l i am s v . R oe , 421 F . 3d 883, 887–887

(9th C i r. 20 05 ). T here fore , w e m ustvaca t e the se nt ence and rem and t o the di stri ct courtfor r e- se nt enci ng usi ng the vers i on of § 3 C 1. 1 i n the G ui del i nes i n eff ec tat th e tim e o f

th e c o n d u c t u n d e r ly in g th e c o n v ic tio n . C o nv i c t i o n A FFI R M ED ; Se nt e nc e VA C A TED a nd R EM A N D ED