United States v. Gumercindo Salazar-Gonzalez

851 behavior Aberrant America, UNITED STATES enti alleges that she was Pippert Plaintiff-Appellee, behavior departure for aberrant

tled to law-abiding God- she is because v. However, these are char citizen. fearing SALAZAR-GONZALEZ, Gumercindo into guidelines already take acteristics the Defendant-Appellant. (lack history), United of criminal account (8th Wind, 1276, 1278 v. No. 04-50411. Cir.1997), into account or cannot be taken DeShon, v. (religion), United States of Appeals, United States Court Cir.1999). (8th Accordingly, F.3d Ninth Circuit. court’s refusal affirm the district Argued and June 2005. Submitted on these bases. depart Opinion April Filed

Reasonableness 15, 2006. Opinion Aug. Amended Filed Pippert ar Finally, Floyd are unreasonable. that their sentences gue when the dis

A sentence is unreasonable im significantly on

trict court has relied factors, to account for failed

permissible factors, or otherwise commit

permissible judgment. a clear error of

ted Haack, F.3d c denied, U.S.—,

Cir.), cert. Both defen 163 L.Ed.2d their sentence was

dants concede range, which makes guidelines

within presumptively reasonable.

the sentences Gatewood,

United States Cir.2006). sentencing, the dis At section through

trict court went

3553(a) that a factors and determined vari advisory guidelines range from the

ance agree not warranted. We respective their sen

analysis, and find that are reasonable.

tences

III. CONCLUSION affirm the district court.

We Brunkow,

Vincent J. Steven F. Huba- chek, Federal Diego, Defenders San Inc., CA, Diego, San for the defendant- appellant. L. Dougherty,

Shanna Assistant United CA, Attorney, Diego, San for the plaintiff-appellee. FLETCHER, gime. Beng-Salazar, B. BETTY

