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. SAUL M O R

A LES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-10212

D.C . No. 1:12-C R -00234-LJO M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a n d Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B ER ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd TUNHEIM , ** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED FEB 23 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 John R . Tunhe im , C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of M i nne sota , sitting by de signa tion.Sa

ul M ora le s a

ppe a ls his c onvic tions a

nd se nte n c e , following a

jury tria l, for
m anufa c turing, posse ssing with inte nt to distribute , a

nd a iding a

nd a be tting the
m anufa c ture an d

posse ssion of m arijua

na ; c onspiring to m

anufa c ture , distribute , and posse ss with intent to distribute m arijua na ; a nd m a i nta ining drug-involve d pre m ise s a

n d a iding a

nd a be tting, in viola

tion of the fe de ra l C ontrolle d Substa nc e s Ac t (“ C SA” ), 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, 856(a)(1), and the fe de ra l
a iding a nd a b e tting sta

tute , 18 U.S.C . § 2. W e a ffirm M o ra le s’ s c onvic tion. W e va c ate the se nte nc e be c a

use the two-le ve l se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt for posse ssion of a da nge rous we a

pon in c onne c tion with the offe nse should not ha

ve be e n a pplie d. 1. The distric t c ourt’ s jury instruc tion re ga

rding a iding a

nd a be tting wa s not e rrone ous. The distric t c ourt instruc te d tha t to find M ora le s guilty

unde r an a iding
and a be tting the ory , the jury

m ust c onc l ude tha

t he “ knowingly

and inte ntiona lly
a ide d, c ounse le d, c om

m ande d, induc e d or proc ure d tha t pe rson to c om

m it e a c h
e le m e nt of [the c rim e c ha rge d ] ,” tha

t “ the de fe n da

nt a c te d be fore the c rim e wa s c om ple t e d,” an d tha

t “ [t] he e vide nc e [showe d] be y ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t the de fe nda n t a c te d with the knowle dge and inte ntion of he lping tha t pe rson c o m

m it [the c rim e c ha

rge d] .” The instruc tion wa s c onsiste nt with Ninth C i rc uit c a s e la w re ga rding a iding a

nd a be tting. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Goldtooth , 754 F.3d 763, 2768 (9th C i r. 2014); s e ealso United State s v . Say e t sitty , 107 F.3d 1405, 1411-12 (9th C ir. 1997). Thedistric t c o urt’ s instruc tion a c c urat e ly c onve y e d the re quire d inte nt e le m e nt. 2. The distric t c ourt’ s jury instruc tion re ga

rding c onspira c y

wa s not e rrone ous. To e sta blish a drug c o nspira c y , the gove rnm e nt m ust prove “ (1) a

n a gre e m e nt to
a c c om plish a n ille ga l obje c t ive , a

nd (2) the inte nt to c om

m it the unde rly ing offe nse .” Unite d State

s v . He rre ra-Gonzale

z , 263 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th C ir. 2001). Proof that “ the de fe nda

nt k ne w the a gre e m e nt ha d a

n unla wful obje c tive ” is not
re quire d. Se e C

h e e k v . Unite d State

s , 498 U.S. 192, 199 (1991); Unite d State s v . C hing Tang Lo , 447 F.3d 1212, 1230 n.13 (9th C i r. 2006) (c iting S taple s v . Unite d State s , 511 U.S. 600, 622 n.3 (1994) (Ginsburg, J., conc urring)). 3. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gra

nting thegove rnm e nt’ s m otion in lim

ine to e xc lude e vide nc e re ga rding thele ga l ity

unde r state and loc a l la w of the c ultiva

tion of sm a ll a

m ounts of m a

rijua n a for m e dic a l purpose s . The
e xc lude d e vide nc e wa s not re le va nt to M ora le s’ s de fe n se , a s ne i the r m e dic a l
ne c e ssity nor m ista k e of la w c onstitute s a de fe nse to fe d e ra l drug c h arge s. U nite d State s v . Oak land C annabis Buy e rs’ C

oop. , 532 U.S. 483, 490-91, 492 n.5 (2001); Lo , 447 F.3d a

t 1230 n.13. M ore ove r, M o ra le s w as pe rm i tte d to introduc e e vide nc e re ga

rding so-c a lle d

“ ide ntific ation doc um e nts” poste d at the site of e a c h

3m arijua

na plot, for the lim ite d purpose of de m onstra ting tha t othe rs e xe rc ise d
c ontrol ove r the plots. Hewa s a lso pe rm itte d to c ross-e x am ine witne sse s re ga rding whe the r Tula

re C ounty re gula tions re quire d fe nc ing a

t m arijua na plots, to re fute the g ove rnm e nt’ s a sse rtion tha t the fe nc ing se rve d

to “ hide ” the m arijua

na from
a uthoritie s. 4. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing M ora le s’ s m otion for a judgm e nt of
a c quitta l with re s pe c t to C ount III (posse ssion of m arijua na with theinte nt to distribute ). M ora l e s wa s not m e re ly “ pre se nt” at prope rtie s on whic h polic e disc ove re d m ore tha

