United States v. Steven Taylor ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30273
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-00032-RRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STEVEN N. TAYLOR, a.k.a. Louis V,
a.k.a. Nicky,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Steven N. Taylor appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 180-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 846. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Taylor contends that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 32 by failing to resolve his objections to the four-level leadership
enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). He also argues that the evidence was
insufficient to support the enhancement.
As an initial matter, we reject the government’s argument that this appeal
should be dismissed. The appeal waiver in the applicable plea agreement was
conditioned upon the court imposing a sentence within or below the guideline
range corresponding to a total offense level of 27. Because the court imposed a
sentence above that range, the waiver is unenforceable. See United States v.
Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 987 (9th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the issue of the
leadership enhancement was not resolved by this court’s dismissal of Appeal No.
15-30272 because, contrary to the government’s argument, the enhancement was
also predicated on Taylor’s conduct in this case.
With respect to the merits, the district court’s adoption of the facts in the
presentence report and its statement that the facts therein were sufficient to support
the enhancement satisfied Rule 32. See United States v. Ingham, 486 F.3d 1068,
1075-76 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the
2 15-30273
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the enhancement. See United
States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (district
court’s application of the Guidelines to the facts is reviewed for abuse of
discretion); Ingham, 486 F.3d at 1075 (four-level leadership enhancement is
warranted where defendant’s role is “that of organizing or leading a drug
distribution conspiracy”).
AFFIRMED.
3 15-30273