Opinion ID: 3048104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reinstatement of Count II

Text: Roy contends that Cabaccang II expressly prohibited the district court from reconsidering his Count II conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and that the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the conviction. We disagree. Roy’s Count II conviction had been vacated prior to his first appeal. Count II accordingly was never before this court in his prior appeal; consequently, it could not have been addressed in the remand order. The clarification order does state that “[w]e DENY appellants’ motion to remand the remaining counts, including Count II, to the district court.” Cabaccang II, 341 F.3d at 905. The clarification order, however, must be read in light of the motion for clarification and the situation presented to the court. Roy’s Count II conviction had been vacated, so it was never at issue in the prior appeal. Thus, the motion for clarification sought remand of Count II only as to Richard’s and James’ sentences. The clarification order therefore clearly was referring only to Richard’s and James’ Count II convictions. Roy’s Count II simply was not before and was not addressed by the en banc court. See United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir.) (where the “remand order was limited to the question of suppression of an initial set of fingerprints,” we stated that “the remand order simply did not consider whether a new set of fingerprints could later be compelled to identify the defendant after indictment,” and therefore affirmed the grant of a motion to compel a new set of fingerprints), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 319 (2006). Roy points out that the government “vigorously argued against remanding Count II.” The motion for clarification 3672 UNITED STATES v. CABACCANG sought remand on Richard’s and James’ Count II convictions on the basis that importation was alleged as part of the conspiracy to distribute. The government did oppose remand of Count II on that basis. However, in discussing the contention that Roy’s Count VI conviction should be remanded, the government argued that, if Roy’s CCE count were reversed, his Count II conviction should be reinstated, citing Rutledge. [1] Because Roy’s Count II conviction had been vacated and was not before the en banc court, the clarification order does not preclude the district court from reconsidering that conviction. See Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d at 1129 (stating that the lower court is bound only as to issues addressed by the appellate court). The next question is whether the district court correctly reinstated the Count II conviction after vacating Roy’s Count I conviction for CCE. We have not addressed this precise issue, but a related question was posed in United States v. Jose, 425 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1664 (2006): whether “the reversal of a conviction on a greater offense, coupled with a final conviction on a lesser included offense, preclude[s] retrial of the greater offense when the offenses were charged in the same indictment and tried together in the same original trial.” Id. at 1239. We held in Jose that retrial under these facts did not violate the Double Jeopardy clause. Id. at 1239-45. [2] As relevant to the instant case, Jose reasoned that, when a jury convicts on both a greater and a lesser included offense, Rutledge requires the district court to enter a final judgment of conviction on the greater offense and vacate the conviction on the lesser offense, which is what the district court did here at Roy’s original sentencing. See id. at 1247. “However, if the greater offense is later reversed on appeal, the appellate court should reinstate the previously vacated convictions on the lesser-included offenses.”4 Id. (citing Rutledge, 517 U.S. at 306). 4 Jose noted that we previously “shied away from this approach” in United States v. Medina, 940 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1991). Jose, 425 F.3d UNITED STATES v. CABACCANG 3673 Under the reasoning of Jose, the district court correctly reinstated Roy’s previously vacated conviction on the lesser included conspiracy offense. The Fourth and Seventh Circuits have affirmed when confronted with facts similar to those presented here, and we agree that this is the correct outcome. [3] In United States v. Silvers, 90 F.3d 95 (4th Cir. 1996), after a jury convicted Silvers on numerous counts, including CCE and conspiracy to distribute cocaine, the district court vacated the conspiracy conviction because it was a lesser included offense of the CCE conviction. Silvers later filed a habeas petition contending that his CCE conviction should be vacated because it was obtained through perjured testimony. The district court agreed and ordered a new trial on the CCE conviction, but, “because Silvers’ previously-vacated conspiracy conviction no longer merged into a CCE conviction, the court sua sponte reinstated Silvers’ conspiracy conviction.” Id. at 97. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court correctly reinstated the previously-vacated conspiracy conviction, citing “the Supreme Court’s express ratification of the district court’s action” in Rutledge. Id. at 101. After the Supreme Court remanded Rutledge to the Seventh Circuit, that court also held that the district court had authority to reinstate the conspiracy conviction, noting that the Supreme Court had specifically validated this practice. Rutledge v. United States, 230 F.3d 1041, 1047-49 (7th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. West, 201 F.3d 1312, 1312 (11th Cir. 2000) at 1247 n.6. In Medina, we vacated the defendant’s conspiracy convictions because they were lesser-included offenses of his CCE conviction. Medina opined that “district courts faced with convictions on both CCE and lesserincluded conspiracy counts are put in a bind,” because, “[i]f the district court itself vacates the conspiracy convictions, . . . and the court of appeals subsequently reverses the CCE conviction, the courts would be powerless to reinstate the potentially valid lesser-included counts of conviction.” Medina, 940 F.2d at 1253. Jose recognized, however, that Medina had been overruled to the extent that Rutledge endorsed this very practice. Jose, 425 F.3d at 1247 n.6. 