Before and RAYMOND C. A. PAMELA RYMER F.3d 1088 FISHER, Judges. Circuit

I. OPINION AND AMENDED ORDER 23, 2003, Border Patrol On October FISHER, Judge. Circuit Agent footprints Raul Castoreña noticed crossing the unmarked United States- ORDER Jacumbá, Mexico border fence near Cali- petition panel for DefendanU-Appellant’s following footprints fornia. After these for 5, 2006, is GRANT- rehearing, filed June approximately yards, Castoreña found April filed on disposition ED. The Salazar-Gonzalez, sitting with 10 other replaced by the dis- is amended and moderately in people, partially obscured concurrently order. filed with this position dense brush. He ordered them not to rehearing further for will be petitions No citizenship move and then asked their by this court. entertained they proper legal- if “had documents to be in All of ly present the United States.” OPINION individuals, including Salazar-Gonza- Defendant-appellant Gumercindo Sala- lez, responded they were citizens of (“Salazar-Gonzalez”) appeals zar-Gonzalez not autho- Mexico and did have documents in being found the Unit- his conviction for in rizing them to the United States. consent of the Attor- ed without the Salazar-Gonzalez, in 8 U.S.C. had been convict- ney General violation of who jurisdiction have 1326. We ed of crimes the United States trial, court § 1291. At the district U.S.C. occasions, most deported previous on three pro- give refused to Salazar-Gonzalez’s 20, 2003, recently charged was on October requiring gov- posed being convicted with beyond a reasonable prove ernment to in violation deportation United States after “voluntarily doubt that Salazar-Gonzalez The district court of 8 U.S.C. and “knew he was the Unit- reentered” base offense increased Salazar-Gonzalez’s court concluded ed States. The district to pursuant level 16 levels U.S.S.G. evi- presented no that Salazar-Gonzalez 2L1.2, deported after based on his a voluntariness instruc- support dence to a crime of vio- sustaining a conviction for tion, separately but did not address lence, history criminal and it increased his was Although instruction. V, based on its category from level IV to error, affirm the district court none- arose finding prior two convictions “clear a rea- theless because it is The district court separate arrests. that a rational would sonable doubt to 70 months’ sentenced Salazar-Gonzalez guilty absent the have found the defendant in the middle of a sentence imprisonment, States, Neder v. United error[.]” by the United States range prescribed 1, 18, 119 Sentencing Guidelines. (1999). However, Salazar-Gonza- because Booker preserved his nonconstitutional lez II. resentencing that he is entitled to claim the dis Preliminarily, we address now-advisory Sentencing Guide- under the trict court’s denial of Salazar-Gonzalez’s lines, error in sen- and the district court’s of Non motion to exclude “Certificate mandatory regime tencing him under the (“CNR”) of Record” submitted existence harmless, and remand not we vacate Salazar- advisory re- under the resentencing for Attorney untarily not received the Gonzalez had reentered the United States” and apply for readmis permission General’s “knew he was in the United States.” His sion to the United States. See 8 U.S.C. proposed instruction “It concluded: is not (1) (“[A]ny alien has been who— government proves sufficient that the (2) ... deported ... ... and thereafter is Mr. Salazar was ‘found in’ the United in, States, any time found States; rather, it must that Mr. (A) Attorney unless General has act, Salazar committed an intentional expressly reap consented such alien’s is, voluntary entry.” ..., plying for admission shall be fined Although imprisoned under Title not more agreed that a “voluntariness” instruction added)). 2 years, (emphasis than or both.” applicable” “could be and “certainly not contends that Salazar-Gonzalez admission cases, frivolous” in rejected some the court of the violated his Sixth Amendment CNR him, proposed instruction, Salazar-Gonzalez’ against to confront witnesses Supreme concluding articulated the Court in Craw that “in this case the evidence Washington, 541 U.S. does not warrant it.” The court instead ford 1354, 158L.Ed.2d 177 The CNR is jury instructed the as follows: Crawford; not testimonial evidence under In order for the defendant to be found properly the court it district admitted as a guilty of [being deported a alien found in public nontestimonial record. United States], the the Cervantes-Flores, must each of the following ele- ments a reasonable doubt: First, alien; second, the defendant is an III. deported the defendant was or removed principally Salazar-Gonzalez challenges States; third, from the United the district court’s give jury refusal to defendant subsequently general instruction on the intent element States; fourth, at the deported alien “found in” the time the defendant was found in the trial, United States under 1326.1 At United States he did not have the con- Salazar-Gonzalez