N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT UNITED STATES OF AM E R IC A, Pla intiff- Appe lle e , v. ER IC JONES, De fe nda nt- Appe lla

nt. No. 13-10206

D.C
. No. 3:12-c r-00674-JSW -1 AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Je ffre y S. White , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d on M a

y 12, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : S I L V E RM AN and GOULD, C irc uit Judge s, a n d LEM ELLE, Di s t r i ct Judge
. ** Appe lla nt Eric Jone s (Jone s) a

ppe a l s the 130-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty

ple a to one c ount of posse ssion with inte nt to distribute

and distribution of 5 gra

m s or m ore of c ra c k c oc a ine (c o unt one ), two c ounts of posse s sion with inte

nt to distribute

and distribution of 5 gra

m s or m ore of 

# FIL ED

AUG 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a p propria te for public a tion 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.

** T he Honora

b le Ivan L. R . Le m e lle , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C o urt for the E a s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion. 1m e tha

m phe tam ine (c o unts two a

nd four), thre e c ounts of sa le of a fire a rm to a prohibite d pe rson (c ounts thre e , five , a nd six), a nd one c ount of unla

wful tra ffic king of fire arm s (c ount se ve n). B e c a use the distric t c ourt e xc e e de d the sta tutory m a xim um se nte n c e , we va c a te Jone s’ s se nte nc e on c ounts thre e , five , a nd six. B e c a use the se n t e nc e s on the re m a ining c o unts we re a ffe c te d by the se nte nc e
on c ounts thre e , five , a

nd six, we re m and for re se nte nc ing on a ll c ounts. J o n e s wa s arre ste d a fte r he sold guns and drugs to a c onfide ntia l in f o r m an t working with the B ure a

u o f Alc ohol, Toba c c o, Fire arm s and Explosive s and wa s indic te d in a s e ve n c ount i ndic tm e n t. Jone s ple d guilt y to al l counts, without a ple a
a gre e m e nt. A Pre se nte nc e Rep o rt (PSR ) wa s pre pa re d prior to se nte nc ing. Jone s
m a de two obj ec t ions to the PSR , c la im ing (1) he wa s not a m e m be r of the Da ’ Vil gan g , a s a lle ge d in t

he PSR ; and (2) the PSR ’ s re c om m e n dation of a two-le ve l
en h an ce m e nt for m a inta ining a pre m ise for t he p urpose of m anufa c turing or distributing a c ontrolle d substa nc e w as i m

prope r be c a

use he prim a

rily use d the house la wfully a s his sole re side nc e with the e xc e ption of thre e drug s al es he
c om ple t e d at the hom e ove r the c ourse of six m o nths. The distric t c ourt ove rrule d Jone s’ s obje c t ions a nd a dopte d the PSR ’ s Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s c a lc ulation , se tting thec rim ina l history c a te gory a s III and the t ota l offe nse le ve l at 27, y ie lding a guide line range of 87-108 m o nths. The distric t c o urt se nte nc e d Jone s to 130 m onths im prisonm e nt on c ounts one through

2six a

nd 60 m onths im

prisonm e nt on c ount se ve n , a ll to be se rve d c onc urre ntly
. Jone s a lso re c e ive d thre e y e ars of supe rvise d re le a s e on c ounts one , thre e , five , six,
and se v e n , a

nd four y e a

rs of supe rvise d re le a se on c ounts two a nd four, a ga in to be
se rve d c onc urre ntly
. The c ourt pla c e d se ve ra l supe rvise d re le a se c onditions on Jone s, inc luding providing his proba tion offic e r a c c e ss to fina nc ia l inform a tion, subm itting to suspic ionle ss se arc he s of his pe rson, re side nc e , a n d prope rty , a

nd prohibiting a ssoc iat ion with the Da ’ Vil ga

ng or a ny othe r gang. Jone s obje c te d to the s ubsta ntive re a sona

ble ne ss of the se nte nc e an d the supe rvise d re le a se
c onditions. The

distric t c ourt ove rrule d the obje c tions. This a p pe a l followe d. B oth Jone s a

nd the Unite d State s a gre e that the se nte n c e for c ounts thre e , five , a nd six wa s im

prope r, and tha

t re m and for re s e nte nc ing on those c ounts is
a ppropria te . The sta

tutory m a xim um se nte nc e for a viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 922(d) is 120 m onths im

prisonm e nt. 18 U.S.C
. § 924(a )(2). He re , the distric t judge
se nte nc e d Jone s to 130 m onths im prisonm e nt for e a c h of Jone s’ s viola tions of § 922(d). W e the re fore va c a t e those se nte nc e s a nd re m and for re se nte nc ing on those
c ounts.

