T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. M A U R IC O K E JU A N S M ITH , al so know n as M aur i co K ij uan Sm i t h, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 5173 (N .D . O k la .) ( D . Ct . N o. 06 - CR - 04 3- 00 1- J H P)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 .9 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

A pp el l ant M auri co K ej uan S m i th p l ed g uil tyt o five cri m i nal coun t s,-2-

in c lu d in g o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(A )(iii); o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith i nt entt o di s t r i but e her oi n i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; one c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e ma r ij u a n a i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( D ) ; one countof pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n fur ther ance of drug t r aff

i cki ng cr i m es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ( 1) ( A ) ; and one c ountof pos s es s i on of a f

i r earm aft erform erconvi ct i on of a fel onyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) . H e now appea l s hi s s ent ence , cont endi ng t he di s t r i ctcourterr ed i n s ent enci ng hi m t o 322 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch he cl ai m s i s an un reas on able s entence un der 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . W e exerci se juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 an d 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d affirm M r. S m ith ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I . Factual B ackgr ound A f ter M r. S m ith ’s a rre st a n d in d ictm e n t, he p led g u iltyto a ll fiv e c o u n ts in t he i ndi ctm ent . Fol l ow i ng hi s gui l typl ea, a pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eportcal cul at i ng hi s t ot al offe ns e l evel atthi r ty - fourunderthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “G ui del i nes ” or“U . S. S. G . ”) , w hi ch i ncl uded a c ar eeroffe nderenhanc ementbas ed on the fa cthe had a tl eas ttw o pr i or contr ol l ed drug offe ns es . H i s t ot al bas e offens e l evel , t ogetherw i th hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I , r es ul t ed i n a G ui del i nes r ange of 322 t o 387 m onthsT he r ecor d i ndi cat es M r . Sm i th obt ai ned a G E D and pl um bi ng and 1 c a rp e n tr ytr a in in g . -3- im p ri s o n m e n t.

I I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound M r. S m ith d id n o t file fo rm a l w ritten o bjec tio n s to th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt, a n d a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g h is c o u n s e l a g a in s ta te d h e h a d n o o bje c tio n s . H ow ever , aft erM r . Sm i t h m ade a s t at ementt o the court , hi s couns el as ked the d istric t co u rt to c o n sid e r th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 fa c to rs in c o nju n c tio n w ith : (1 ) h is p o v e rty ; (2 ) h is u p b rin g in g , inc lu d in g th e fa c t h e w a s ra ise d b yh is g ra n d p a re n ts due t o hi s m ot her ’ s and s t epfa t her ’ s i ncar cer at i on; ( 3) the gr oupi ng of hi s thr ee pr i orconvi ct i ons , i ncl udi ng t hei rr el at i ve pr oxi m i tyi n t i m e; ( 4) the amountof t i m e s i nce hi s l as tpr i orconvi ct i on; ( 5) hi s m atur i tyl evel dur i ng thos e pr i or con vict i on s; (6) his rel at i on shi p w i th h i s chi l dren; (7) his rem orse for hi s act i on s; ( 8) t he fa cthe pl ed gui l t yr atherthan go t o tr i al ; ( 9) the “horr endous ” or exce s s i ve s ent ence bas ed on hi s car eeroffe nderenhanc ement ; ( 10) hi s need for r ehabi l i t at i on; ( 11) hi s ar gum entthatan over l yexce s s i ve s ent ence m i ghtnot pr ot ectt he publ i c orcaus e a de fenda ntt o r es pectthe l aw s ; ( 12) the fa cthe neve r “made i t bey ond t he el eventh gr ade” ; and ( 13) hi s r eques tfora s i xt een- y ear 1 sen tenc e. In resp o n se, th e g o v ern m en t argu ed itrec eive d n o n o ti ce o f M r. Sm i t h’ s “dow nw ar d departur e” r eques tand thata dec r eas e i n hi s s ent ence w as not-4-