offered as his defense sent of Attorney the United States Gen- voluntarily he had not successor, eral or his designated entered the United States but rather wan Secretary of Department of Home- country inadvertently, dered into the with added). Security, land (emphasis knowing out crossing he was the bor “We review de novo the district der. court’s proposed jury Salazar-Gonzalez must, interpretation instruction specifying jury requisite that the elements convict, in order to find that he had “vol- a federal offense.” United States v. Jime- argues 1. begins by Salazar-Gonzalez claiming lez that "[t]he district by failing failed, court erred to instruct on voluntari- objection, court over to instruct on the ness, precluded and that this failure him from general elements of criminal intent.” Simi- presenting "inadvertently” the defense he court, larly, before the district defense coun- "unknowingly” wandered into the United argued sel that "voluntariness of return is an Although argues States. Salazar-Gonzalez proven beyond element which must be a rea- jury that he was entitled to a instruction em- ruling, sonable doubt.” The district court’s bodying theory, objection his defense his "denlying] the defense motion that a volun- jury appropriately instructions is more added," tariness issue or element be further request jury viewed as a receive an supports this view of Salazar-Gonzalez' re- instruction on each element of the crime. added.) quest. (Emphasis Indeed, brief, opening in his Salazar-Gonza- intent.”). general To act corresponds Cir. nez-Borja, 378 F.3d 2004). intent, of an element from The omission defendant must subject to harmless- jury instructions the facts that make his actions ille- know Neder, analysis. error illegal. not that the action itself is gal, but is, That the defendant need intend to action, underlying prohibited perform the A. Thus, Supreme not to the law. break an area of confusion highlights This case has held that a federal firearms Court jurisprudence that we now in our statute, requiring construed as mens rea matter, initial the district clarify. As an intent, requires erroneously Salazar-Gon construed pos- that a defendant knew he proposed instruction —which zalez’s sessed a firearm with the features barred he both to find that required statute, by the even if he was unaware that he was “voluntarily reentered” and “knew possession forbade of such a the law fire- in” the States—-as “voluntari States, 511 Staples arm. v. United U.S. only. Although ness” 600, 619, 114 S.Ct. express mens rea ele does not include (1994). Similarly, may a defendant ment, being make clear that our cases guilty requiring general of a crime § under 1326 “found in” the United States intent to steal if he and volun- See, e.g., intent.” “general is a crime of tarily property of another “t[ook the] Rivera-Sillas, v. 417 F.3d States United if force and violence or intimidation” even Cir.2005) (9th (“A 1014, ‘found in’ 1020 property to return the later. he intended § intent general 1326 is a offense Carter, 268, 2159; 530 U.S. at 120 S.Ct. see Pina-Jaime, crime.”); Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d at 1194 also (9th Cir.2003) 609, (“[B'Jeing 332 F.3d 613 illegal if (explaining attempted that reen- of found in the United States violation crime, try general previ- intent were 1326(a)(2) in general § is a crime of went to the bor- ously deported alien who ...”). that “vol have also held tent. We reentry for pick hp apply der to forms to of untariness of the return is element attempting convicted of to reen- could be and, such, in” must [“found offense] ter, or her intent to com- regardless his proved beyond a reasonable doubt law). ply with Quin prosecution.” United States v. (9th tana-Torres, 1197, 235 F.3d 1200 Cir. Riverctr-Sillas, the de- example, For 2000); v. Salazar- see also United States challenged charging an indictment fendant (9th Cir.2000) Robles, 648, 650 207 F.3d him found in the United States with in” (upholding a “found conviction and ground on the that it in violation of 1326 voluntary con finding that element “[t]he “knowing that he charge him with failed return”). in Salazar Robles’s sisted 417 F.3d at in the United States.” general intent 1020. We first held However, intent mens general in” § 1326 “found offense mens rea of the pos that a “defendant requires rea also voluntarily act required that a defendant to the actus knowledge respect sessed v. knowingly, (citing id. United States of the crime.” Carter v. United reus (5th Berrios-Centeno, 294, 250 F.3d 299 States, 255, 268, 120 S.Ct. Cir.2001)); we then concluded knowl- (2000); see also United voluntariness, can be inferred edge, like Gracidas-Ulibarry, 231 F.3d v. presence banc) (“In the fact of the defendant’s (9th Cir.2000) (en 1188, 1196 and need not be ex- in the United States corresponds to the con general, ‘purpose’ indictment, The intent, in an id. ‘knowledge’ pressly pled cept specific while 856 offense, Rivera-Sil must be