“ [W ] he n a

distric t c ourt im

pose s m ultiplese nte nc e s on a

de fe nda nt, “ the de gre e to whic h e a c h offe nse c ontribute s to the tota l se nte nc e is usua lly a ffe c te d by the o the r offe nse s of c onvic tion.” Thus, re m and of a ll se nte nc e s is ofte n
warra n te d.” U

nite d State

s v . Ev ans-Martine

z , 611 F.3d 635, 645 (9th C ir. 2010)

3(quoting Unite d State s v . Radmall , 340 F.3d 798, 801 (9th C ir. 2003)). Upon
re vie w of the distric t c ourt’ s sta te m e nts during se nte nc ing in this c a se , we a gre e that re m and on a ll c ounts is a ppropria te he re . W e va c a te Jone s’ se n te nc e on c ounts
one , two, four, a

nd se ve n, a

nd re m and for re se nte n c ing on those c ounts a s we ll. W e a ffirm

the two-le ve l e nha

nc e m e nt for m a inta ining a drug pre m ise s. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) im pose s a two-le ve l e nh anc e m e nt “ [i] f the de fe nda nt
m a inta ine d a

pre m ise s for the purpose of m anufa c turing or distributing a c ontrolle d substa nc e .” He re , the distric t judge did not c le arly e rr or a b use his disc re tion in im posing thetwo-le ve l e nha nc e m e nt in light of the

thre e doc um e nte d sa le s of drugs by Jone s at his hom e , the la

rge am o unts of c a sh found in the house , drug
m anufa c turing re sidue found in thekitc he n dra in, a nd the PSR ’ s finding tha

t Jone s ha d no othe r ga inful e m

ploy m e nt. 1 W e furthe r a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t Jone s wa s a

ga ng m e m be r be c a use it wa s not c le ar e rror. In m aking this finding, the distric t c ourt c om plie d with Fe de ra l R

ule of C rim ina l Proc e dure 32. The PSR found tha

t Jone s wa s a
m e m b e r of the ga

ng ba s e d in pa

rt on a Ga ng M e m be r Va lida

tion W orkshe e t from

1 The re solution of the

e nha nc e m e nt turns on fa c tua l c onside rations, not pure ly on le ga l c o nc lusions. W e hav e lim ite d a uthority to ove rturn fa c t

ua l findings a

nd the guide l ine a

pplic a tion to the

fa c ts. Unite d State

s v . K imbre w , 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th C ir. 2005) (fa c tua l findings a re re vie w e d for c le ar e rror and a pplic a tion of the Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s to the fa c ts is re v i e we d for a buse of disc re tion). Eve n if our re vie w wa s de novo, we would simila rly a ffirm be c a

use our inte rpre tat ion of the Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s is in line with thedistric t c ourt. Id
.

4the C la ssific a tion Unit a t the San M a te o C o unty She riff’ s Offic e from Fe b ruary 2010, indic a ting tha

t Jone s ha d a dm itte d his ga ng a ffilia tion. Ac c ording to tha

t she e t, Jone s told prison offic ia ls “ I have to be ke pt a way from any body in the Ta liba n [a riva l ga ng] or I’ ll ha

ve to kill them .” Although Jone s we nt on to sa y

“ I’ m n ot in a

ny ga ng” he a lso sta

te d “ b ut if I ha

ve the c h a

n c e I’ l l kill the m

and I
want no ne w c ha

rge s so ke e p m e away

from the m .” Id. Late r, Jone s re fe rre d to him se lf a s a

“ V-boy ”

— a

c om m on na m e for m e m

be rs of the Da ’ Vil ga

ng. Id. The PSR a lso re fe re nc e d a

fe lony re port from

the Ea st Pa lo Alto Polic e De pa rtm e nt on Oc tobe r 5, 2012, whic h sta te d tha t Jone s a rrive d at the m

urde r sc e ne of a

Ta liba n ga ng m e m be r, stood ove r the de a d body , sm irke d a s he sa id the de a d m an’ s nam e , and the n wa l ke d a

way . The distric t c ourt, pre se nte d with Jone s’ s obje c tion, he ard
argum e nt from both side s . The re c ord c onta i ne d not only the obje c te d-to sta te m e nts in thePSR

tha t Jone s wa s a

ga ng m e m be r an d tha

t he would kill Ta liba n m e m be rs, but a l so the unobje c te d-to e vide nc e tha t Jone s’ s fam i ly

an d frie nds we re Da ’ Vil m e m be rs, tha t he a ske d to be house d a

way from Ta liba n
m e m b e rs, tha t Da ’ Vil m e m

b e rs we re with him whe n he wa s a rre s te d, a nd tha t he
wa s at the sc e ne of a

Ta liba n m e m be r’ s m urde r. This e vide nc e wa s a de quate for the d istric t c o urt to re a c h the c onc lusion tha t Jone s wa s a

ga ng m e m be r. La stly , we a ffirm

a ll c onditions of supe

rvise d re le a se a s ne i the r proc e dura lly nor substa

ntive ly in e rror. Unite d State

s v . W olf C hild, 699 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th

5C ir. 2012). Unde r the se c irc um s ta n c e s, ne ithe r the re quire m e nt tha t Jone s re ve a l fina nc ia l inform a tion, c onse nt to suspic ionle ss se arc he s, nor re fra i n f rom
a ssoc iating with ga

ng m e m be rs we re in e rror. Se e Unite d State s v . Garc i a , 522 F.3d 855, 862 (9th C ir. 2008) (fina nc e s); Unite d

State s v . Be tts , 511 F.3d 872, 876 (9th C ir. 2007) (suspic ionle ss se arc he s); U nite d State

s v . J ohnson , 626 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th C ir. 2010) (ga

ng a s soc iations). V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D IN PART , AFFIRM E D IN PART .

6Unite d

State s v . J o ne s , No. 13-10206 GOULD, C irc u it Judge , c o n c urring in pa rt a nd disse n ting in pa

rt: B e c a use the m a

jority a p plie s the wrong sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd inc orre c tly inte rpre ts the m e aning of § 2D1.1(b)(12) of the Unite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line s, I re spe c tfully disse nt from

tha t pa rt of its disposition. I a

gre e tha t the
se nte nc e im

pose d by the distric t c ourt on c ounts thre e , five , a nd six wa s im

prope r be c a use it e xc e e de d the sta

tutory m a xim um , a nd I a gre e tha

t the se nte nc e on the
re m a ining c ounts wa s a ffe c te d by tha t e rror, and so I would also re m and for re
se nte nc ing on a ll c ounts. I a lso a gre e tha t the distric t c ourt did not viola te R ule 32 in finding tha

t Jone s wa s a

ga ng m e m be r, tha t the finding of ga

ng m e m be rship by the d istric t c o urt wa s not c le ar e rror, and tha t the c onditions of supe

rvise d re le a se
are n e ithe r proc e dura l l y

e rrone ous nor substa

n tive ly unre a sona

ble . Howe ve r, I would va c a te Jone s’ se nte n c e on a ll c ounts for a se c ond, indepe nde nt re a son. Unde r our pre c e d e nt, se c tion 2D1.1(b)(12)’ s two-le ve l e nha nc e m e nt for
m a inta ining a

pre m ise s for the purpose of m anufa c turing or distributing ille ga l drugs is not prope

rly invoke d by

the lim ite d fa c ts of Jone s’ c a se . On a ppe a l, we re vie w c ha lle nge s to a distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of the Se nte n c i ng Guide l ine s de nov o. Unite d State s v . K imbre w , 406 F.3d 1149, 1151 (9th C ir. 2005). B e c a

use C ongre ss e xplic itly ba se d this se nte n c ing e nha nc e m e nt on the pa ra lle l la ngua ge of 21 U.S.C . § 856, I would hold tha t our pre c e de nt 

# FIL E D
AUG 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSinte rpre ting tha t sta tute is pe rsua sive on the inquiry we fa c e he re . Fa i r Se n te nc ing Ac t Of 2010, PL 111-220, 124 Sta t 2372 (“ the Unite d State s Se nte nc ing C om m ission shall re vie wand a m e nd the Fe de ra l se nte n c i ng guide line s to e nsure
an a d ditiona l inc re a se of at le a st 2 offe nse le v e l s if . . . thede fe nda nt m a inta ine d a

n
e sta blishm e nt for the m anufa c ture or distribution of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e , a s ge ne ra lly de sc ribe d in se c t ion 416 of the C ontrolle d

Substa nc e s Ac t (21 U.S.C
. 856).” ). Thre e drug sa le s by Jone s ove r six m onths involving sm a ll a m o unts of drugs, a fe w thousa

n d s dolla rs in c a sh, a

nd e v ide nc e of sm a l l-sc a le drug
m anufa c turing do not c onstitute the kind of “

prim ary or princ i pa l use s” with whic h the s tat ute and the e nha

nc e m e nt a

re c onc e rne d. Unite d State s v . She tle r , 665 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th C ir. 2011) (im p osing a high ba r for a pplic a tion of thec rim ina l sta tute be c a use it “be tte r c om

ports with the

sta tutory la ngua ge ” and “ e nsure s tha t the s tat ute is not unc onstitutiona lly va gue .” ); s e e also United State s v . Manc uso , 718 F.3d 780, 795-96 (9th C ir. 2013) (holding tha t a l though the re wa s proof of distribution of 276 gra

m s of c oc a ine ove r doz e n s of inc ide nts “ [i] t is not a t a ll c le a r that the e vide nc e of the se insta n c e s of distribution would be suffic ie nt to pa ss the

“ princ ipa l use ” form

ulat ion” whe n

c o nside re d a longside the c onc urre nt le ga l use of the p rope rty ). M ore ove r, tha t the se fe w sa le s we re m a de a t Jone s’ hom e would not
a ppe ar to sugge st tha

t the hom e wa s he ld out a s a pla c e a t whic h to buy drugs, but
ra the r m ay be a

norm a l c onse que nc e of the fa c t tha t the c onfide ntia l inform ant,who se t Jone s up for ille ga l drug sa le s, wa s Jone s’ frie nd who m ight ha ve be e n
e xpe c te d to c a ll on Jone s at his hom e . I re spe c tfully

disse nt in pa

rt.