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. FER NANDO M U R GUIA-OC HOA, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-10022

DC No. 2:08 c r-0417 M C E M EM O R 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 M orrison C . Engla

nd, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 10, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STAFFOR

D, Se nior Distric t Judge
. ** Appe lla nt Fe rna ndo M urguia -Oc hoa

(“ M urguia ” ) a

ppe a ls his se nte n c e following his ple a

of guilty to two c ounts of drug tra ffic k ing, in viola tion of 21 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2013 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 W illia m H. Sta fford, Jr., Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de signa tion.U.S.C . §§ 841(a )(1) a nd 846. The distric t c ourt se nte nc e d M urguia to 292 m onths in prison, repre se nting thelow e nd of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s ra nge . On a

ppe a l, M urguia c onte n ds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in its Guide l ine s c a lc ulations. Spe c ific a lly , he c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in a d ding c rim ina l history points ba se d on a

1989 C a lifornia

c onvic tion for a ssa

ult with a fire arm , an d tha

t the distric t c o urt furthe r e rre d by tre ating the1989 c onvic tion a s a pre dic ate fe lony for the c are e r offe nde r e nha

n c e m e n t unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1. 1 W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not ha ve suffic ie nt e vide nc e to tre at the 1989 c onvic tion a s a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” for purpose s of the
c are e r offe nde r e nha

nc e m e nt, we va c ate the se nte n c e and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in a dding thre e c rim ina l history points in
c onne c tion with the

1989 c onvic tion. Murguia c o nte nds tha

t the c onvic tion is ine l igible for inc lusion in the Guide l ine s c a lc ulat ions be c a use the te rm

of im prisonm e nt wa s le ss tha

n one y e ar and one m onth a nd wa s c om

ple te d m ore tha

n fifte e n y e ars prior to the

offe n se c o nduc t in theinsta nt c a se . Se e U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e ). Inde e d, M urguia wa s origina l ly

se nte nc e d for the c onvic tion on June

1 All re fe re nc e s to the Se nte nc ing Guide line s a re to the 2011 e d ition, whic h wa s the e dition use d in the Pre se nte nc e Inve stiga tion R e p ort (“ PSR ” ). -2-12, 1992, re c e iving one y e ar in c ounty ja i l a nd thre e y e ars of proba

tion. W hile
se rving the te rm of proba

tion, howe ve r, M urguia

a bsc onde d a

nd c om m itte d
m isde m e anor viola

tions. His proba

tion subse que n tly

wa s re voke d. On M arc h 18, 1998, he wa s se nte nc e d

to four y e ars’ im

prisonm e nt for the probation viola tion. 2 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k) c la

rifie s the tre atm e nt of c onvic tions – suc h a s M urguia ’ s 1989 a ssa

u lt c onvic tion – for whic h a n origina l se nte nc e wa s in pla c e but the n a n a dditiona l se nte n c e wa s im pose d due to a

probation viola

tion. Se c tion 4A1.2(k)(1) provide s tha

t the le ngth of theorigina l se nte nc e is to bea g gre gate d with these nte nc e for the probation viola tion, a nd the re sulting tota

l re pre s e nts the
re le va nt le n gth of tim e for a dding c rim ina l history points. Se e U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(1). He re , the a ggre gate se nte nc e for the a ssa u lt c onvic tion wa s five y e ars, tra nsla ting to thre e c rim ina l history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(a ),
a ssum ing tha

t the tim i ng re q

u ire m e nts a

re othe rwise satisfie d.