n 4,000 m arijua

na pla nts growing. He

owne d the prope rtie s. The gove rnm e nt a lso a dduc e d t e stim ony tha t M ora l e s wa s c lose ly

involve d with the m arijua

na grows on his property

an d tha t growe rs supplie d

him with m arijua

na in lie u of re nt. M ora le s wa s arre ste d with sm a ll qua ntitie s of m arijua

na on his pe rson, a s we ll a s a la

rge am ount of c a sh. M arijua na proc e s sing m ate ria ls, inc l uding a

digita l sc a le , we re found in M ora le s’ s house . M ora l e s owne d a se c ond prope rty whic h witne s se s de sc ribe d a s a “ sta sh house ” for m arijua na . The
e vide nc e wa s m ore tha

n suffic ie nt for the jury to c onc lude tha t M ora le s e xe rc ise d

“ owne rship, dominion, or c o ntrol ove r the [m arijua na ] itse lf or the pre mise

s . . . in whic h the [m arijua

na wa s] c onc e a le d.” Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 187 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th C ir. 1999) (e m

pha sis in origina

l) (inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d). 45. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in c onc luding tha t a te stify ing polic e offic e r’ s prior fe lony drug c o nvic tion a

nd pe nding a dm i nistra

t ive inve stiga tion we re not m ate ria l for Brady /Giglio purpose s. S

e e Giglio v . Unite d State s , 405 U.S. 150 (1972); Brady v . Mary land, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). E vide nc e of the c onvic tion would ha

ve be e n ina dm issibleunde r the Fe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e for se ve ra l re a sons. First, the c onvic tion wa s e xpunge d unde r C a lifornia la

w. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 609(c )(1). Se c ond, the c onvic tion wa s m ore tha n te n y e ars old, a

nd be c a use it wa s not for a

c rim e involving dishone s ty or fa lse sta

te m e nts, it wa s of lim ite d proba

tive va lue re lative to its pre j udic ia l e ffe c t. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 609(b)(1). Fina l ly , M ora le s ’ s c onte ntion tha t the e vide nc e c ould ha

ve le d to
a dm issiblee vide nc e if tim e ly disc lose d is e ntire ly

va gue and spe c ulative
. 6. The distric t c ourt did not err in a pply i ng se nte nc ing e nha

n c e m e nts for M ora l e s’ s role in the offe nse , U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1(a ), and for m a inta ining druginvolve d pre m i se s, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12). The e nha nc e m e nt for be ing a

le a de r or orga n iz e r of a c rim i na l sc he m e “ a

pplie s to de fe nda

nts who ha

ve the a b ility and influe n c e ne c e ssa

ry to c oordinate

theac tiv i tie

s of othe rs to a c hie ve the de sire d
re sult. . . .” Unite d State

s v . Doe , 778 F.3d 814, 824-25 (9th C i r. 2015) (e m pha sis
a dde d). He re , the re wa s a de quate e vide n c e that M ora le s orga niz e d the c rim ina l
a c tivity
. As a

la n dlord who re nte d his prope rty to m arijua

n a growe rs, he 5de te rm i ne d who pa rtic ipate d in the sc he m e . As he c ould ha v e te rm inate d the le a se s of his c oc onspira

tors a t a ny tim e , M ora le s a lso de te rm ine d the e xte nt of his
c oc onspira

tors’ pa rtic ipation. M ora le s a lso m ana ge d the a s signm e nt of plots to individual te na

nts for m arijua

na grows; distribute d raw m ate ria ls for m arijua na c ultiva tion (inc luding sta

rte r pla nts a nd wa te r for irrigation); a

n d m a na ge d a c c e ss to c e ntra l iz e d loc ations for theproc e ssing of them arijua na . A witne ss te stifie d at tria l tha t M ora le s instruc t e d he r to de a l with thepolic e if the y se arc he d the prope rty be c a use she spoke English we ll. The re wa s am ple e vide n c e from

whic h the distric t c ourt c ould c onc lude tha

t M ora le s wa s at le a s t a

n orga n iz e r, a nd pe rha ps a le a de r, of the c rim ina l c onspira c y . W ith re spe c t to thee nha

nc e m e nt for m a inta ining drug-involve d pre m ise s, M ora l e s a c knowle dge d tha t he wa s aware of the e xte nsive m arijua na c ultiva tion ope rat ion on his prope

rty and tha t he de rive d re ve nue from the growe rs involve d. M ore o ve r, the jury

c onvic t e d M ora le s of a

c rim e with thesa

m e e le m e nts. The distric t c o urt did not err in a pply ing the e nha

nc e m e nt. 7. The distric t c ourt e rre d, howe ve r, in its a pplic ation of a two-le v e l se nte nc ing
e nha nc e m e nt for posse ssion of a “ da nge rous we a

pon (inc luding a

fire arm ).” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). The distric t c ourt m e ntione d at se nte nc ing both the

pre se nc e of what the 6c ourt de sc ribe d a s a “ proba

bly inope ra ble ” .22 rifle in M ora le s’ s kitc he n, a nd the fire arm s found in the