w arr ant ed gi ven M r . Sm i t h di d notl earn fr om hi s pr i orthr ee drug convi ct i ons and i ncar cer at i ons and, i ns t ead, cont i nued t o deal drugs , i ncl udi ng m ar ij uana, coca i ne, a n d h e ro in , w h ile p o s s e s s in g a g u n . I n addr es s i ng M r . Sm i t h’ s ar gum ent , the di s tr i ctcour tj udge s t at ed he r evi ew ed and c ons i der ed the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens es , t ogether w i t h M r . Sm i t h’ s char act er i s t i cs and cr i m i nal hi s t oryand the advi s or yG ui del i nes cal cul at i ons . H e then s ent ence d M r . Sm i th atthe l ow end of the G ui del i nes r ange o f 3 2 2 to 3 8 7 m o n th s, to 3 2 2 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. In so d o in g , h e e x p licitly s t at ed thats ever al § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr ant ed the s peci fi c s ent ence i m pos ed, inclu d ing the fac t th e se n tenc e w as c o n sist en t w ith the a p p li ca b le G u idelines ; M r. Sm i t h i s a G ui del i nes car eeroffe nder ; he had a tl eas ttw o pr i ordrug tr aff i cki ng convi ct i ons , nei t herof w hi ch det err ed hi m fr om s el l i ng drugs agai n; he ca rr i ed a l oaded f i r earm dur i ng hi s cr i m i nal act i vi ty ; he s how ed no pl ans t o change the cour s e of hi s l i fe; t he s ent ence r efl ect ed the s er i ous nes s of the offens e, pr om ot ed re sp e c t fo r th e law , an d p ro v id e d ju st p u n ish m e n t fo r th e o ffe n se c o m m itt e d ; a l engthys ent ence w as nece s s aryt o puni s h hi m , pr ot ectthe publ i c, pr ovi de a det err ence t o ot her s , and t o i ncapa ci t at e M r . Sm i th; and the s ent ence pr om ot ed u n ifo rm ity in s e n te n c in g fo r s im ila rl ys itu a te d d e fe n d a n ts .-5- I I I . D i s cus s i on O n appea l , M r . Sm i t h ar gues the di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n s ent enci ng hi m “t o a t erm of i ncar cer at i on t hatw as pl ai nl yunr eas onabl e” a nd i n vi ol at i on of Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) . I n s uppor t , he cont ends the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o conductthe r equi r ed 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) anal y s i s of s ent enci ng fac t or s and i ns t ead s ent ence d hi m by i nap propri at el yrel y i ng sol el yon the G uidel i nes adv i sorysent encing range. I n so doi ng, he ar gues , t he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed onl ythe gun and the pr i or con vict i on s and n ot the ad dit i on al fact ors he r ai sed atsent encing. H e al so con t end s the d i stri ctcou rtapp l i ed the G uidel i nes i n a m and at orym ann er because i ts t at ed, “[t ] he f

i ndi ngs of

f actthatar e per t i nentt o the s ent enci ngfo r th e re co rd ar e a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 34; cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof 6; pos s i bl e s ent ence fr om 322 m ont hs t o 387 m ont hs foral l . . . count s , ” and l at er , i n r es pons e t o the g o v e rn m e n t’s o bjec tio n o v e r a lac k o f n o tice o n a “ d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re ,” it fur t hers t at ed: “I t hi nk [defendant ’ s couns el ] w as s peaki ng bas ed on w hat ’ s i n t he p rese n tenc e re p o rt . H is argu m en t w as d ir ec ted to the p rese n tenc e re p o rt . I do n ’t th in k h e b ro u g h t u p a n yth in g n e w e x c e p t ... th a t th e re w a s a p le a fo r a ... m aj or dep art ure .” In c o nju n c tio n w ith th is a rg u m e n t, M r. S m ith g e n e ra llyc laim s h is 32 2-m on t h sentence i s cruel and u nu sual un der the E i gh th A m end m ent because t he pr oper§ 3553 anal y s i s w as notconduct ed bythe di s tr i ctcourti n pr ovi di ng h im a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e .-6-