government’s argument las’ discussion knowing entry must be yond doubt that he entered It either dictum or incorrect lacks merit.2 and had voluntarily that he was is true that we have addressed the volun committing underlying act that made 1326 crime on tariness element illegal entering remaining his conduct — Rivera-Sillas many occasions and in the United States.4 plainly ques the first case to address B. knowledge.3

tion of our Supreme Supreme long Court law and decisions The Court has held clear, however, Rivera-Sillas make the Due requires Process Clause correctly concluded that a defendant must each element of the enter or remain United States In re crime a reasonable doubt. voluntarily knowingly as well as to be con Winship, 397 90 U.S. victed under the crime of intent L.Ed.2d 368 This same bedrock being “found the United States under principle constitutional also entails con § 1326. See also Pena-Cabanillas comitant for the defendant to have a States, Cir. jury instruction on each element of the 1968) (explaining requires Gaudin, crime. See United be the intent to do the “[t]here 506, 511, U.S. 132 L.Ed.2d act, enter,”

prohibited uphold to-wit Perez, (1995); United States v. ing the defendant’s conviction under Cir.1997) (en banc) “knowingly wilfully 1326 for en (“Failure to submit an essential element to States”). tering] relieves prosecution of its obli gation prove every We therefore hold that for a defen element doubt.”). § dant to be convicted of 1326 “found in” “knowledge” Because recently "being 2. We confirmed in an en banc deci- found in the United States in 1326(a)(2) panel § sion that a requires gov- creates circuit law when it violation of ... the prove beyond issue and in an "addresse[s][an] decide[s] it ernment to a reasonable doubt opinion joined part majority in 'voluntarily' relevant the that the defendant committed an Enomoto, panel.” Barapind of the unlawful act.” Id. at 613. (en Cir.2005) banc). 750-51 Rivera-Sillas, panel In the considered wheth- 4.To the extent the district court conflated voluntariness, knowledge, er like voluntariness, is an ele- knowledge and we are not sur- ment of the 1326 offense that must be prised given parties' arguments during the the proved by government beyond the a reason- jury colloquy. example, For in addressing able doubt. 417 F.3d at 1020. instruction, In arguing against a voluntariness issue, panel the decided that the government suggested the that the issue of general offense constituted a intent crime and voluntariness in Salazar-Gonzalez's case was required knowing therefore and willful act. “bleeding knowledge entering into his about Id. government the United States.” The then stated, incorrectly, knowledge that such "is Pina-Jaime, suggested definitely In United States v. we not an element” of the offense. In knowledge response, was an element of the "found defense counsel first stated that she in” arguing offense but did not address the issue di- was "not that [Salazar-Gonzalez] rectly. States,” 332 F.3d Al- has to know he is in the United though government though proceeding, stated that sat- "[t]he later in the defense coun- (al- proving isfied its burden” of intent for a sel concept reintroduced the instruction) proving 1326 offense support that "Pina-Jaime beit in of a voluntariness knowingly wilfully and act reasonably committed the that “the could have conclud- staying permis- the in United States without ed necessarily that Mr. Salazar did not know General,” Attorney sion of the we held he had entered the United States.” separate is a element of the “found in” inferences relieve the of its that, voluntariness, gov- offense like the prove burden to “general the intent” ele- prove beyond ernment must a reasonable ment of the crime of being “found in” the doubt, we hold that the district court erred United States. refusing to instruct on the contrary, To the our case law is consis elements of knowledge voluntary en- tent with proposition govern that the try. prove ment must presence the alien’s recognize We that some of our cases country is both knowing and volun interpreting when taken out of See, tary. Quintana-Torres, e.g., 235 F.3d context, might read to suggest (rejecting the government’s argu statute presump- establishes rebuttable ment in a in” “found case that it did not intent, i.e., tion on the element of have to that the defendant “inten need not in a States). tionally reentered” in” previously deported “found case that a Indeed, in most of our involving cases apprehended alien who is in the United “general intent” requirement of the “found entered country knowingly offense, the defendant challenged has See, Rivera-Sillas, voluntarily. e.g., sufficiency either the of an indictment (‘We F.3d at 1020 are pre- comfortable which pled guilty he or the sufficiency of suming that a defendant who is found support the evidence to his conviction af willfully the United States ter apprehended béyond well acted in order to enter country.”); Rivera-Sillas, United States border. See (“To Quintana-Torres, 235 F.3d at 1200 417 F.3d at 1017 (challenging the indict dispel the inference [of intent to be sufficiency evidence); ment and of the here], the alien would have to demonstrate Juan-Cruz, United States v. San speculative possibilities one of the Cir.2002) (challenging the involuntary entry actually had taken indictment); Parga-Rosas, 238 F.3d at However, place.”). reading close our 1211 (challenging the indictment and suffi First, dispels suggestion. case law ciency evidence); Quintana-Torres, even those cases that have discussed the 235 F.3d at 1199 (challenging sufficiency of ability defendant’s to rebut the inference evidence). contexts, In these we have of intent submitting evidence of invol- declined to reverse the convictions of untary entry consistently have described aliens who were “found in” the United allowing only permissible 1326 as infer- recognized States because we have that a regarding ences the defendant’s jury might validly draw the factual infer See, e.g., intent to commit the crime. Riv- ence that an alien apprehended who is well era-Sillas, (“Because 417 F.3d at 1021 in- within the usually United States has com voluntary presence in the United States is knowing voluntary mitted a and act to be rule, exception the rare and not the howev- have, words, in indulged here. We other er, an we allow inference of voluntariness factual the inference that an alien’s discov

where the defendant has raised no evi- ery at location the United contrary.” added)); dence to the (emphasis “other than the border” is “circumstantial Qwintana-Torres, (“[A] 235 F.3d at 1200 proof’ that the alien had the intent juror may reasonable well that the infer Quintana-Torres, to enter. See alien had the intention to be here when the 1200; Riverar-Sillas, at see 417 also any alien is discovered at location the (holding “general at 1021 that the intent of country other than (emphasis the border.” added)). nothing juris- But in our the defendant to reenter the 1326 United prudence suggests that such permissible may be inferred from the fact that the

