FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 23, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15593 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 1 2 6 - CR- RBP- RRA U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s W E S T O N L . S M I T H , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt fo rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( M ay 23, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A R N E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A pp el l antpl ed gu i l t y pursuantt o a pl eaagre em entt o al l four coun t s of a n i nfor m a t i on: C ount1, c ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tw i r e f r a ud a nd s e c ur i t i e s f

r a ud; C ountThe c ourt sustained a se cond def ense obje ction not relevant here . 1 2 2, fa l s e l y c e r t i f

y i ng f i na nc i a l i nfor m a t i on f

i l e d w i th the S e c ur i t i e s a nd E xc ha nge C om m i s s i on ( “ S E C ” ) ; C ount3 f i l i ng fa l s e r e por t s w i th the S E C ; C ount4, for fe i tur e ( r e l a t i ng t o C ount s 1 a nd 2) . I n the pl e aa gr e e m e nt , the G ove r nm e nt agre ed t o rec om m end atse nt enci ng thatappel l antbe gi ven a base- offe nse- l evel re du cti on of three l evel s for ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i t y a nd thathe be se nt ence d a tthe l ow e nd of

the G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e r a nge . I n a ddi t i on, the G ove r nm e nt a g r e e d to f

ile am o tio n fo rd o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e f r o m th a t r a n g e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 5K 1. 1 i f a ppe l l a nta gr e e d t o pr ovi de s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e i n the i nve s t i ga t i on of anot her pers on w ho had com m i tt ed an offense . A tth e sen t en ci n g h eari n g , ap p el l an to bj ect ed t o th e am o u n to f th e l o ss i ndi c a t e d i n the pr e s e nt e nc e r e por t , ove r$5 bi l l i on, a nd ur ge d the c our tt o f i nd the l oss a t$3 27 m i l l i on . T he courtsust ai ned t he obj ec t i on , fi nd i ng the l oss a tthe l att er fi gu re . P ri or t o con si deri ng the parti es m ot i on s for departure f rom the G ui del i nes 1 se nt ence ra ng e, the courtca l cul at ed the offe nse l evel at43 . W i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c a t e gor y of

I , the G ui de l i ne s c a l l e d fors e nt e nc e s of l i fe i m pr i s onm e nt . T he st atut ori l y a ut ho ri ze d m axi m um se nt ence s, ho w ever , w er e l es s than l i fe i m pr i s onm e nt . T hus , the G ui de l i ne s pr e s c r i be d s e nt e nc e forC ount1 be c a m e 60 m onths , forC ount2, 120 m onths , a nd forC ount3 120 m onths , a l l r unni ng3

consec ut i vel y for a t ot al of 30 0 m on ths. T he G ov er nm entm ov ed the courtfor a do w nw ar d d epar ture und er§ 5 K 1. 1, re com m endi ng thatthe courtse nt ence a p p e lla n t to ato ta l o f

6 0 m o n th s c o n f

in e m e n t, a n d th e c o u r t g r a n te d its m o tio n . A pp el l antthen m ov ed the courtt o d epar tdo w nw ar d further, and t he courtgrant ed hi s m ot i on . Itse nt ence d app el l antt o con curr entpri son t er m s of 27 m on ths. A sked w hether he had any obje cti on s t o h i s s ent ence s or the m anner i n w hi ch they w er e im p o s e d , a p p e lla n t s ta te d th a t it r e lie d o n its p r e v io u s o b je c tio n s . H e n o w a p p e a ls h i s sen t en ces. A ppe l l a ntc ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tm i s t a ke nl y be l i e ve d tha ti tdi d not ha ve the a uthor i t y t o de pa r tf r om the G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e r a nge ba s e d on the d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n h i s a n d h i s c o - d e fe n d a n t s ’ s e n t e n c e s ; th a t , p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) ( 6) , the c our ti s r e qui r e d t o c ons i de rthe ne e d t o a voi d di s pa r i t y a m ong de fe nda nt s w i th s i m i l a rr e c or ds found gui l t y of s i m i l a rc onduc t ; tha tbe c a us e of the c o u r t ’ s fa i l u r e a d e q u a t e l y t o c o n s i d e rth e d i s p a r i t y i s s u e , th e c o u r tg a v e h i m a g r e a te rto ta l s e n te n c e th a n h is e q u a lly o rm o r e c u lp a b le c o - c o n s p ir a to r s th o u g h h is cond uctca l l ed for al es se r s ent ence ; thatthree co-defe nd ant s w ho pl ay ed m ore c ul pa bl e r ol e s i n the of

fe ns e c onduc tr e c e i ve d pr oba t i on orm i ni m a l s e nt e nc e s , a nd m a ny othe r s i nvol ve d i n the f r a ud r e c e i ve d onl y pr oba t i on; a nd tha the s houl d ha ve re ce i ved a l es se r s ent ence beca use hi s c oo pera t i on w i th the go vernm entw as m ore4

e x te n s iv e th a n th a t g iv e n b y th e o th e rin d iv id u a ls . F in a lly , h e c o n te n d s th a t, fol l ow i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 621 ( 2005) , ac our tc a n a nd m us ts e nt e nc e ade fe nda ntt o the s a m e t e r m of i m pri sonm entas tho se equal l y c ul pabl e. P os t - B ooke r , w e r e vi e w as e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tfor r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S e n te n c in g n o w r e q u ir e s tw o s te p s . I d . a t 7 8 6 . F ir s t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t c o n s u lt th e g u id e lin e s a n d c o r r e c tly c a lc u la te th e s e n te n c e r a n g e u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s . I d . P r e - B o o k e rs ta n d a r d s fo rr e v ie w in g a p p lic a tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s s till a p p ly . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w for d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . S e c ond, the courtm ustconsi der the fa ct ors l i st ed i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at 78 5. O ne of tho se fa ct ors i s “ the need t o avo i d u nw arra nt ed se nt ence di spar i t i es am on g d ef

endant s w i th si m i l arre cords w ho have been foun d g ui l t y of s i m i l ar c o n d u c t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , the c our tc a r r i e d outboth of the s e s t e ps a nd, i n the proces s, spec i fi ca l l y c on si dere d t he di spar i t y, i f a ny, bet w ee n app el l ant ’ s s ent ence s a nd the s e nt e nc e s hi s c o- de fe nda nt s r e c e i ve d ( f r om a nothe rdi s tr i c tj udge ) a nd g ra n ted ap p ellan t a d o w n w ar d d ep ar tu re o n th at b as is. C o n trar y to ap p ellan t’ s v ie w , th e c o u r t w a s n o t m is ta k e n c o n c e r n in g h is d e p a r tu r e a u th o r ity ; th e c o u r t f u llyIn his brief, a ppellant raises other issues. They were not pre serve d. See United States v. 2 J ones, 899 F .2d 1097 (11th Cir. 1990). 5 u n d erst o o d w h ati tw as. A p p el l an t ’ s cl ai m i s th erefo re m eri t l ess. 2 AFFI RM ED