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. YONGDA HUANG HAR RIS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50250

D.C . No. 2:12-c r-01085-C AS-1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d August 5, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, SILVER

M AN, a nd WARD L AW , C i rc uit Judge s . Yongda Hua n g Ha rris a ppe a ls his c onvic tion a

nd five -y e ar se nte n c e of probat ion following his guilty ple a to m aking fa lse sta

t e m e nts in a

c u stom s 

# FIL ED AUG 12 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).-2-

de c la ra tion form , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1001. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e AFFIRMIN PART AND RE M AND IN PART
. Harris m ay

a p pe a l his c o nvic tion de spite indic ating in his notic e of a ppe a l that he wa s a ppe a ling his “ se nte nc e only ” be c a u se both pa

rtie s fully brie fe d the
m atte r. Unite d State

s v . Little fie ld , 105 F.3d 527, 528 (9th C ir. 1997) (pe r c uriam ); Unite d State s v . Shin , 953 F.2d 559, 560-61 (9th C ir. 1992). Any diffic ulty the gove rnm e nt m ay

have in re -prose c uting thec a s e we re we to re ve rse Ha rris’ s c onvic tion is spe c u lat ive and would not be c a use d by Ha rris’ s om ission. Nor is this a ppe a l ba rre d by the a ppe a l wa ive r in the ple a

a gre e m e n t be c a

use the
a gre e m e nt spe c ific a lly

pre se rve s Ha

rris’ s right to a

p pe a l on the ground tha

t his ple a wa s involunta

ry and the right to a

ppe a l the se nte nc ing issue s he now ra ise s. Whe n Ha rris ple d guilty to m aking a

fa lse sta te m e nt, he wa s a dvise d tha t it is a c rim e to willfully

m ake a fa lse sta t e m e n t, to do so de libe rate l y and with knowle dge tha

t the sta te m e nt is untrue . He wa s not spe c ific a l ly a d vise d tha t the gove rnm e nt wa s a lso re quire d to prove tha t he kne w tha

t m a king a knowing a

nd de libe ra t e ly

fa lse c ustom s de c la

ra tion is ille ga l. Eve n

a ssum i ng tha

t Ha rris should have be e n a dvise d tha

t the gove rnm e nt ha d

to prove tha

t he kne w tha

t willfully
m aking a fa lse sta te m e n t is a

c rim e , Ha

rris did not show tha

t he suffe re d a

ny pre j udic e a s a

re sult. The re is no re a son to be lie ve that Ha rris, who wa s-3-

re pre se nte d by

c ounse l , did not know tha t it is a c rim e to m ake a fa lse sta te m e nt. Nor is the re any

c la im tha t he would not ha

ve ple d guilty if he ha d be e n inform e d by the c ourt tha

t “ w illfully ” re quire s proof tha t he kne w tha

t ly ing on a c ustom s de c la ra tion is a c rim e . Thus, on plain e rror re vie w, Unite d State s v . Ande rson , 741 F.3d 938, 945-46 (9th C ir. 2013), we c onc lude tha t any e rror did not “ a ffe c t[] the outc om e of the distric t c ourt proc e e dings” or the “ fa irne ss, inte grity or public
re puta tion of judic ia l proc e e dings,” U nite d State

s v . Marc us , 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). The distric t c ourt wa s not re quire d to c re dit thefive m onths Ha rris spe nt in pre t ria l de te ntion towa

rd his te rm

of proba tion be c a use , by its pla in la

ngua ge , 18 U.S.C . § 3585(b)(1) only a pplie s to se nte nc e s of im

prisonm e nt, not se nte n c e s of probat ion. Give n the ite m s Ha rris wa s c arry ing in his lugga ge and the file s found on his la ptop a t the tim e he m a de the fa lse sta te m e nts on his custom s de c la ra tion form , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion in de c iding tha t a five -y e ar te rm of proba tion wa s the a

ppropria te se nte nc e , de spite the fa c t tha t Ha rris ha d spe nt five m o nths in pre tria l de te n tion. Pre tria l de te n tion is not a te rm of im prisonm e n t
and the re fore the five m onths Ha rris spe nt in pre tria l de te ntion doe s not c a use Harris’ s se nte nc e to e xc e e d the sta tutory m a xim um or run a foul of 18 U.S.C . §-4-

3561(a )(3)’ s prohibition on se nte nc ing a

de fe nda nt to both a te rm

of proba tion a nd
a te rm o f im

prisonm e nt. R athe r tha

n m e e ting Ha

rris’ s a rgum e n ts a

b out the c onstitutiona

l ity of the
c ondition of proba

tion prohibiting c onta c t with minors unle ss Ha rris se c ure s a dva nc e pe rm ission from

his proba tion offic e r, the gove rnm e nt doe s not oppose a re m and to thedistric t c o urt for c la rific ation of thec ondition a s writte n to a c c ord with thedisc ussion a

t se nte nc ing. W e the re fore re m and this a spe c t of Ha rris’ s c a se to the distric t

c o urt for c la

rific ation. AFFIRM E D IN PART AND RE M ANDE D IN PART
.