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. JUAN C ARLOS SANC H EZ C ARR ILLO, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Nos. 15-50073, 15-50104

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-00270-LAB -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 6, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s a n d GONZALEZ ROGER S, ** Distric t Judge . 

# FIL ED MAY09 2016 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 Honora

ble Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Jua

n C a rlos Sa n c he z -C arrillo c ha lle nge s the c onduc t of the distric t c ourt in proc e e dings on his m

otion to c orre c t his se nte nc e unde r R ule 35 1 a fte r the re im position of a

70-m onth se nte nc e for im porta tion of m e tha

m phe t am ine 2 following re m and from

a suc c e ssful a

p pe a l. 3 Sanc he z -C arrillo a sse rts tha t the distric t c ourt a c te d im prope rly whe n it did not fa

irly re se nte nc e him

and, inste a d, a c te d

to de fe nd its re im position of the

70-m onth se nte nc e on re m an d from this C ourt’ s va c atur of the s am e . 4 W e a gre e , va c a te , a n d re m and to a

diffe re nt judgefor re se nte n c ing. C anon 2A of theC ode of C onduc t for Unite d State s Judge s ge ne ra lly dire c ts judge s to “ a c t at a l l tim e s in a m anne r that prom ote s public c onfide nc e in the inte grity and im pa rtia lity of the judic ia

ry .” C anon 3A(4) e xplic itly instruc ts tha

t judge s “ should not initia

t e , pe rm it, or c onside r e

x parte c om

m unic ations” in a

n ongoing proc e e ding. C ode Jud. C onduc t, C anons 2A, 3A(4) (2009). Although not binding upon us, a

C a lifornia

rule is sta

te d m ore pre c ise l y and is pa rtic ula rly

1 Se e Fe d. R . C rim . P. 35(a ) (“ W ithin 14 da y s a fte r se nte nc ing, the c o urt m ay c orre c t a se nte nc e that re sulte d

from arithm e tic a l, te c hnic a l, or othe r c le ar e rror.” ).

2 21 U.S.C . §§ 952 a nd 960. 3 Unite d State

s v . Sanc he

z-C a rrillo , C a s e No. 13-50310 (9th C ir. De c . 12, 2014) (unpublishe d).

4 Sanc he z -C arrillo la be ls his c la im a s one ba s e d on judic ia l vindic tive ne s s, but we se e it a s a c la im tha t judic ia l a c tions unde rm i ne d the a ppe aranc e of justic e . 2instruc tive he re : “ a judge sha ll not inde

p e nde n tly inve stiga te fa c ts in a

proc e e ding” nor sha l l a

judge “ initia

te , pe rm it, or c onside r e x pa rte c o m m unic ations, tha

t is, a ny c om m unic a tions to or from

the judge outsidethe pre se nc e of the pa rtie s c onc e rning a pe n ding or im

pe nding proc e e ding.” C a lifornia C ode of Judic ia l Ethic s, C anon 3.B .7 (2015). The re c ord shows tha

t in this c a se the distric t c ourt inte nde d to im pose a 70- m onth se n te nc e on the de fe n da nt re ga rdle ss of this C ourt’ s m andat e whe n the distric t c o urt e m

pha siz e d at the c lose of the he a ring on theR

ule 35 m otion: “ I sa

y it one la s t tim e : Eve n if I e m bra c e d y our sugge stion a

nd use d the old Guide line s, I would c om e to the sa

m e re sult. . . . [T] he be st tha t this fe llow c ould do with m e on the s e fa c t s is a