2 In his re ply

brie f, M urguia

argue s tha

t the re c o rd is not c le a

r a s to whe the r the four-y e ar se n te n c e wa s e n tire ly for the probation viola

tion or whe the r it inc lude d, in pa

rt, punishm e nt for the m isde m e anor viola tions. This a

rgum e nt is wa ive d, be c a

u se it wa s not ra ise d in the ope ning brie f and none of the possible wa ive r e x c e ptions a

pplie s. Se e Unite d State

s v . K ama , 394 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th C ir. 2005); Unite d State

s v . Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th C ir. 1992). In a ny e ve nt, the argum e nt la c ks m e rit; the PSR is una m biguous tha

t the four-y e ar se nte nc e wa s im

pose d for the probation viola tion. -3-Those re quire m e nts a re satisfie d be c a

use , pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(k)(2)(A), whe n the a ggre gate se nte n c e is gre ate r tha n one y e ar and one
m onth, there le va

nt da te is the la st da

te of inc arc e ra tion for thetwo se nte nc e s. B e c a use the se nte nc e for M urguia ’ s proba tion viola tion wa s im

pose d on M arc h 18, 1998, thela st da

t e of inc arc e ra t ion on tha

t se nte nc e wa s ne c e ssa

rily within fifte e n y e ars of the offe nse c onduc t in this c a se , the re by m e e ting thec rite ria

of § 4A1.2(e )(1). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not err in a dding thre e c rim ina l history points in c onne c tion with this c onvic tion. 2. W e sim ila

rly re je c t M urguia ’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t the le ngth a

nd tim ing of the s e nte n c e for the 1989 c onvic tion re nde r it ine ligiblefrom se rving a s a

pre dic at e fe lony for the c are e r offe nde r e nha nc e m e nt. U.S.S.G § 4A1.2(k) is inte nde d to
e ffe c tuat e the m e rge r of an origina l se nte nc e and a se nte nc e for a

re late d probation viola tion for a ll purpose s unde r the Guide line s. Se e i d. § 4A1.2 c m t. n.11 (“ R athe r tha n c ount theorigina l se nte nc e and the re s e nte nc e a fte r the re voc ation a s se pa ra te se nte nc e s, the se nte nc e give n upon re voc ation should be a dde d to the origina l
se nte nc e of im

prisonm e nt, if a

ny , a nd the tota l should be

c o unte d a s if it we re one se nte nc e .” ). Subse c tions (1) a nd (2) m e re ly split up the le ngth a nd tim ing
c onse q ue nc e s re sulting from

the m e rge r. Thus, m e rge d se nte n c e s, suc h

a s the one -4-re sulting from M urguia ’ s a ssa ult c onvic tion a

nd proba tion viola tion, whic h a

re for gre ate r tha

n one y e a r and one m onth a

n d for whic h

the la st da

y of im prisonm e nt wa s within fifte e n y e ars of the pre se nt offe nse , a re to be “ c ounte d” unde r § 4A1.2(e )(1), re nde ring the m e ligibleto se rve a s pre dic ate c onvic t ions for the
c are e r offe nde r e nha

nc e m e nt. S

e e id. § 4B 1.2 c m

t. n.3 (noting tha

t the provisions of § 4A1.2 gove rn the c ounting of c onvic t ions unde r § 4B 1.1). 3. Ne ve rthe le s s, the distric t c ourt c om m itte d pla in e rror in tre ating the 1989 c onvic tion a s a

pre dic ate fe lony be c a

use the distric t c ourt did not ha ve a suffic i e nt ba sis on whic h to c o nc lude tha t the c onvic tion qua l ifie s a s a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” pursua

nt to U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a ). Se e id. § 4B 1 .1(a ) (c onditioning
a pplic ation of the c a

re e r offe nde r e nha

nc e m e nt on thede fe nda

n t ha ving “ at le a st two prior fe lony c o nvic t ions of e ithe r a c rim e of viole nc e or a c ontrolle d substa nc e offe nse ” ). Our pre c e de nt is c le ar that in a pply ing the c ate goric a l a

nd m o difie d
c ate goric a l a

pproa c h e s “ [u] n d e r Tay lor v . Unite d State s , 495 U.S. 575 (1990), the
ac tual statute

of prior c onv i c tion m

ust be supplie d to the distric t c o urt by the gove rnm e nt whe the r or not a ny one obje c ts to its a

bse nc e .” Unite d State

s v . Pime nte l -Flore s , 339 F.3d 959, 967 (2003) (e m p ha sis a dde d). He re , the PSR did not list the

