Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31124 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. A LV I N H O LM E S, al soknow n as Papp a D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C R
- 353- 1 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * T h e o p in io n is s u e dinth is ca s e o n 1 6 J u ly2 0 0 9 is w i t h d r a w n , a n dth is r e vi s e d o pi ni o n i s i s s ue d i n i t s pl ac e . I n t he f i r s tf ul lpar ag r ap h atpag e 3, t he w ord “ at t em pt i ng” has bee n changed t o “t hre at eni ng” . N o o t herc hanges have been m ad e, an d ou r hol di n g rem ai n s t h e sam e. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust14, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31124

2 H aving pled guilt y t o d istr ibu t i n g 30 gram s of heroi n , A lvi n H ol m es ch a l l en ge s h i s b ein g sen ten ced , i n O ctob er 20 0 8 , to 9 6 m on th s’ im p ri son m en t. Thats e nt e nc e i s a bo vet he g ui de l i ne - s e nt e nc i ng r ang e o f 2 4 t o 3 0 m o nt hs provi ded by the N o v e m ber 200 7 S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es. H adH ol m es been s e n te n c e d w h e n o r ig in a lly s c h e d u le d , in S e p te m b e r 2 0 0 7 , th e t h e n - a p p lic a b le 2 0 0 6 S e n te n c in gG u id e lin e s (a n dth e irru le s fo rco u n tin g p r io r s e n te n c e s ) w o u ld have pr ovi ded f

orc ar ee r - of

fenders ent enc i ng and a gui del i ne- se nt enc i ng r ange o f 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s . A l th ou gh po st- B ooker , t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a r e a dv i s o r y o nl y, a nd a n u lti m a te se n te n ce is re v iew e dfo rr e a so n a b len e ss u n d e r a n a b u se -ofdi scr et i on st an da rd, t h e di st ri ctcourtm u stst i l lproperl y cal cul ate th egui de l i n es e n te n c in gra n g e fo r u s e in d e c id in g o n th e s e n te n c e to im p o s e . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 28 S. Ct . 5 86 , 5 96 ( 20 07 ) . I n t hatr e s pe c t , f o rag ui de l i n es i s s ue pr e s e rve d i n di s t r i c tco ur t , i t s appli c at i o n of t he gui de l i ne s i s r e vi e w e d de no vo ; its fa c tu a l fin d in g s , o n lyfo rc l e a re r r o r . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i snerosG u t i errez , 5 1 7 F .3 d7 5 1 , 7 6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Vi l lega s , 404 F. 3d 3 5 5 , 3 5 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T h e di st rictcourt ’ s i m posi n g t h e above -th e -rang e sentence w as based pr i m ar i l y o n t he s e r i o us ne s s o f H o l m e s ’v i o l e ntc r i m i n alhi s t o r y andi t s b e i ng u n der- represented. T h i s u n der- representat i on resul t ed f rom coun t i n g H ol m es’ pur s e - s nat c hi ng , a t t e m pt e d- ar m e d- r o bb e r y, a nd t w o a r m e d- r o bb e r y c o nvi c t i o ns a s as in g le s e n te n c e . S eeU . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 2) . Th e nu m ber an d c h aract er of th e p a st off

en ses sp ea k s to “th e h i storyan dch a ra cteristi cs of t h e d efen d a n t”, a n dis afa c to rre le v a n t u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 . S ee 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 1) (p r o v id in gfa c to r s to b e co n s id e r e dinim p o s in ga s e n te n c e ); seealso U. S . S . G. § 4A 1.2 c m t. n. 3 ( ad dressi n g i n creased sentences f or m u l t i pl e pri or s en t en ces c o u n te da s as in g le s e n te n c e ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mon d ragon- Sa nt i ago , 564 F. 3d 3 5 7 , 3 6 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). In th e lig h t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s § 3 5 5 3 (a ) c r im in a lh i st ory asses sm en t , i t s i m posi n g an above-guidel i n e sentence based u pon t h eseN o. 08- 31124

3 p r io r c o n v ic tio n s w a s n o t a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Uni t e d St at e s v . Lo pez - Salas , 5 1 3 F .3 d1 7 4 , 1 8 1 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). The di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o f o und t hatH o l m e s a t t e m pt e d t o i nt erf e r e w i t h a w i t nes s’par t i c i pat i on i n anot herfede r alpr os ec ut i on by t hre at eni ng t o s t ab t hat w i tn ess . B eca u se th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s f i n d i n g w a s ba sed on a cre d ib i l i ty de t e r m i nat i o n a f

t er a hea r i ng, “ w e w i l lno ts ubs t i t ut e o urr e ad i ng o f t he e v id e n c e fo rth a t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t” . Uni t e d St at e s v. Nixon , 881 F. 2d 1305, 13 1 0 (5 th C ir. 198 9) . Th e t h reat , w h et h er ornot c arri ed ou t , w as a m an i fest ati on of

H ol m es’ cha ract er an d, obviousl y, a rel evan tsentenci n g fact or. S ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ). In a d d itio n , th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t fo u n dth a t H o lm e s u s e dq u e s tio n a b le prac t i c e s t o de l ay s e nt e nc i ng unt i l t he m o r e - fav o r ab l e 20 07 G ui de l i nes t ook ef fect . A m on g ot h er th i n gs, H ol m es had m ovedj u stbef ore t h e sc h edu l ed S e p te m b e r2 0 0 7 s e n te n c in gfo rit to b e r e -s e t a fte r1 N o v e m b e rin o r d e rto o b ta in t h e ben ef

i tof t h e rel evan tam en dm en t . A s another exam pl e, on the da y bef ore t he 2 00 7 G ui de l i nes to o k e f fe c t , H o l m e s ’l awye ra ppe ar e d wi t h H o l m e s a tt he s c h e d u l e ds e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n ga n da n n o u n c e dt h a tH o l me s h a df i r e d h i m a m on t h pr i o rt o t he he ar i ng. Af t e rq ue s t i o ni ng H o l m e s a nd the l awye r , t he di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t h at th e st ory “j u st di dn ’ tsm el lgood”. A gain, our court w ill n o t d is tu rb th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s cr e d ib i l i tyd e te r m in a tio n . S ee Nixon , 881 F . 2dat 131 0. M oreover, the di st ri ctcou rtp l ai n l y st ated t h at th e m an i pu l ati on of t h e p roce ss d i dn ot “w eigh h ea vil y in[i ts] de ci sion ”. T h e di s t r i c tc o ur tt ho r o ugh l y c o ns i de r e d t he Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i n es, a n a ly z e d a n d a p p lie d th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s , a n d e x p la in e d its r e a s o n i n g , in ac c o r da nc e w i t h G a ll , 128 S. C t . 586 at597- 98. Th e e xt entof t he i ncr eas e w as n o t s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n a b le . Se ei d. ; Un ited S ta tes v . S m ith , 417 F. 3d 483, 4 9 2 & n .40 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In c h a ll en gi n g t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r eason s f or t h e i n crease, H ol m es e s s e nt i all y as ks ourco ur tt o sub s t i t ut e hi s as s e s s m e ntof t he ev i de nc e and t heN o. 08- 31124

4 § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s fo rth a t o f th e d is tr ic t co u r t. N e e d le s s to s a y , th is a p p r o a c h is c ont r ar y t othed e f

e r e nti a l , abus e- of

- di sc r et i on r evi ew di c t at ed by G a ll . S ee G a ll , 128 S. C t . at597- 98. A F F IR M E D .