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 i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. R AM ON SULLIVAN ALVAR EZ, AKA R am on Sa lga do Alva

re z , AKA R ay Alva re z , AKA R aym ond Alva re z , De fe nda nt-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50248

D.C . No. 2:16-c r-00011-SJO-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 S. Jam e s Ote ro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 14, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON and WARDLAW , C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HEN, ** Distric t Judge . R am on Alva

re z , a form e r de te c tive with the Los Ange l e s Polic e De pa rtm e nt (“ LAPD” ), a

ppe a ls his se nte nc e — 12 m onths of im p risonm e nt plus six m

onths of 

# FIL E D OCT 26 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd M . C h e n , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.hom e c onfine m e nt— for one c o unt of m ak ing a fa lse sta te m e nt in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1001(a)(2). Alva re z wa s a c c use d of ste a ling drug proc e e ds ba s e d, in pa rt, on som e $6,000 in c a sh found in his c ar on the da y the proc e e ds we re se iz e d. He de nie d the the ft, but la

te r a dm itte d ly ing a

bout the sourc e of the m one y found in his c ar, an d ple a d e d guilty to the one fa lse sta

t e m e nt c ount. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3742(a). W e va c ate Alva re z ’ s se nte n c e and re m and for re se nte nc ing be fore a

diffe re nt distric t judge . 1. The distric t c ourt pla inly e rre d by a pply ing the substa

ntia l e v ide nc e sta nda rd of proof, ra

the r tha n the he ighte ne d

c le ar and c onvinc ing sta

nda rd, in inc re a sing Alva

re z ’ s offe nse le ve l by

nine on the ba sis of theunc ha rge d the ft.

“ B e c a use [Alva re z ] fa ile d

to obje c t to thedistric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of the [substa ntia l e vide nc e ] sta

nda rd, we re vie w for pla i n e rror.” Unite d State s v . J ordan , 256 F.3d 922, 926 (9th C ir. 2001); s e e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 52(b) (“ A pla in e rror that a ffe c ts substa

ntia l rights m ay

be c onside re d e v e n

though it wa s not brought to the

c ourt’ s atte ntion.” ).

“ [T] he Due Proc e ss C la

use re quire s the a

pplic ation of a

c l e ar and c o nvinc ing e vide nc e sta

nda rd whe n an e nha nc e m e nt ba se d upon unc ha rge d c o nduc t ha s a

n e xtre m e ly disproportiona

t e e ffe c t on thele ngth of a de fe nda nt’ s se nte n c e .” Unite d State s v . Vale nsia , 222 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th C i r. 2000). W e de te rm ine whe the r a 2se nte nc ing fa c t or ha s a n e x t re m e ly disproportiona

te e ffe c t unde r the tota lity of the c irc um s ta nc e s te s t ide ntifie d in Vale nsia . Unite d State s v . Hy mas , 780 F.3d 1285, 1290 & n.2 (9th C ir. 2015). He re , two of the six fa c tors— whe the r the e nha

n c e d se nte nc e de pa

rte d from the s e nte n c ing guide line s by m ore tha n four le ve ls, a

nd whe the r the e nha

nc e m e nt m ore tha n double d the le ngth of theinitia l se nte nc e — i ndic ate that the unc ha rge d the ft offe nse , use d by

the c ourt to inc re a s e Alva re z ’ s offe nse le ve l by

nine , ha d a

n

“ e x tre m e ly

disproportiona

t e e ffe c t” on se nte nc ing. In a ddition, the third fa c tor, whic h a sse sse s whe the r the fa c ts offe re d in support of the e nha nc e m e nt c re ate ne w offe nse s re quiring sepa

rate punishm e nt, is a l so sa tisfie d he re . The gove rnm e nt’ s argum e nts to thec ontra

ry — that four of the inc re a s e d le ve l s should be disre ga rde d, and tha t hom e c o nfine m e nt should not c ount towa rds the le n gth of Alva

re z ’ s se nte nc e — are una

va i ling. 2. The distric t c ourt’ s fa ilure to a pply the c le ar and c onvinc ing e vide nc e sta nda rd a ffe c t e d Alva

re z ’ s substa

ntia l rights a

n d unde rm ine d the fa irne ss of the judic ia l proc e e d ing. S

e e J ohnson v . Unite d State

s , 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997). The e vide nc e at

se nte nc ing did not me e t the c le ar and c onvinc ing e v ide nc e sta nda rd. The distric t c ourt re lie d on sta te m e nts m a d e by

LAPD De t e c tive Todd Ha nke l in a n unsworn polic e inte rvie w, to thee ffe c t tha t Ha nke l suspe c te d Alva

re z ha d ta ke n 3m one y

from the drug proc e e ds ba se d on a pa rtia l vie w of Alva

re z ’ s a rm m ove m e nt and his be lie f tha

t he sa w the m one y

outline d in Alva

re z ’ s poc ke t. Ha

nke l did not te stify unde r oath a

t the se nte nc ing he aring, a nd Alva re z ha d no opportunity

to c ross-e xam ine him . M o re ove r, othe r re c ord e vide nc e c a sts doubt upon Ha nke l’ s sta te m e nts, inc luding potentia l im pe a c hm e nt e v ide nc e and re pe ate d a sse rtions both be fore and a fte r the se arc h by M artin He rnan de z , from whom the m one y

wa s se iz e d, tha

t he did not posse ss m ore tha n the $10,000 found in his loc kbox. In a ddition, Ha

nke l ’ s own te stim ony

indic at e s tha

t it would ha

ve be e n diffic ult for Alva re z t o c o unt the m one y in the loc k box a n d le ave e xa c tly