C a lifornia

sta tute tha t wa s the ba sis for the 1989 c onvic tion, nor did the -5-gove rnm e nt, on whom the burde n re ste d, pre se nt a ny re c o rds to thedistric t c ourt from the re le va

nt sta te c ourt proc e e dings. Thus, it is ne c e s sa rily the c a se tha

t the distric t c o urt re lie d e ithe r on the PSR ’ s fa c tua l de sc ription of the offe nse , or on the PSR ’ s m e re c ha

ra c te riz ation of theoffe nse a s a c rim e of viole nc e . It is pla in e rror for a d istric t c ourt to re st on e ithe r of the s e ba se s. Se e Unite d State s v . C astillo-Marin , 684 F.3d 914, 919 (9th C ir. 2012) (“ [A] distric t c ourt m ay not re ly
on a PSR ’ s fa c tua l de sc ription of a prior offe n se to de te rm ine whe t he r the de fe nda n t wa s c onvic te d of a

c rim e of viole nc e , notwithsta nding thede fe nda

nt’ s fa ilure to obje c t to thePSR
. ” ); id. at 920 (“ T he distric t c ourt a l so c o m m itte d pla in
e rror to the e xte nt tha

t it ba s e d its se nte nc e on the probation offic e r’ s c ha ra c te riz ation of [thede fe nda nt’ s] prior offe nse a s a

c rim e of viole nc e .” ). The distric t c o urt a dopte d the PSR ’ s se nte nc ing c la ssific at ion a nd a dvisory

range s without a na ly z i n g whe t

he r the 1989 c onvic tion wa s c ate goric a l ly a c rim e of viole nc e . Id. Sim ply put, without evide nc e of the sta tute of c onvic tion, thedistric t c ourt c ould not ha

ve be e n a ware of the e le m e nts of theoffe nse , a nd the re fore any a pplic ation of the c at e goric a l or m odifie d c ate g oric a l a pproa c he s wa s infirm
. Se e De sc amps v . Unite d State

s , 133 S. C t. 2276, 2281 (2013); se e also Pime nte l -Flore s , 339 F.3d a

t 967-69. -6-The gove rnm e n t c onte nds tha t, e ve n if the distric t c ourt c om m itte d pla in
e rror, that e rror wa s not pre judic ia l be c a

use a ssa ult with a fire arm unde r C a lifornia Pe na l C ode § 245(a )(2) – purporte dly the sta t ute unde rly ing the 1989 c onvic tion – is c ate g oric a lly

a c rim e of viole nc e unde r U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.2(a ). This m ay we ll be true , but thegove rnm e nt ha s provide d no doc um e ntation, e i the r be l ow or on a ppe a l, e sta

blishing tha

t C a lifornia

Pe n a l C o de § 245(a )(2) wa s a c tua lly the sta tute of c onvic tion. Ac c ordingly , we va c ate the judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. On re m and, if the gove rnm e nt c ontinue s to pursuethe c are e r offe nde r e nha

n c e m e n t, it m

ust supple m e nt the re c ord a nd provide doc um e ntation of the 1989 c o nvic t ion. V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D .

-7-Unite d

State s v. M urguia -Oc hoa , No. 12-10022 STAFFORD, Distric t Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse nting in pa

rt. To the e xte nt the m a

jority finds tha t the distric t c ourt's pla in e rror re quire s us to va c ate and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings, I m ust re spe c tfully disse nt. W hile I a gre e tha t the distric t

c ourt c om

m itte d pla in e rror, M urguia -Oc hoa is not there by e ntitle d to re l ie f unle ss he satisfie s his burde n to show tha t his substa

ntia l rights we re a ffe c te d by

tha t e rror. Unite d State

s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). He
m ust, in other words, show a re a sona ble proba bility tha t, but for thee rror, he would ha ve obta i ne d a le sse r se nte nc e . Unite d State s v . J ose ph , 716 F.3d 1273, 1280 (9th C ir. 2013). B e c a u se I find tha

t he ha s not m a de suc h a

showing, I would
a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED AUG 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS