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. THOM AS C LIFFORD W HITM ORE, AKA Li Tom

m y , AKA Tom

m y Young, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-50310

D.C . No. 2:90-c r-00652-SVW -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 Ste phe n V. W ilson, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Subm itte d August 4, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : O’ SC A

NNLAIN, R

AW LINSON, a

nd C A LLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. Thom a s Whitm ore a

ppe a ls his se nte nc e to life in prison without the possibility

of pa role for his role in a

se rie s of drug-tra ffic king offe nse s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we va c a te and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with our de c ision, inc luding re se n te nc ing. 

# F IL ED MAR 17 2017 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.I.

In 1991, a jury c onvic te d

Whitm ore of sixte e n drug-tra ffic king c ounts. As
re quire d by

the the n-a

pplic a ble , qua ntity -ba se d se nte nc ing sta tute for c ra c k

c oc a ine offe nse s, the distric t

c o urt se n te nc e d Whitm ore to life in prison without the possibility

of pa role on his c onvic tion for a c ontinuing c rim ina l e nte rprise (C C E) in viola tion of 21 U.S.C
. § 848(b). W hitm ore wa s twe nty -six y e ars old a t the tim e and ha d two prior, non-viole nt m isde m e anor c o nvic tions. In 1994, we a ffirm e d “ a ll but W hitm ore ’ s c onvic t ion on c ount 37” and orde re d “ c o unt 1 be va c a te d if W hitm ore ’ s c onvic t ions on both c ounts 1 a nd 44 withsta nd a ppe lla te and c olla

t e ra l c ha lle n ge .” Unite d State s v . Mille r , 24 F.3d 251,
a t *1, 7 (9th C ir. 1994) (unpublishe d). 1 On re m and, the distric t c ourt orde re d c ount 37 va c a te d a

n d de te rm ine d tha

t re se nte nc ing wa s not re quire d at tha t tim e , a ppa re ntly with W hitm ore ’ s a gre e m e nt. In 1998, the distric t c ourt gra

nte d in pa rt
and de nie d in pa

rt Whitm ore ’ s 28 U.S.C . § 2255 c o lla te ra l atta c k. The c ourt orde re d c ount 1 va c a te d but sta te d tha t re s e nte nc ing wa s not re q uire d in light of the
m andatory

life se nte nc e for the C C E offe nse . Howe ve r, it wa s not until 2014, a fte r W hitm o re file d num e rous m otions a nd sought a

writ of m anda

m us from this c ourt,

1 C ount 1 is for c onspira c y to distribute c oc a ine , c ount 44 is for C C E, and c ount 37 is for a

tte m pt to distribute

c oc a i ne . 2that

the distric t c ourt a c tua lly am e nde d Whitm ore ’ s judgm e n t of c onvic t ion to
re fle c t c ount 1’ s va c atur. And it wa s not until July 9, 2015, a fte r this a

ppe a l wa s take n, tha t the distric t

c ourt a m e nde d the judgm e nt of c onvic tion to va c a te c ount 37. 2 I I. W e a gre e with W

hitm ore and the gove rnm e nt tha t this c ourt ha s jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd tha t Whitm ore ’ s a

ppe a l is tim e ly . On June 19, 2014, W hitm o re file d a

notic e of a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s June 6, 2014 orde r. W hile the distric t c o urt did not e nte r an am e n de d judgm e n t of c onvic tion in
a c c orda nc e with tha

t orde r until July

8, 2014, a

nd thus his c onvic tion did not be c om e fina l until tha

t tim e , Whitm ore ’ s a

ppe a l is tim e ly

unde r Fe d
. R . App. P. 4(b)(2). Se e

, e .g. , Solis v
. C

ty . of Los Ange le

s , 514 F.3d 946, 951 (9th C ir. 2008). III. W hitm ore argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by not holding a

re se nte nc ing he aring on re m an d

and a ffording him

his rights to c o unse l a

nd to be he ard. Our pa rtia l a ffirm anc e in 1994 unbundle d Whitm ore ’ s se nte nc ing pa c ka ge and a uthoriz e d the distric t c ourt to re se n t e nc e him on re m and. Unite d State s v .

