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. JOSE LUIS SILER IO-R

AM IR EZ, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50503

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-00196-DM S-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 D ana M . Sa

braw, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 4, 2013 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON a

nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SILVER , Se n ior Distric t Judge . ** Jose Sile rio-R am ire z a

p pe a ls the se nte nc e im

pose d following his guilty ple a to one c o unt of posse ssion of m arijua na with inte nt to distribute , in viola tion of 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1). W e have jurisdic tion pursua n t to 18 U.S.C . § 3742 a

n d 28 

# FIL ED FEB 06 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.U.S.C . § 1291. W e va c a te Sile rio-R am ire z ’ s se nte nc e and re m and for

re se nte nc ing. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s fa c tua l findings during the se n te nc ing pha se for c l e ar e rror, an d the a

p p lic a tion of the Se nte n c ing Guide line s to the fa c ts for a buse o f disc re tion. Unite d State s v . Stote rau , 524 F.3d 988, 997 (9th C i r. 2008). The distric t c ourt “ viola

t e s a d e fe n da

nt’ s due proc e ss rights”an d a buse s its se nte nc ing disc re tion whe n it re lie s on “ m a te ria lly fa lse or unre lia

ble inform a tion a t se nte nc ing.” U

n ite d State

s v . Hanna , 49 F.3d 572, 577 (9th C i r. 1995). Sile rio-R am i re z ’ s “ se nte nc e m ust be va c at e d [be c a

use ] the distric t c ourt de m onstra

bly re lie [d] upon fa lse [and] unre l ia ble inform at ion.” Unite d State s v . Safirste in , 827 F.2d 1380, 1387 (9th C ir. 1987). During the se nte n c ing pha se for the 2011 offe nse a t issue , Sile rio-R am ire z dispute d se ve ra l of the prior c onvic tions a ttribute d to him

in the pre se nte n c e re port (“ PSR ” ). Sile rio-R am ire z a sse rte d tha t a 2010 polic e re port of his a rre st for ille ga l re e n try wa s not re lia

ble to support a

finding tha

t he ha d sm

uggle d drugs in the

pa st. He a lso obje c te d to the PSR ’ s a lle gation tha t he wa s c o nvic te d in 2005 for fa ilure to provide a

drive r lic e nse and m a king a fa lse polic e re port be c a

use the Proba tion De pa rtm e nt did not produc e any re c ords re lat e d to the c onvic tions.

2In c a lc ulating Sile rio-R am ire z ’ s se nte nc e , the distric t c ourt im prope rly a ssum e d tha t Sile rio-R a

m ire z pre v iously

sm uggle d m arijua na into the c ountry ba se d on a

2010 polic e re port of his a rre st for ille ga l re e ntry . The polic e re port of Sile rio-R am i re z ’ s 2010 a

rre st for ille ga l re e ntry

doe s not a lle ge tha

t he sm uggle d m arijua na , howe ve r. The re port doe s not c o nne c t Sile rio-R am ire z to the ve hic le in whic h drugs we re found, or to the drugs found in the ve hic le . The re port doe s not ide n tify Sile rio-R am ire z a s the drive r or a pa sse nge r of the ve h ic le . The re is no e vide nc e tha

t Sile rio-R am ire z ’ s prope rty or his finge rprints a

ppe are d a ny whe re in the SUV. T he tra i ne d na

rc otic s c anine did not a le rt the offic e rs to Sile rio-R am ire z . The re port only

sta t e s tha t the B orde r Pa trol Age n t “ e nc ounte re d” Sile rio-R am ire z while “ patrolling in [the ] are a ,” “ [a ] pproxim a te ly 75 y ards e a st of the ve hic le .” B ut “ a p e rson’ s m e re [proxim ity ] to . . . c rim ina l a c tivity doe s not, without m

ore , give rise to proba

b l e c a use .” Unite d State

s v . I.E.V. , 705 F.3d 430, 437 (9th C ir. 2012) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). The 2010 polic e re port, the re fore , sa y s nothing a

bout Sile rio-R a

m i re z sm uggling m arijua

na , or c om

m itting a ny othe r drug-re late d

offe nse . The a ssum ption tha t Sile rio-R a

m ire z sm uggle d drugs in 2010 is not supporte d by the re c o rd. B e c a

use the “ tria l c ourt infe rre d tha t [Sile rio-R am ire z ] wa s a

pa rtic ipa nt in a c rim e with whic h he wa s not c ha rge d [and t] he infe re nc e dire c tly re sulte d in the 3e nha

nc e m e nt of [Sile rio-R am ire z ’ s] pe na lty ,” Safirste i n , 827 F.2d a t 1385, the distric t c o urt viola

te d Sile rio-R am ire z ’ s due proc e ss rights a nd a buse d its se nte nc ing disc re tion. Hanna , 49 F.3d a t 577. Thus, the

distric t c ourt c le arly e rre d. The distric t c ourt a l so inc orre c tly re lie d on the PSR

to c a lc ulate Sile rioR am i re z ’ s c rim ina l history sc ore , spe c ific a lly

the m isde m e an or c onvic t ions in 2005. “ [A] distric t c ourt m ay re ly on a n unc halle nge d

PSR a t se nte nc ing to find by a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e tha t the fa c ts unde rly i ng a

se nte nc e e nha nc e m e nt ha

v e be e n e s ta

blishe d.” Unite d State

s v . Rome r o-Re ndon , 220 F.3d 1159, 1161 (9th C ir. 2000) (e m pha sis a dde d). B ut he re , Sile rio-R am ire z a ffirm a tive ly

de nie d the 2005 m isde m e anor c onvic tions a nd note d m ultiple tim e s that the Proba tion De pa

rtm e nt ha d not re c e ive d a ny re c o rds be y ond the ra

p she e t re late d to the s e 2005 c onvic tions to support the ir inc l usion in his PSR . The e vide nc e re lie d on by the gove rnm e nt to e sta

blish these nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt for the 2005 m isde m e anor c onvic t ions wa s insuffic ie n t to m e e t the pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e sta nda rd. The gove rnm e nt im

prope rly re lie d on a ra p she e t whe n the re wa s no e vide nc e tha t the ra p she e t ha d be e n finge rprint m a tc h e d and a n unspe c ifie d “ c olla

te ra l re sponse ” to prove the 2005 c onvic tions. C .f. Unite d State

s v . Alv arado-Martine

z , 556 F.3d 732, 734 n.1, 736 (9th C ir. 42009). Sile rio-R am ire z a lso provide d a pla usible e xpla

nation for the m ista

ke n inc l usion of the2005 c onvic tions in the PSR . Furthe r, the inc l usion of the2005 c onvic tions wa s not ha

rm le ss be c a

use , without the

single point for the dispute d c onvic tions, Sile rio-R am ire z would ha ve be e n e ligible for a

lowe r guide line range and m ay have re c e ive d a re d

uc e d se nte nc e . As suc h, the distric t c ourt e rre d in c a lc ulat ing Sile rio-R am ire z ’ s c rim ina l history sc ore . W e va c a te Sile rio-R am ire z ’ s se nte nc e an d re m a n d for re se nte nc ing. V ACAT E D; RE M ANDE D.

5