I n addi t i on, M r . Sm i t h s ugges t s cert ai n fac t or s r equi r ed t o be cons i der ed under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ar e i n confl i ctw i th the G ui del i nes . Speci fi cal l y , he claim s tha t eve n tho u g h § 3 5 5 3 (a) req u ir es th e c o u rt s to e v alua te th e d efen d an t’ s h ist o ryan d ch ara cterist ics, the G u idelines fo rbid co n side rati o n o f th e d efen d an t’ s age unde rU . S. S. G . § 5H 1. 1; educa t i on and voca t i onal s ki l l s under§ 5H 1. 2; m ent al and emot i onal condi t i on under§ 5H 1. 3; phy s i cal condi t i on, i ncl udi ng drug o r a lco h o l d e p e n d e n c e , u n d e r § 5 H 1 .4 ; em p lo ym e n t re c o rd u n d e r § 5 H 1 .5 ; fa m ily t i es and r es pons i bi l i t i es under§ 5H 1. 6; s oci o- economi c s t atus under§ 5H 1. 10; c iv ic a n d m ili tar yc o n trib u tio n s u n d e r § 5 H 1 .1 1 ; an d lac k o f g u id a n c e a s a y o u th under§ 5H 1. 12. H e al s o ar gues thatw hi l e § 3553( a) ( 2) ( D ) r equi r es a s ent enci ng cour tt o eval uat e the nee d t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th educa t i on, tr ai ni ng, t r eatm ent , orm edi cal car e, U . S. S. G . § 5C 1. 1 contr adi ct s thos e fa ct or s byl i m i t i ng t he ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch a c our tcan i m pos e a s ent ence otherthan im p riso n m e n t.

W e r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s the s ent ence i m pos ed and ha ve det erm i ned a p re su m p tio n o f

re a so n a b len e ss a ttac h e s to a se n ten c e , li k e h e re , w h ich is w ith in th e c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d G u id e lin e s ra n g e . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 -54 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( percur i am ) . We r e q u i r e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n two r es pect s : “the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as the met hod byw hi ch the s ent ence w as cal cul at ed. ” Id. a t 1 0 5 5 (e m p h a sis o m itt e d ). If th e d istric t co u rt “ p ro p e rly-7-

cons i der s t he r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence s the defendantw i thi n that r ange, t he s ent ence i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e, ” but“[t ] he defendantm ayr ebut t hi s pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng thatthe s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof t he others ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Id . I n det erm i ni ng w hether th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s, w e re v iew its le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id. at1054 . W e have hel d “[t ] her e i s no ques t i on that , i n addi t i on t o gui di ng our r e a s o n a b l e n e s s r e v i e w o n a p p e a l , th e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s s e tfo r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) m us tbe cons i der ed bythe di s tr i ctcour ti t s el f w hen i m pos i ng a s ent ence . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2006) . W hen the di s t r i ctcour tal l ow s a defendantt o m ake a n ar gum entthatany of these fact ors w arr ant a bel ow -G uidel i nes-r ang e sent ence a nd then i m po ses a s ent ence att he l ow end of the G ui del i nes r ange, w e have s ai d thi s “mayfai r l ybe rea d as a fu n cti o n al rejecti o n o f [ h is] arg u m en ts an d a d en ial o f h is r eq u est fo r a bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . ” Id. W hen addr es s i ng a di s tr i ctcour t ’ s cons i der at i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors, “[w ]e do no trequi re a r i tuali st i c i ncan t at i on t o est abli sh cons i der at i on of a l egal i s s ue, nordo w e demand thatthe di s tr i ctcour tr eci t e any m agi c w or ds t o s how us t hati tful fi l l ed i t s r es pons i bi l i tyt o be mi ndful of the fac t or s t hatC ongr es s has i ns t ruct ed i tt o cons i der . ” United S tates v. L op ezF l or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1222 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) p rov ides , in p art, that the c o u rtsh all co n side r: 2 ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t or yand (c o n tin u e d ...) -8- o m itte d ), pet i t i on f