2 The July

9, 2015 a m e nde d judgm e nt is thesubje c t of a se c o nd a ppe a l, No. 15-50318, whic h ha s be e n sta y e d pe n ding a

de c ision he re . 3Av ila-Anguiano , 609 F.3d 1046, 1049 (9th C i r. 2010). Give n the unusua l

c irc um s ta nc e s pre se nte d, Whitm ore ’ s judgm e nt a n d c onvic tion did not be c o m e fina l a n d a ppe a la ble on re m a

n d until 2014, whe

n the distric t c ourt fina lly e nte re d
an am e nde d

judgm e nt of c onvic tion. Unite d State s v . LaFromboise , 427 F.3d 680, 686 (9th C i r. 2005); U

nite d State

s v . C olv in , 204 F.3d 1221, 1224–25 (9th C ir. 2000). B y

tha t tim e , Whitm ore wa s no longe r re pre se nte d by c ounse l a nd the la c k of an opportunity

to a lloc ute pre

judic e d him

be c a use the distric t c ourt “ c o uld ha ve lowe re d” his se nte nc e . Se e Unite d State s v . Gunning , 401 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th C ir. 2005); se e also Griffith v . K e ntuc k y , 479 U.S. 314, 328 (1987) (expla ining tha t
ne w rule s for the c onduc t of c rim i na l prose c utions a pply re troa c tive l y to a ll c a se s

“ not y e t fina l” ). The gove rnm e n t a

rgue s tha t Whitm ore wa i ve d a

ny right to re se n te nc ing be c a use an attorne y

for one of Whitm ore ’ s c o-de fe nda nts who stood in for W hitm o re ’ s c ounse l at a

1994 he aring a gre e d

tha t re se nte nc ing wa s not re quire d at that tim e . Howe ve r, on the re c ord pre se nte d, we c annot c onc lude tha t Whitm ore knowingly

and volunta

rily wa ive d a ny argum e nt tha

t re se nte nc i ng wa s re quire d in 1998 or la te r. W hitm ore pre se nts two a dditiona l a rgum e nts on a

ppe a l. First, heargue s tha t the j ury ’ s ve rdic t on the drug-qua ntity thre shold wa s inva lid be c a use (1) the c ourt
4e rrone ously

a ggre gate d the drug qua

ntitie s involve d in m

ultipleoffe nse s; (2) the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide n c e to support a finding tha

t a ny single viola

t ion involve d the
re quisitedrug qua

ntity ; a nd (3) the jury

did not itse l f find the drug qua ntitie s a s re quire d by A

ppre ndi v . N

e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Se c ond, he argue s tha t the D ouble Je opa

rdy C la use re q uire s va c at

ur of his thre e atte m

pt c onvic tions tha

t
we re pre dic a te s for his C C E c onvic tion. Unite d State s v . Housle

y , 907 F.2d 920, 922 (9th C i r. 1990) (ruling tha t distric t c ourts c annot im pose c um ulative punishm e nts for both a

tte m pt a nd C C E offe nse s unle ss the offe n se s are distinc t). W hile Wh itm ore ’ s a

rgum e nts unde r Appre ndi an d Housle

y m ay have m e rit, the gove rnm e nt c onte nds tha

t Wh i tm o re wa ive d the m by not ra i sing the m

on dire c t
a ppe a l. W e le ave it to thedistric t c ourt to c onside r in the first insta nc e whe t he r to
e xe rc ise its disc re t ion to c onside r the se argum e nts. IV . Ac c ordingly , we va c a te Whitm ore ’ s se nte nc e an d re m a n d for the distric t
c ourt to re se nte nc e Whitm ore in a c c orda n c e with now-a

pplic a ble la w. On re m and, the d istric t c o urt sha ll provideWhitm ore with his rights to c ounse l a nd to a lloc ute , and the distric t c ourt sha ll de c i de whe the r to c onside r the argum e nts tha t Wh itm ore did not m ake on his first dire c t a ppe a l . Additionally , the distric t c ourt should

5am e nd the judgm e nt of c onvic tion to va c a te c ount 37. 3

V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D
.

3 W hitm ore ’ s tim e ly a ppe a l from

the July 8, 2014 a m e nde d judgm e nt of c onvic tion dive ste d the distric t c ourt of jurisdic t ion to e nte r the July 9, 2015 judgm e nt of c onvic tion, whic h va c a te d c o unt 37. Small v . Ope rativ e Plaste re rs’ and C e me nt Masons’ Int’l. Ass’n. , 611 F.3d 483, 495 (9th C ir. 2010). 6