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 and 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. 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. F R E DE R I C K J OH N R I Z Z OL O, AK A R i c k R i z z ol o, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 10384 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 6 - c r - 0 0 1 8 6 - PM PP A L -2 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 orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da P hi l i p M . P r o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 19, 2012

L a s V e ga s , N e va da B efo re: C L IF T O N , B Y B E E , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F r e de r i c k R i z z ol o appe a l s the f i na l j udgm e nti n hi s c r i m i na l c a s e f or v io la tio n o f

th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f h is p r o b a tio n . T h e c o u rt r e v o k e d h is supervi se d rel ea se and i m po se d a se nt ence of ni ne m on ths’ i ncar ce ra t i on fol l ow ed 

# FI LED APR03 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

by tw e nty - f

ourm onths of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r18 U . S. C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) an d 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f i rm. 1. T he di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o al l ow a s t at em entfr om the H enry s’ l aw ye r on the i rbe ha l f

w a s nota n abus e of

di s c r e t i on, e ve n though the H e nry s di d not q u a l i f y a s as t a tu t o r i l y - r e c o g n i z e d “ v i c t i m” u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 7 7 1 ( th e Cr i me V i ct i m s’ R i gh t s A ct , “ C V R A ”) . A ts e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc ourtha s aw i de r a nge of di s c r e t i on i n a dm i tt i ng w h a te v e re v id e n c e it d e e m s r e le v a n t. See N i chol s v . U ni ted Stat es , 511 U . S . 738, 74 7 (19 94 ). Indeed, “ un der the G ui del i nes, a s ent enci ng j ud ge ‘ m ayconsi der, w i thoutl i m i t a t i on, a nyi nf orm a t i on c onc e rni ng the ba c kgr ound, c ha r a c t e ra nd cond uctof the defendant , un l es s otherw i se proh i bi ted by l aw . ’ ” U

ni ted Stat es v. Jones , 1 1 4 F .3 d 8 9 6 , 8 9 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) ( q u o tin g U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1. 4). N on e of the autho ri t i es re l i ed up on by R i zz ol o p rohi bi t ed the H enry s’ l aw ye r f r om m a ki ng as t a t e m e nt . T he C V R A , 18 U . S . C . § 3771, a nd R ul e 32( i ) of the F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re m er el y m andat e s i tuat i on s w here the di stri ct c ourtm us ta l l ow i ndi vi dua l s t o be he a r d. H ow e ve r , the s e pr ovi s i ons s a y nothi ng ab o u t p r o h ib itin g in d iv id u a ls f r o m b e in g h e a r d . T h e r e f o r e , w h ile R iz z o lo is c o rr e c t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s n o t re qu i re d t o al l ow the H enry s’ l aw ye r t o speak3

on thei r behal f a s vi ct i m s und erthe C V R A , R i zz ol o i s i ncorrec tw hen h e argues tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourts t i l l ha d no dis c r e t i on t o a l l ow the l aw y e rt o be he a r d. T h e d i stri ctco u rtcarefu l l y ex p l ai n ed i t s reaso n s fo r al l o w i n g th e H en rys’ l a w y e rt o m a ke as t a t e m e nt . B e c aus e thos e r e a s ons w e r e noti m pl aus i bl e or illo g ic a l, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n . See U ni ted Stat es v. Hi nk s on , 58 5 F . 3d 12 47 , 12 63 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( en banc). 2. E ve n i f

the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d abus e i t s di s c r e t i on, R i z z ol o s uf f e r e d no pr e j udi c e f r om thi s e rr or . R i z z ol o doe s notc ha l l e nge the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f i ndi ngs th a t h e c o m m itte d th e a lle g e d a c ts v io la tin g th e te rm s a n d c o n d itio n s o f h is prob at i on . R i zz ol o al so do es no tcl ai m thatthese fa ct s w er e i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rt th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s r e v o c a tio n d e c is io n u n d e rth e “p r e p o n d e r a n c e ” s ta n d a r d . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 3(e) . In addi t i on , the re cord do es no ti nd i ca t e thatthe di stri ctcourt j udge r e l i e d on the pl a i nt i f f s ’ c ouns e l ’ s s t a t e m e nt s i n m a ki ng i t s s e nt e nc i ngU nd erF eder al R ul e of A pp el l at e P roce du re 28 (j ), R i zz ol o fi l ed a l ett er 1 a r gui ng tha t , i n U

ni te d State s v . G r ant , 6 6 4 F . 3 d 2 7 6 , 2 8 2 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) , we ap p l i e d th e ru l e f

r o m T ap i a v. U ni ted Stat es , __U .S . __ , 1 3 1 S . C t. 2 3 8 2 ( 2 0 1 1 ) to pr ohi bi tthe di s tr i c tc ourtf r om c ons i de r i ng r e tr i but i on a s apurpos e f ori m pr i s oni ng som eone for vi ol at i ng cond i t i on s of s up ervi se d rel ea se . R ul e 28(j ) l ett er s m ay i nc l ude a ddi t i ona l author i t i e s di s c ove r e d a f t e rthe f i l i ng of the br i e f . F e d. R . A pp. P . 28 (j ). H ow ever , a R ul e 28(j ) l ett er“ c annot r a i s e ane w i s s ue ” tha tw a s not ad d ressed i n th e b ri efs. U ni ted Stat es v. L aP i erre, 9 9 8 F .2 d 1 4 6 0 , 1 4 6 6 n .5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) . T h u s , th e is s u e R iz z o lo r a is e d is n o t p r o p e r lyb e f o r e u s , b e c au s e it cont ai ned add i t i on al ar gu m entnever di sc usse d i n ei ther hi s openi ng or re pl y bri ef . 4 de t e rm i na t i on. A c c or di ngl y , a ny e rr orR i z z ol o s uf f e r e d r e ga r di ng thi s s t a t e m e nt w a s n o t p r e

ju d ic ia l. 1 AF F I RME D.