858 all of whom deported people, and brush with 10 other previously was defendant they were citi subsequently patrol told the border that was States”). zens of and did not have authoriza Mexico Although to tion be in the United States. strayed However, we have never yards 100 group apprehended the was proof “general intent” as requiring of border, unmarked, from the which was the ingredient of a conviction under essential ranges area is demarcated a fence suggested Nor ever have we addition, from 4 11 feet in In height.5 to evidence present the defense must in order Agent that he saw foot Castoreña testified jury on element to obtain instruction Mexican of the border prints on the side (i.e., crime that the defendant volun- fence, it approached crossed and to tarily acted enter the northerly into continued direction States). Indeed, constitutional Agent further United States. Castoreña See, preclude suggestions. such principles foot-prints testified that he followed these Gaudin, e.g., “approximately yards 100 of the bor north (explaining that “[t]he Constitution brush,” der road” until he “came across to gives right criminal defendant “trying where he noticed the individuals jury that a him all guilty demand find to themselves.” conceal the elements the crime which he is Instead, charged”). government’s bur- It that 11 is unreasonable to believe “general intent” under den Mexican nationals could cross such a barri- exists whether or not the defendant comes er from a far northern in the Mexi- point demonstrating forward with evidence countryside involuntarily can or without he lacked such intent. Because dis- they entering were knowing Unit- the jury trict court refused to instruct on Moreover, ed States. Salazar-Gonzales the elements voluntari- presented involuntary no evidence of ness, Salazar-Gonzalez’ have entry descrip- other unknowing than the jury on each element of the tion of this fence the isolated sur- crime violated. rounding Jimenez-Borja, area. Cf. (holding F.3d at 858 the district error, Despite this af- we nonetheless jury court’s on failure to instruct the firm the it conviction because is “clear voluntary entry element of in a “found in” beyond a doubt that rational case was harmless because the defendant have guilty would found the defendant Neder, 18, was “well within borders of the United the error.” absent U.S. at States,” sug- and there was no evidence (holding omission gest came to of an element from that he be there involuntari- instructions is review). circumstances, subject ly). to harmless Under these the rec- error The uncontroverted ord contain evidence reveals that Sala- does not “evidence could hiding rationally finding zar-Gonzales was found lead to a contrary Castoreña, Agent testifying jury, sign coming before is were I saw foot across surrounding described fence and terrain portion the lower of the fence. follows: [There [dirt] Castoreña: is road nothing a] border [Defense Counsel]: And there is running parallel, right next to like, the inter- not, sign, is like that area to—there a a national border fence.... In area there sign traffic that indicates that is the United ten, approximately is fence is eleven States, right? high. actually feet And ends. it And then it In that immediate area there Castoreña: continues to a shorter fence that is sign. not a high. and a three half to feet four And that respect (2005), to the omitted element” of know- 161 L.Ed.2d 205 because it was Neder, ing voluntary entry. 527 U.S. based on impermissible sources. 19, 1827. Accordingly, S.Ct. We need not reach the merits of AFFIRM Salazar-Gonzalez’ conviction. Salazar-Gonzalez’s Sixth Amendment ar gument, because Salazar-Gonzalez is enti C. tled to full vacatur of his sentence and a argues Salazar-Gonzalez also remand resentencing for under United unconstitutionally district enhanced States Beng-Salazar, v. 452 F.3d 1088 then-mandatory his sentence under Cir.2006), regardless of whether his Sixth Sentencing Guidelines based on facts not rights Amendment were violated.6 alleged in the indictment or proven to a In Beng-Salazar, we held that “a defen- jury, in violation of his Sixth Amendment dant who an objection raised in district rights Apprendi Jersey, v. New court based on the Sixth Amendment hold- 466, 2348, U.S. 120 S.Ct. 147 L.Ed.2d 435 ings of the Apprendi line of pre- cases (2000). Specifically, the district court in- served his [nonconstitutional Booker ] creased Salazar-Gonzalez’s criminal histo- claim that he is entitled to resentencing ry by points, score three which resulted in advisory regime Guidelines .... history one level increase to his criminal unless the Government can show that the category, finding after that he had commit- error was Here, harmless.” Id. at 1097. previous, ted two unrelated offenses under as in Beng-Salazar, Salazar-Gonzalez ob- 4A1.2(a)(2). However, U.S.S.G. Sala- jected to the enhancement of his sentence zar-Gonzalez was sentenced on the same based on facts that had not been crimes, day for his previous two and his jury beyond doubt, a reasonable namely sentences imposed concurrently. were Al- that his two prior convictions were “unre- though the fact of a prior may conviction lated.” In support argument, of his he be found court using pre- relied on Blakely Washington, 542 U.S. ponderance standard, of the evidence see 296, 2531, 124 S.Ct. 159 L.Ed.2d 403 States, Almendarez-Torres v. United (2004), grounding objection his in the Sixth U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 350 Amendment to a trial. These (1998), argues Salazar-Gonzalez objections preserved Salazar-Gonzalez’s merely district court here did more than claim of nonconstitutional error under prior determine that he had conviction. Booker, United States v. 543 U.S. Rather, he contends that the district court documents, had to examine a number of including police reports several regarding We further hold that the govern arrests that had occurred between the two ment has not satisfied its burden of dem for offenses which Salazar-Gonzalez onstrating the district court’s error convicted, to prior Indeed, find that his convictions was harmless. reversal is re were unrelated offenses. quired Salazar-Gonza- even if “we ‘in equi find ourselves argues lez finding poise ran afoul of the as to the harmlessness the er Supreme Court’s decision in Shepard Beng-Salazar, ror ....’” 452 F.3d at 1096. States, point Because the cannot 6. If the support on remand continues to application un enhancement 4A1.1, police reports assert and docu other der the district court will need to ments, such as the notice to appear, Shepard minutes determine whether forecloses the en any reports, of the clerk's record and incident hancement. See also United States v. Alma beginning that it “more This is of it. The establishing is and end any evidence the error not than not that did probable obligation give had no to court sen- materially affect [Salazar-Gonzalez’s] instruction, proposed Salazar-Gonzalez’s tence,” 1092, id. at we VACATE his sen- doing and committed no error in not so. un- resentencing and REMAND for tence correct, nothing As to there is there is now-advisory Guidelines. der the “clarify.” simply to We should nothing AFFIRMED, sentence VA- Conviction affirm. and REMANDED. CATED RYMER, Judge, concurring Circuit judgment: and in the