3674 UNITED STATES v. CABACCANG (per curiam) (vacating a CCE conviction and remanding for the district court to reinstate a previously-vacated conspiracy conviction that had been vacated only because it was a lesserincluded offense of the CCE conviction); United States v. Ward, 37 F.3d 243, 251 (6th Cir. 1994) (stating that the defendant conceded that his drug conspiracy conviction should be reinstated if his CCE conviction were reversed, and therefore remanding for resentencing after reversing the CCE conviction). [4] We conclude that the district court correctly reinstated Roy’s previously-vacated conspiracy conviction after vacating his CCE conviction on grounds that did not affect the lesser-included conspiracy conviction. II. Reliance on Count I Findings for Count II Sentence Roy contends that, even if the district court did not err in reinstating his Count II conviction, the court erroneously relied on jury findings relating to Count I in imposing his Count II sentence. The government asserts that Roy has waived the issue by failing to raise it before the district court and by conceding the drug quantity in his prior appeal. Roy essentially concedes that he did not raise this issue below, stating in his reply brief that he did not address Count II because he thought it was not before the district court. He contends, however, that he raised the issue by arguing that Count I should be vacated and that Count II was not before the court. Contrary to his contention, this does not support a finding that he questioned the district court’s drug quantity finding. At Roy’s resentencing, the government argued that the Cabaccangs had not contested the drug quantity at trial, and that the sole issue during the trial was whether they were involved in the conspiracy. The government also argued that, if the court vacated Roy’s CCE conviction, the Count II conUNITED STATES v. CABACCANG 3675 viction should be reinstated, and that there was a special finding of more than 3,000 grams of methamphetamine. Defense counsel responded that Count II was not at issue and that Count I should be vacated, but he did not challenge the drug quantity finding. Our review accordingly is for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b); see, e.g., United States v. EvansMartinez, 448 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2006) (reviewing for plain error a claim that the defendant failed to raise at sentencing). Plain error is error that is plain and that affects substantial rights. Id. If these conditions are met, we may exercise discretion to grant relief only if the error “ ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). [5] When the jury found Roy guilty of Count I, CCE, the jury also found that “the violations referred to in Count I involved at least 3,000 grams of methamphetamine, or at least 30,000 grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine.” Count II was alleged in the indictment to be one of the violations constituting the CCE. The jury verdict form therefore provides on its face that the drug quantity finding in Count I applies to each of the other counts. [6] We agree with the careful reasoning of the district court in concluding that the special allegation findings were not tainted by the importation offenses. At the May 6, 2005, resentencing, the court reasoned as follows: First, the time frame alleged in Counts 2 and 6 are [sic] the same as or contained within the same time frame as to Count One, the CCE. Second, Counts 2 and 6 were explicitly listed as part of the series of drug related offenses to be considered by the jury. 3676 UNITED STATES v. CABACCANG Third, even if the jury utilized only the importa- tion counts as being involved in the series, the only defect with the importation was the definition of importation. Absent that element, the jury still found the remaining elements to be true, that the defendant conspired to transport, attempted to transport, or transported methamphetamine from California to Guam. The district court further reasoned that the special allegations were found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore relied on the special allegation finding for Count I in determining the drug quantity. [7] Roy argues that the overlapping time frame of Counts I and II is irrelevant because it is not clear which offenses the jury relied on in the CCE count. While this is true, this fact serves as the reason that the district court vacated the CCE conviction; it does not support Roy’s contention that the district court erred in relying on the Count I drug quantity finding for the Count II sentence. It still remains true that the time frame alleged in the indictment for Counts I and II was the same. Although it is possible that the jury may have relied on three importation offenses in its CCE finding, the jury convicted Roy on Count II also. Moreover, as the district court reasoned, the problem with the importation offenses was the legal definition of importation. The jury’s drug quantity finding with respect to any importation-related offenses still was made beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. Bequette, 309 F.3d at 451 (“find[ing] no reason to disturb either the jury’s special verdict or the district court’s reliance on it” where the defendant did not contest the reliability of the drug quantity finding in the special verdict). Whether or not the drugs were “imported” in the legal sense does not affect the jury’s finding that Roy’s conduct — all of which came within the scope of the conspiracy charge — involved at least 3,000 grams of methamphetamine. UNITED STATES v. CABACCANG 3677