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, Pla intiff - Appe lle e , v. C Y IR VING B R OW

N , De fe nda

n t - Appe l la

nt. No. 14-10393

D.C . No. 2:03C R 00104-M C E-AC -1
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 17, 2016 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd HAYES, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED
DEC 01 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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.

** 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).

*** The Honora

ble W illia m Q. Ha y e s, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.App el l an t C y Irving B rown a ppe a l s from h is se n te nc e of 234 m onths im prisonm e nt following his c onvic tion b y a jury on c ha rg es of ar m e d ba

nk robbe ry i n v iola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 2113(a ) a nd (d), a nd use of a fire a rm i n viola tion of 1 8 U.S.C
. § 924(c )(1). On dire c t a ppe a l, this C o u rt a ffirm e d the c onvic tion a nd orde re d lim ite d re m a nd fo r se nte nc ing pursua nt to Unite d S

tate s v . Ame line , 409 F.3d 1073, 1074 (9th C i r . 20 0 5 ) (e n ba nc )

. Unite d State

s v . B row n , 172 F. App’ x 2 06 (9th C ir. 2006). On re m a n d, the distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t the se nte nc e im p ose d would not ha ve be e n m a te ria lly d i f

fe re nt ha d the distric t c ourt be e n a wa re tha t the Guide line s
we re a dvisory
. W e ha ve jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd we a ffirm
. B rown c onte nds tha t the Fare tta a dvise m e n t by t he distric t c ourt p r i o r to the Ame line re m a nd he a

ring wa s ina de qua te
. B rown a sse rts tha t he inte nde d to wa ive his right to c ounse l for a prior m otion unde r 2 8 U .S.C
. § 2255 a nd not for the Ame line
re m a nd proc e e ding. The re c ord shows tha t the d istric t c ourt fully inform e d B rown of the na ture of the A me l ine re m a nd, a nd the da nge rs a n d disa dva

n tag es o f se lfre pre se nta tion a t the proc e e dings. The re c ord de m onstra te s t ha t B rown une quivoc a lly
e xpre s se d h is i n te ntion t o re pre se nt him se lf a t the Ame line re m a nd he a ring. W e
c onc lude tha t B rown’ s wa ive r of his right to c ounse l wa s volunta ry , kno w i n g, a

n d inte llige nt. Se e F

are t ta v . C

alifornia , 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975).

2B rown a lso c onte nds tha t his s en t e nc e is substa ntive ly unre a sona

ble be c a use t h e distric t c ourt found tha t C rim ina l History C a te gory VI s ubsta ntia lly un d er re pre se nte d t

h e se riousne ss o f his c rim ina l h i story a nd a pplie d a two le ve l upwa

rd de pa rture pursua

nt to Unite d Sta te s Se nte n c i ng Guide line (“ U.S.S.G.” ) § 4A1.3. W e
c onc lude tha t the distric t c o urt prope rly c onside re d “ the na ture of [B r ow n ’s ] p rior offe nse s ra the r t

h a n sim ply the ir num

be r.” U.S. S ente nc ing Guide l ine s M a nua l § 4A1.3 c m

t. n.2(B ) (2003). The distric t c ourt im pos ed t h e t w o le ve l upwa rd de pa rture unde r U
. S.S.G. § 4A1.3 ba se d upon B rown’ s e xte nsive c rim ina l history , the
e sc a la t i n g serious a nd v iole nt na ture of his prior offe nse s, a n d t he use o f fire a rm s in this c a se . The c a lc ula t ion of the a dvisory Guide line ra nge wa s ba se d u pon a prope r
a pplic a tion of t

he Guide l i ne p r o v i sions to the fa c ts in the re c ord. The distric t c ourt
m a d e a n “ individua liz e d de t e rm ina tion, a nd i n light of a ll the c irc u m sta nces i n t h e
c a se , the se nte n c e im

pose d wa s re a sona

ble .” Unite d State

s v . C a rty , 5 2 0 F
. 3 d 9 84, 995 (9th C i r. 2008) (e n

ba nc ). The pa rtie s file d supple m en t al brie fs, whic h we ha ve c onside re d, a d dre ssing whe the r B rown’ s c o nvic tion for a viola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 924(c ) should be se t a side
a nd whe the r this issue m a y be ra ise d for the first tim e in this a ppe a l. B rown c onte nds tha t his c o nvic tion for a viola tion of 18 U.S.C
. § 2113(a ) a nd (d) is no longe r a c rim e of viole nc e a fte r J

ohnson v . Unite d State

s , 135 S. C t. 2551 (2015) a nd tha t this C ourt 3ha s the disc re tion to de c ide i s s u es w a ive d or not re a c he d in the distric t c ourt. Se e

Dav is v . Ele c . Arts Inc

. , 775 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th C ir. 2015) (e x e rc ising the C ourt’ s disc re tion to d e te rm ine w he the r pla intiffs’ sta te la w c la im s a re ba

rre d by the inc ide nta l
use de fe nse not a sse rte d in t he distric t c ourt)

. W e c onc lude tha t B rown is re quire d to

“ m ove the c ourt whic h im pose d the s e nte nc e to va c a te , s et a s ide or c o rre c t the
se nte nc e .” 28 U.S.C
. § 2255(a ). Unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255(e ), a n a pplic a t ion for writ of ha be a s c orpus “ sha ll not b e e nte rta ine d if it a ppe a rs tha t the a

pplic a nt ha s fa ile d to
a pply for re lie f, b y m otion to the c ourt whic h se nte n c e d him , . . . unle ss it a lso a ppe a rs tha t the re m e dy by m o t ion is ina de qua t e or i n ef fe c t ive to te s t the le ga lity of his de te ntion.” 28 U .S.C
. § 2255(e ). B rown ha s not a pplie d for re l ie f to the distric t c ourt
or m a de a ny showing tha t the re m ed y p rovide d by 28 U.S.C
. § 2255 is not a de qua te
or e ffe c tive
. 1 AFFIRM E D
.

1 W e gra nt le a

ve to B rown to file a

se c ond or suc c e ssive m otion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255(h). 4