$10,000, i.e . , the am ount c la i m e d by

He rnande z to be in the loc k box. Although the

re wa s som e e vide nc e tha

t se ve ra l m inute s pa sse d be twe e n the tim e Alva

re z arrive d at the C one x stora ge and the tim e that the m o ne y wa s first photogra

phe d, Ha nke l te stifie d that he ne ve r le ft Alva

re z a lone ; he only

brie fly turne d a way from Alva re z whe n the a lle ge d the ft took pla c e ; a nd a nothe r offic e r, M i c he lle Jong, wa s a l so in the stora ge unit. Furthe r, re l ia

ble e v i de nc e from

the LAPD la

b oratory pointe d to possible DNA c ross-c onta

m ination. Eve n the gove rnm e nt a dm itte d in its sente nc ing pa

pe rs that “ pa rtia l unc e rta inty

. . . e xists with re spe c t to thethe ft a lle gation,” and tha t He rnande z ’ s sta

te m e nts “ do not c onfirm

tha t a the ft e ve r oc c urre d.” U nde r the se 4c irc um s ta

nc e s , we c annot sa

y that the unc ha

rge d the ft e nha

nc e m e nt wa s supporte d by c l e ar and c onvinc i ng e vide nc e . 3. Alva

re z ’ s due proc e ss rights were viola te d be c a use the re wa s a

risk that Alva re z wa s “ c hille d” a s a re sult of thedistric t c ourt’ s sta te m e nts tha

t his se nte nc e c ould be inc re a se d if he pursue d the right to introduc e e xc ulpa tory e vide nc e . C

f. N ulph v . C ook , 333 F.3d. 1052, 1057 (9th C i r. 2003) (sta ting tha t due proc e ss “ re quire s tha

t a de fe nda nt be fre e d of a

ppre h e n sion of suc h a re ta lia tory m otiva tion on the

pa rt of the se nte nc ing judge [;] [o] the rwise , the de fe nda n t will bec hille d in thee xe rc ise of his right to ch a l le nge a c onvic tion or se nte nc e ” ) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d ). At se nte nc i ng, the distric t c o urt found De te c tive Ha nke l’ s polic e inte rvie w sta t e m e nts “ c o m

pe lling” e vide nc e tha

t Alva re z ha d stole n the m one y . De fe nse c o unse l sought to introduc e e vide nc e im

pe a c hing Ha

nke l’ s c re dibility

and c ha lle nging his story . B ut de fe nse c ounse l c hose not to proc e e d whe n the c ourt indic at e d tha t it wa s “ pre pa

re d to im pose a se nte nc e of one y e ar plus hom e c onfine m e nt,” but tha t suc h a se nte nc e would not be

suffic ie nt if thede fe nse we re to bring Ha nke l in for a

he aring a nd the c ourt still found his te stim ony “ c om pe lling.”This thre at

viola te d due proc e ss. Se e Borde nk irc he r v . Hay e

s , 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) (“ To punish a pe rson be c a

use

5he ha s done what the la w pla inly a llows him to do is a due proc e ss viola tion of the m ost ba sic sort . . . .” ); N

ulph , 333 F.3d a

t 1057. Howe v e r, be c a

use c ounse l fa ile d to obje c t a nd inste a d c hose to a c quie sc e to the d istric t c o urt’ s wa

rning, we re vie w this c la im for pla in e rror only , a

nd we c onc lude tha

t Alva re z ha s not sa

tisfie d tha t sta nda rd. 4. W e ordina

rily do not e nte rta in c la i m s of ine ffe c t ive a ssista nc e of c ounse l on dire c t a

ppe a l. Unite d State

s v . Rahman , 642 F.3d 1257, 1259–60 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de c line to de pa rt from our sta nda rd pra c tic e he re , be c a

use this is not one of the “ unusua l c a se s whe re (1) the re c ord on a ppe a l is suffic ie ntly de ve lope d to pe rm it de te rm inat ion of theissue , or (2) the le ga l re pre se ntation is so ina d e quate tha

t it obviously

de nie s a de fe nda nt his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to c ounse l.” Id. at 1260. 5. Fina lly , Alva

re z a sks tha

t this c a se be re a ssigne d to a ne w distric t judge on re m and. R e a ssignm e nt is wa rrante d he re be c a

use the judge m a

y “ have substa ntia l diffic ulty

in putting out of his . . . m ind pre viously

e xpre sse d vie ws or findings de te rm ine d to be e rrone ous,” m aking “ re a ssignm e nt . . . a dvisa ble to pre s e rve the a

ppe a ranc e of justic e .” Unite d State s v . Riv e ra , 682 F.3d 1223, 1237 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita

tion omi tte d). W e the re fore instruc t the C le rk of the Unite d Stat e s Distric t C o urt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia

to re a ssign this c a se to a 6diffe re nt distric t judge on re m and. On re m and, the ne w distric t judge sha ll

re se nte nc e Alva

re z without the

the ft e nha

nc e m e nt. V ACAT E D, RE M A NDE D, AND RE ASSIG N E D.

7