posse ssion of M o ra l e s’ s c oc onspira tors, but did not squa

re ly pre m ise the fire arm s e nha n c e m e nt on oneor the othe r, or on both. As to the .22 rifle , the distric t c ourt did not rule on M ora le s’ s c onte ntion tha t it wa s “ c le a

rly im proba ble tha t the we a pon wa s c onne c te d with theoffe nse .” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), c m

t. n.11(a). The Applic ation Note to Subse c tion (b)(1) sta te s tha t it would be “ c le arly

im proba ble ” that a

n unloade d

hunting rifle

in the c lose t of a de fe nda n t’ s re side nc e would bec onne c te d with theunde rly ing offe nse , e ve n whe re that de fe n da nt wa s a rre ste d at his re side n c e . Id
. Tha t a fire arm

is not c urre ntly
use a ble is the re fore of somepe rtine nc e in de te rm ining whe t he r it is “ c le arly im proba ble ” that the gun wa s ke pt in c onne c t ion with the offe nse . W ithout a de te rm i nation of whe the r or not thegun wa s ope ra ble , the distric t c ourt c o uld not –
and did not – c onside r a l l the fa c tors re l e va nt to the“ c le arly

im proba ble ” sta nda rd. The distric t c ourt did note tha t inope ra ble guns c an, unde r som e c irc um sta nc e s, be
use d for prote c tion, a s the y

m ay instill fe ar de spite the ir de fe c ts. Se e Unite d State s v . Smith , 905 F.2d 1296, 1300 (9th C ir. 1990), supe rse d e d by statute on othe r grounds . B ut tha

t is trueof a

n unloa de d gun a s we ll. The Applic ation Note indic ate s tha

t the nonfunc tiona l na

t ure of a stowe d fire arm

is none the le s s pe rtine nt to the “ c le arly im

p roba ble ” inquiry
. 7To the e xte nt the distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of theda

nge rous-we a

pon e nha nc e m e nt wa s ba se d on the fire arm s posse sse d by M ora le s’ s c oc onspira tors, U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3(a )(1)(B ) re quire s tha t a c o-de fe nda

nt’ s a c ts in furthe ran c e of a jointly unde rtake n c rim ina l a c tivity be “ re a s ona

bly fore se e a ble ” to the de fe nda

nt to justify im puting the m

to the de fe nda

nt for se nte n c ing purpose s. The distric t c ourt did not so find. Inste a d, it re lie d sole ly on the fa c t tha

t som e of the c onspira

tors ha d guns for thepurpose of prote c tion. Se e Unite d State s v . Garc ia , 909 F.2d 1346, 1350 (9th C ir. 1990). Tha t finding wa s ina de q

u ate for the purpose s of U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.3(a )(1)(B )
. B e c a use of the a

bse nc e of fa c tua l findings by the distric t c ourt re g arding the ope ra b ility of the .22 rifle , a

nd re ga rding thefore se e a

bility to M o ra le s tha

t his
c oc onspira

tors posse sse d

ope ra ble fire arm s , we c annot sa y tha t the distric t c ourt e xpla ine d the re a soning be hind its sente nc e “ suffic ie ntly to pe rm it m e aningful
a ppe lla te re vie w .” Unite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008). 8. The gun e nha

nc e m e nt inc re a se d M ora le s’ s offe nse le ve l from 34 to 36, a

nd his re c om m e nde d Guide line s ra

nge from 168-210 m onths to 210-262 m onths. The distric t c o urt pla c e d e xc e ptiona l we i ght on theposse ssion of fire a rm s, sta ting thre e tim e s at se nte nc ing tha

t “ g uns c ha

nge e ve rything,” and te lling M ora l e s tha t it wa s

“ finding the se horrid c o n se que nc e s for not just the drugs, but the

guns.” Afte r the 8c ourt issue d its se nt e nc e , the judge ’ s pa rting words to M ora le s c onc e rne d the signific anc e of the guns to “the wa y judge s se nte nc e .” B e c a use the distric t c ourt proc e dura lly e rre d in im posing thegun e nha nc e m e nt a

nd stre sse d the im

porta nc e of tha t e nha nc e m e nt to these nte nc e im pose d, we va c ate the se nte nc e and re m and for c onside ration of thespe c ific fa c t ua l issue s ne c e ssa

ry to im p ose the gun e nh anc e m e nt, a nd for re se nte nc i ng in light of the

findings m a de
. Se e Unite d State s v . N aranjo , 52 F.3d 245, 251 (9th C ir. 1995); se e also Unite d State s v . Lloy d , 807 F.3d 1128, 1143 (9th C i r. 2015). 9. M ora le s a lso a

rgue s tha t the se nte n c e im

pose d, 210 m onths, wa s substa ntive ly unre a sona

b l e . Se e Unite d State

s v . Ame zc ua-Vasque

z , 567 F.3d 1050, 1054-58 (9th C ir. 2009). As wehave va c at e d the se nte nc e im pose d, we do not re a c h tha

t que stion.

M ora l e s’ s c onvic tion is A FFIRM E D , his se nte nc e is V ACAT E D, and we RE M A ND for re se nte nc ing.

9