# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 14 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tam m y Vela zq ue z, al so kn own as Tamm y Vela sq ue z
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll lDefe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa - Dav en po rt

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 20 , 20 18 Fi le d: Ju ne 13 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , SHEPHERD andSTRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

In Sep te m

be r 20 16 , Tam

m y Vela zq ue z p l e d gu il ty to co ns pi racy to

m an uf ac tur e, distr ib ut e, an d po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e act ua l m et ham phe tam ine

an d a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e c o n ta in in g m et ha m ph et am in e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(C) , an d 84 6. W it h a to ta l of fen se le ve l of 37 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of II, Vela zq ue z’s ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge was 23 5 to29 3 m on th s, USSG Ch

. 5, Pt

. A., wit h a st at ut or y m ax im um of 24 0 m on th s, 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d a do wnwar d va ria nc e of 35 1

m on th s be fo re red uc in g th e se nt en ce by 30 pe rcen t un de r USSG § 5K1 .1. The di st ric t

co ur t r e f us ed , ho wev er, to gr an t a fu rth er va ria nc e ba se d on Vela zq ue z’s po li cy arg um en t th at th e hi gh er se nt en ci ng ran ge s fo r act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e, as op po se d
to m ix tu res of m et ha m

ph et am in e, are no t ba se d on so un d po li cy co ns id erat io ns or
em pi ric al da ta an d res ul t in un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es an d un du ly ha rs h

se nt en ces

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Vela zq ue z to 14 0 m on th s im pr is on m en t to be fo ll owe d b y

th ree years o f su pe rv is edrel eas e.

Vela zq ue z ap pe al s he r se nt en ce, cl ai m in g th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d

an d im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce by refu si ng to co ns id er he r po li cy arg um en t. We affir m

.

W e tu rn fir st to Vela zque z’s cl ai m th a t th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc edur al ly erre d. A se nt en ci ng co ur t co m

m it s pr oc ed ur al erro r by “ fai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as man d a t o r y , fa il in g to

co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a

) fa ct or s , se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s,
or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce— in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r

an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .” Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 62 4 F.3 d 88 9, 89 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Vela zq ue z cl ai m s th e di st ric t

co ur t’s refu sa l to co ns id er he r po li cy arg um en t co ns ti tu te d pr oc edur al erro r be cau se th e co ur t fai le d to co ns id er “ th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es

am on g de fen da nt s wit h si m il ar reco rd s who ha ve be en fo un d gu il ty of s im il ar
co nd uc t.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6) . W e d is ag ree.

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ctof I owa

. -2

-The Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on “ cl e a r ly co ns id ered [th e ne ed to av oi d

un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es ] whe n se tt in g th e Gui de li n e s ran ge s.” Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 54 (2 00 7)

. Thu s, whe n a s e n t e n c in g jud ge “ co rrec tl y cal cu la te [s ] an d care fu ll y rev ie w[s] th e G u i d e li ne s ran ge , he ne ces sa ril y g[ iv es ] si g ni fic an t weig ht an d co ns id erat io n to th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed di sp ari ti es .” Id

. The re is no di sp ut e he re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y cal cu la te d th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge as se t f

o r th by th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on

. In ad di ti on , th e co ur t ex pl ic it ly ack no wled ge d it s co ns id erat io n of th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ce di sp ari ti es

am on g d e f

e n d a n ts

. W e th eref

or e fin d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it pr oc edur al

erro r.

I n reg ard s to Vela zq ue z’s ch al le ng e to th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of he r
se n t e n c e, we fin d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in im po si ng a 14 0-

m on th se nt en ce: a se nt en ce well be lo w th e Gui de li n e s r a n g e

. See Uni te d St at es v. Lazar sk i, 56 0 F.3 d 73 1, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (fi nd in g whe re co ur t se nt en ced de fen da nt be lo w th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , “ it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co u r t a b u s e d it s di sc ret io n in no t va ry in g do w n w a rd st il l fu rth er”)

. Alt ho ug h “ di st ric t co ur ts are
en ti tl ed to reject an d va ry cat eg or ic al ly fro m [p art ic ul ar] Gui de li ne s ba se d on a po li cy di sa gr eem en t wit h th os e Gui de li ne s,” th ey are no t req ui red to do so

. Un i t e d St at es

v. Tala m an te s, 62 0 F.3 d 90 1, 90 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ( al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Sp ears v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 26 1, 26 5- 66 (2 00 9) ). N o r i s a c o u r t req ui red to

co ns id er a po li cy arg um en t reg ard in g se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es un de r th e Gui de li ne s, as lo ng as t he co ur t i s “ []aware of it s po wer to do so .” See Uni te d S ta te s v . Rob ers on , 51 7 F .3d 99 0, 9 95 (8t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ W e do no t be li ev e

. . . a di st ric t co ur t n ow ac ts

un reas on ab ly, ab us es it s di sc ret io n, or ot he rwis e co m m it s erro r if it do es no t co ns id er th e cra ck/p owd er s en te nc in g d is pa rit y .”).

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t ch os e no t to co ns id er th e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty be twee n act ua l met h am

ph et am in e an d m ix tu res of m et ha m ph et am in e whe n se nt en ci ng Vela zq ue z. Alt ho ug h th e co ur t was aware of it s ab il i t y t o v a ry , th e co ur t st at ed it

-3

-“ [was ] no t go in g to m ak e a jud gm en t on po li cy arg um en ts ” an d it “ [d id no t] ta ke in to

co ns id erat io n

. . . th e po li cy arg um en t” whe n ul ti m at el y de te rm in in g th e se nt en ce. W e fin d th e di st ric t co ur t was un de r no ob li ga ti on to co ns id er th e se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty, se e id ., bu t was in st ead en ti tl ed to ap pl y th e Gui de li ne s as pr om ul ga te d by th e Sen te nc in g Co m

m is si on

. Bec au se “ th e rec o r d d em on st rat es th at th e co ur t pr op erl y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,” we fin d th e se n t e n c e i m po se d to be

reas on ab le . Lazars ki , 56 0 F .3d at 7 34

.

Fo r th e rea so ns st at ed , we affi rm Vela zq ue z’s se nt en ce.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-