orcer t . f

i l ed( U. S . J u l . 7 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( No . 0 6 - 5 2 1 7 ) . Wh i l e “ we w ill n o t d e m a n d th a t a d istric t co u rt re c ite a n ym a g ic w o rd s” to su p p o rt its co n clus ion s, n eith er w il l w e “ p resu m e the d istri ct co u rtw eigh ed a p arty ’s ar gum ent s i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s w her e the r ecor d pr ovi des no i ndi cat i on t hati tdi d s o and no cl earexpl anat i on of the s ent ence i m pos ed. ” Sanchez - Juar ez , 4 4 6 F . 3 d at 11 1 5 -16 (qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n s o m itted). [W ] her e a de fenda nthas r ai s ed a nonf r i vol ous ar gum entthatthe § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and has expr es s l yr eques t ed s uch a s ent ence , w e mustbe abl e t o di s cern fr om t he r ecor d t hatt he s ent enci ng j udge di d notr es ton the gui del i nes a lo n e , b u t co n sid e re d w h e th e r th e g u id e lin e s s e n ten c e a c tu a lly con form s, i n the ci rcum st ances, t o the st atutoryfact ors. Id. at 11 1 7 (qu o tat ion m ark s, alt era ti o n s, an d cit ati o n o m itted). H o w ev er, “[w ] hen the defendanthas notr ai s ed anys ubs t ant i al cont ent i ons conce rni ng nonG ui del i nes § 3553( a) fac t or s and the di s tr i ctcourti m pos es a s ent ence w i thi n the G u id e lin e s ra n g e , o u r p o st- B ookerp re c e d e n ts d o n o t re q u ire th e c o u rt to e x p lain on t he r ecor d how t he § 3553( a) fac t or s j us t i fythe s ent ence . ” Lopez - F l or es , 444 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 2 . W i t h these pri ncipl es i n m i nd , w e no t e t he d i stri ctcou rti n thi s case expl i ci t l y cons i der ed t he fac t or s i n § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng the natur e and 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; (2) the n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed -- ( A ) t o r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of the offens e, t o pr om ot e r es pectfor t he l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe offens e; (B ) to a ffo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; ( C ) t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the defendant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal t rai ning, m edical care, or ot her corr ect i on al treatm ent i n the m ost effe cti v e m an n er; (3 ) t h e k in d s o f

s e n te n c e s a v a ila b le ; ... ( 6) t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defe ndant s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ; and (7 ) t h e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n to a n yv ic tim s o f th e o ffe n s e . -9- ci r cumst ance s of M r . Sm i t h’ s offe ns es , t ogetherw i th hi s char act er i s t i cs and cr i m i nal hi s t or y . T hus , t he r ecor d pr ovi des a cl ear“i ndi cat i on” i tcons i der ed t h e s e r e q u i s i t e fa c t o r s , t o g e t h e rwi th M r . S mi th ’ s a r g u me n tfo ra b e l o wG u id e lin e s-r a n g e se n ten c e b a se d o n h is p o v e rty , u p b rin g in g , inc a rc e ra tio n o f h is m ot herand s t epfa t her , educa t i on, r emors e, chi l dr en, gui l typl ea, need for r ehabi l i t at i on, m atur i t ydur i ng t hatt i m e, and r eques tfora s i xt een- y ears ent ence , as w el l as t he amountof t i m e s i nce hi s l as tpr i orconvi ct i on and the effec tof the c a re e r o ffe n d e r e n h a n c e m e n t o n h is s e n te n c e . See Sanc hez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d at 1115- 16. W hen the di s t r i ctcour ti m pos ed a s ent ence atthe l ow end of the G ui del i nes r ange, i tw as “a f unct i onal r ej ect i on of [hi s ] ar gum ent [] and a de ni al of hi s r eques tfora bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence . ” Id . at1115. B eca us e the di s tr i ct c o u rt p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d th e re lev a n t G u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d se n ten c e d M r. S m ith w i t hi n t hatr ange, hi s s ent ence i s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e and he has cl ear l ynot-10-

r ebut t ed thi s pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng the s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ght o f th e s e n te n c in g fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S e e Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 5 . B as ed on this co n clus ion an d d u e to ju d ici al ec o n o m y , w e d ec li n e to a d d ress M r. S m ith ’s cur s or yar gum entt he di s t r i ctcourtfai l ed t o cons i derthe § 3553 fa ct or s , r es ul t i ng i n an unr eas onabl e s ent ence i n vi ol at i on of the Ei ghth A m endmentpr ohi bi t i on a g a in st c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n t.