part I, II, III.C,

I concur in and and in Parts part III.A and B. I judgment on Parts the need

company respect with to “clari Enrique ALBERNI, Jose Petitioner- be given instructions should fy” what for, Appellant, district court “found cases held, correctly there was no evidence to support instruction Salazar-Gonza McDANIEL; E.K. Frankie Sue knowingly voluntarily not lez was Nevada, Papa; del State of in the He found found United States. others, per eleven who also had no Respondents-Appellees. with here, in a hiding mission bush 100 No. 05-15570. away yards having from the border ranged climbed fence four Appeals, United States Court of point, feet lowest offered eleven its Ninth Circuit. no evidence that he didn’t know he was 16, Argued and 2006. Submitted Feb. country.1 court A district “determina that a tion factual foundation does not Aug. 2006. support pro exist to by the is posed defense” reviewed

the deferential abuse of discretion stan United

dard. Castellanos-Gar

da, The acted its well within discretion in no

ruling “[t]here was evidence what bring that [Salazar-Gon

soever would proposed

zalez’s play.” instruction] into zan-Becerra, (9th contrary”); 456 F.3d 954-55 Cir. dence to States v. 2006). Quintana-Torres, (9th 235 F.3d otherwise, Cir.2000) (stating proof that absent circumstances, In these there was no basis juror may to be infer the defendant intended upon which could find that States if the defendant Salazar-Gonzalez did not enter the United country); v. Cas- within this United States cf. voluntarily. See United tellanos-Garcia, 270 F.3d 775-77 Rivera-Sillas, Cir.2001) (holding need Cir.2005) amended) (as (observing that prosecut- not lack of official restraint in possibilities unknowing multiple there are ing §a 1326 offense unless the defendant involuntary entry, but invol- "because and/or comes forward evidence that he was not untary presence exception is the rare and not rule, during free from official restraint the border allow an inference of voluntari- crossing).- ness has evi- where defendant raised no

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Gumercindo Salazar-Gonzalez

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Aug 15, 2006

Citation: 458 F.3d 851

Docket Number: 04-50411

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.