70-m onth se nte nc e , whic h is wha t I im pose d the first tim e and re im pose d the se c ond tim e . . . .” Thus, this C ourt e va luate s the ruling on the R ule 35 m otion a ga inst this bac kdrop. During the re se nte nc i ng, the distric t c o urt a c knowle dge d tha t it wa s a ware that the sta nda rd for a pre sum ption of “vindic tive ne s s” c o uld be satisfie d if a se nte nc e highe r tha

n the la st wa s im

pose d . It furthe r a dvise d tha t it “ would still, a fte r he aring e ve ry thing, im p ose a 70-m onth se nte n c e in this c a se ” re ga rdle ss of the m andate of this C ourt. The distric t c ourt use d an a d ditiona l re port, the DEA-7 la b re port, whic h c ha

nge d the ba se offe nse le v e l unde r the Se nte n c ing Guide line s

3and inc re a se d the de fe nda nt’ s e xposure . The distric t c o urt obta ine d this DEA-7 la b re port e x parte from the gove rnm e nt, ne ve r e xpla ining why suc h c om

m unic ation should not ha

ve sim ulta ne ously inc lude d the de fe nse , give n the c ourt’ s inte ntion to c onside r the c onte nts the re of in its se nte nc ing de c ision. B a se d the re o n, a

n d c onsiste n t with its de c la

ration, thedistric t c ourt im pose d a se n te nc e of 70 m onths. Whe n Sanc he z -C arrillo m ove d to c orre c t the se nte nc e unde r R ule 35, the distric t c o urt unde rm ine d the a p pe aranc e of its ne utra lity an d obta ine d a dditiona l e vide nc e to bolste r and de fe nd the re se nte nc ing. First, a nd unbe knownst to the pa rtie s , the distric t c ourt m a de e x parte c onta c t with thegove rnm e nt’ s e xpe rt witne s s to disc uss the DEA-7 la b re port. At thehe aring on Sa n c h e z -C a rrillo’ s R ule 35 m otion, thedistric t c ourt the n sugge ste d c a lling thee xpe rt a s a witne ss by te le phone . De fe nse c ounse l obje c te d but the distric t c ourt none the le ss c a l le d the e xpe rt a nd she wa s sworn te le phonic a lly . Ne xt, the distric t c ourt itse lf c onduc te d the d ire c t e xam ination of thee xpe rt witne ss. The gove rnm e n t did not a sk a

single que stion. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt ne ve r disc lose d tha t it ha d a lre a d

y c onta c t e d the e xpe rt witne ss e

x parte . This im

prope r e x parte c onta c t wa s only

re ve a le d through de fe nse c ounse l’ s c ross-e xam inat ion. The c ore of the judic i a l func tion is fa irne ss a nd the la c k

of e ve n a n a ppe aranc e of im

proprie ty . Suc h re pe ate d insta n c e s of judic ia l im

proprie ty c annot 4be c o unte na

nc e d if the se judic ia l te ne ts a

re to ha ve m e aning. He re , the distric t c ourt’ s post-se n te n c ing c onduc t c a sts doubt on the fa irne s s of the re se nte nc ing a nd c e rta inly of the R ule 35 proc e e d ings. Ac c o rdingly , re m and is a ppropria te . Unite d State s v . Alv e rson , 666 F.2d 341, 348-50 (9th C ir. 1982) (distric t c o urt’ s e x parte c om m unic a tion with c a se a g e nt prior to se nte nc ing im p rope r and re quire d re se nte nc ing). Sanc he z -C arrillo a lso a sse rts tha t re m and to a

diffe re nt judgeis ne c e ssa ry unde r the c irc um sta

nc e s. W e a gre e . The distric t c ourt ha s e xpre sse d its unwillingne ss to im

pose anything othe r tha

n a 70-m o n th se nte nc e . “ Taking the [distric t] c ourt a

t its word,”we re m and to a diffe re nt judge . Unite d State s v . Garde nhire , 784 F.3d 1277, 1284 (9th C ir. 2015); se e Alv e rse n , 666 F.2d a t 349- 50; Unite d State

s v . W olfson , 634 F.2d 1217, 1222 (9th C ir. 1980). In light of this disposition, we de c line to re a c h

Sanc he z -C arrillo’ s othe r c la im of se nte nc ing e rror. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D for re se nte nc ing.

5