In a d d it ion , co n tr aryto M r. S m ith ’s co n tention , itis cl ea r th e d istri ct co u rt a p p lied th e G u id e lin e s in a n a d v iso rym a n n e r, as e v id e n c e d b yits e x p licit stat em en t th e G u idelines are n o w ad v isory . T h ere fo re, w e reject M r. S m ith ’s m i s gui ded cont ent i ons t he di s t r i ctcourts om ehow i m perm i s s i bl yappl i ed the G ui del i nes i n a mandat or ym annerbeca us e of a n i nnocuous s t at ementand us e of cert ai n nom encl atur e ats ent enci ng. Fori ns t ance , w hen the di s tr i ctcourts t at ed,

“ th e fin d in g s o f

fa c t th a t ar e p e rtin e n t to th e se n ten c in g ,” it d id so o n lya f ter b o th par t i es i ndi cat ed theydi d nothave a nyobj ect i ons t o the pr es ent ence r eportand p r i o rt o M r . S mi t h ’ s c o u n s e l ’ s a r g u me n to f fa c t o r s s u p p o r t i n g a b e l o wG ui del i nes - r ange s ent ence . N ordo w e bel i eve the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s r efe r ence t o a “maj ordepartur e” s uppor t s M r . Sm i th’ s ar gum enti tappl i ed the G ui del i nes m a n d a to rily . T h e d istric t co u rt sim p lyu se d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s n o m e n c latu re in r efe r r i ng t o M r . Sm i t h’ s r eques tfora bel ow - G ui del i nes - r ange s ent ence underA s w e r ece nt l ycl ar i fi ed: 3 [W ] hen a c our tr eac hes a s ent ence above orbel ow t he r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of C hapt er s FourorFi ve of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , t he r es ul t i ng i ncr eas e ordecr eas e i s r efe rr ed t o as a “de par tur e. ” W hen a c our tenhanc es ordetr act s fr om t he recom m end ed rang e t hroug h ap pli cat i on of § 35 53 (a) fact ors, h o w e v e r, t h e in c re a s e o r d e c re a s e is c a lle d a “ v a ri a n c e .” Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , ___ F .3 d ___ , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 0 2 9 7 7 , a t * 6 n .1 (1 0 th C ir . Jan . 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 ) (N o . 0 5 -22 7 9 ) (sl ip o p . ) (en b an c re q u est d en ied). -11- § 3 5 5 3 as a “d ep arture,” rathe r than a “v arian ce . ” T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s 3 i nadvert entr efe r ence t o a “de partur e” doe s notchange t he fa cti tappl i ed the G u idelines in an ad v isorym an n er.

F inally , w ith reg ard to M r. S m ith ’s arg u m en t th at th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a re in co n fli ct w ith v ariou s li sted U . S . S . G . C h ap ter 5 p o li cystat em en ts, the re co rd d o e s n o t es tab lish h e ra ise d th e iss u e b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt fo r its cons i der at i on. W e have l ong decl i ned t o rul e on i s s ues notr ai s ed i n the di s tr i ct cour tw hen the defendantcannots how an i m pedi m entpr ecl uded hi s r ai s i ng the i ssue or that the g round no trai sed con st i tuted pl ai n err or r esul t i ng i n m anifest inju s tic e . See United S tates v. O rr , 8 6 4 F .2 d 1 5 0 5 , 1 5 0 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ).-12- I V . C oncl us i on Fort hes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM M r. S m ith ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge