FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UL Y 20, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 09 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 4 :0 9- cr-0 00 25 -RH-WCS-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee,

vers us
TONY ED W ARD DENSON,

D efen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t for th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J ul y 20 , 20 10 )
Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

. PER CURI AM:

Ton y Edwar d Den so n ap pe al s fro m hi s 26 2- m on th t o t a l se nt en ce fo r
di st rib ut in g 5 or m or e gr am s of crac k coc ai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 )an d (b )(1 )(B) (ii i), an d be in g a fel on in po ss es si o n of a fir earm , in vi ol at io n of 18

U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). On ap pe al , Den so n arg ue s th at : (1 ) hi s se nt en ce was

pr oc ed ur al ly un reas on ab le be cau s e th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ad jus t hi s gu id el in e

ran g e ba se d on th e go ve rn m en t’s al le ge d se nt en ci ng m an ip ul at io n; an d (2 ) hi s

se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on a b l e in li gh t of 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Afte r

care fu l re vi ew, we affi rm

. W e rev ie w th e ul ti m at e se nt en ce a di st ric t co ur t im po se s fo r “ reas on ab le ne ss ,”
whi ch “ m erel y as ks whe th er th e tri al c o u r t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v.
Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d 11 79 , 11 89 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Ri ta v. Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S.

33 8, 3 51 (20 07 )).

In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we pe rfo rm two st ep s. Id

. at 11 90

. Fi rs t, w e m

us t “ ‘ens ur e th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al

erro r, s u c h as 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 m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) f a c to rs ,

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

r an ge .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7) ). The di st ric t 1

The § 3553(a) fac tors include: (1) the nature and circ umstances of the offe nse and the history 1 and char acte ristics of the defe ndant; (2) the need for the sentenc e imposed to ref lect the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote respe ct for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the
2co ur t ne ed no t di sc us s each § 35 53 (a) fact or

. Uni te d St at es v. Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4,

78 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). Rat he r, “ [t]he se nt en c i n g jud ge sh ou ld se t fo rth en ou gh to

sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co ur t th at h e h a s c on si de red th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d ha s a

reas on ed ba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s own le ga l de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y
. ” Ri ta, 55 1 U.S.

at 35 6.
If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er
the “ ‘ subs ta

nti ve re ason ab le ne ss of [a] se nt en ce im po se d un de r an ab use -o f- dis cr et ion

st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d a t 1 1 9 0 (q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s rev ie w is “ de fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to de te rm in e

“ whe th er t he sen te nc e im po se d b y th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to ach ie ve th e p ur po se s o f

se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d at 78 8. The re is a “ ran ge
of reas on ab le se nt en ces fro m wh i c h th e di st ric t co ur t m ay ch oo se ,” an d a se nt en ce
wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge is ord in ari ly exp ect ed to be reas on ab le . Id.

“ The weig ht to be acco rd ed an y gi ve n § 355 3( a) facto r is a m at te r co m m it te d

to th e so un d di sc ret io n of the di st ric t cou rt, an d we wil l no t su bs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t
in weig hi ng th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3 d 82 3, 83 2 (1 1t h

need for the sentenc e imposed to a ffor d adequate deter renc e; (4) the need to pr otect the public; (5) the need to provide the defe n d an t wi th educational or vocational training or medical car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es available ; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines rang e; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commi ssion; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentenc ing disparities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
3Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n an d br ack et s om it te d)

. W e wil l rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g on ly if we are “ le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co m

m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 ( a ) fact or s by
arri vi ng at a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by
th e fa ct s of th e cas e.” Pu gh , 51 5 F.3 d at 11 91 (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d)

. The bu rd en is on th e de fen da nt to sh ow th at th e se nt en ce was un reas on ab le

in li gh t o f th e rec or d a nd th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88

. Fi rs t, we are un pe rs ua de d by D en son’ s cl ai m tha t his se nt en ce was pr oc ed ur al ly

un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ad jus t hi s gu id el in e ran ge ba se d on
th e go ve rn m en t’s al le ge d se nt en ci ng m an ip ul at io n. “ Sen te nc in g fact or m an ip ul at io n

oc cu rs whe n th e go ve rn m en t’s m an ip ul at io n of a st in g op erat io n, ev en if in su ffi ci en t

to su pp or t a du e pr oc es s cl ai m , r eq ui res th at th e m an ip ul at io n be fil te red o u t o f th e

se nt en ci ng cal cu l u s

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Doc am po , 57 3 F.3 d 10 91 , 10 97 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 09 ) (q uo ta ti on an d br ack et s om it te d) , cert

. de ni ed , (U.S. Apr

. 5, 20 10 ) (No

. 09 -7 83 3)

. “ Sen te nc in g fact or m an ip ul at io n fo cu se s on th e go ve rn m en t’s co nd uc t.”
Id

. (q uo ta ti on an d br ack et s om it te d)

. The de fen da nt be ars th e hi gh bu rd en of pr ov in g
th at th e go ve rn m en t’s co nd uc t was su ffi ci en tl y rep r e h e n s i b l e

. Id

. To pr ev ai l on a

se nt en ci ng fact or m an ip ul at io n cl ai m ba se d on th e go ve rn m en t’s st in g op erat io n, th e

4go ve rn m en t m us t ha ve en ga ge d in “ ex t r a o rd in ary m is co nd uc t.” Id

. (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. W e h av e p rev io us ly hel d t ha t t he us e o f a l arg e am ou nt of fic ti ti ou s d ru gs by
th e go ve rn m en t in a st in g op erat io n di d no t res ul t in se nt en ci ng fact or m an ip ul at io n.
Uni te d S t a te s v. San ch ez, 13 8 F.3 d 14 10 , 14 13 -1 4 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ). W e ha ve al so
he ld th a t t he go ve rn m en t’s pu rch as e of crac k co cai ne , rat he r th an po wde r co cai ne , fro m a de fen da nt was no t se nt en ci ng m an ip ul at io n, ev en th ou gh th e de ci si on res ul te d

in a lo ng er se nt en ce fo r th e de fen da nt

. Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 45 6 F.3 d 13 53 , 13 70 -7 1 (1 1t h Cir

. 2006 ), ab ro ga te d on ot he r gr ou nd s by Kim br ou gh v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 85 , 93 (2 00 7)

. Fu rth er, we ha ve reject ed a de fen da nt ’s cl ai m of se nt en ci ng

m an ip ul at io n where a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t p ro vi de d t he de fen da nt wit h a fir earm

eq ui pp ed wit h a si le nc er, th e po ss es si on of whi ch tri gg ere d a man d a to ry m in im um

se nt en ce of 30 y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t. U n i t e d S t a t es v. Ci sz ko wsk i, 49 2 F.3 d 12 64 , 12 69 -7 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7)

. Den so n ha s no t sh own th at th e go ve rn m en t’s co nd uc t ro se to th e le ve l of

ex tra or di na ry m is co nd uc t. The ev id en ce sh ows th a t a co nf id en ti al so ur ce (“ CS”)
bo ug ht crac k co cai ne fro m Den so n th ree ti m es , each ti m e bu y in g an in c r e a se d

am ou nt

. Our pr ev io us ho ld in gs sh ow th at it wil l no t re c og ni ze se nt en ci ng

man ip ul at io n ba se d on th e go ve rn m en t’s de ci si on to pu rch as e a cert ai n su bs ta nc e

5fro m a de fen da nt or it s de ci si on s th at affe ct th e am ou nt of dr ug s th at are in vo lv ed in

a de f e n d a n t ’s of

fen se

. See San ch ez, 13 8 F.3 d at 14 13 -1 4; W il li am s, 45 6 F.3 d at
13 70 -7 1. In ad di ti on , we ha ve he ld th at th e go ve rn m en t’s co nd uc t di d no t ris e to th e
le ve l of ex tra or di na ry m is co nd uc t whe n it pr ov id ed th e co nt rab an d th at res ul te d in th e

se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t, an d he re, th e go ve rn m en t di d no t ev en pr ov id e Den so n wit h
th e crac k co cai ne th at res ul te d in hi s en ha nc ed se nt en ce. See Ci sz ko wsk i, 49 2 F.3 d

at 12 71

. W e wil l no t in fer ex tra or di na ry go ve rn m en ta l m is co nd uc t ba s e d on th e

go ve rn m en t’s de ci si on to pu rch as e crac k co cai ne fro m Den so n on th ree o c c as io ns ,

ev en if th is de ci si on di d res ul t in Den so n rece iv in g a lo ng er se nt en ce. See W il li am s,
45 6 F.3 d at 13 71

. Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in re je c t i ng Den so n’s

se nt en ci ng m an ip ul at i o n arg um en t, co rrec tl y cal cu la te d Den so n’s gu id el in e ran ge

an d, as di sc us se d be lo w, pr op erl y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) s e n t e nc in g fact or s, hi s

se nt en ce was pro ced ur al ly reaso na bl e. 2

The state c ourt ca se De nson cites in support of his sentenc ing ma nipulation arg ument is 2 irrele vant bec ause f

eder al law, not state la

w, controls De nson’s sentenc ing unde r the Sentenc ing Guidelines. See U nited States v. Mader a-Ma dera , 333 F.3d 1228, 1231 n.2 ( 11th Cir. 2003) (“F eder al law, not state la w, controls the a

pplication of the Sentenc ing G uidelines”). A s for Denson’s a

rg ument that the g overnme nt eng ag ed in sentenc ing ma nipulation by

holding him
acc ountable for

marijuana

and powde r coc aine that he was twice observe d with, that also fails since the g overnme nt did not hold Denson acc ountable for these drug s. Rather, it was the probation off

icer in the PSI and the c ourt at sentenc ing tha t determined the amount of drug s attributable to De nson. Be cause a cla im of sentencing fac tor manipulation focuse s on the g overnme nt’s conduct, De nson has fa iled to show that the g overnme nt eng ag ed in extraordinar y misconduct in this reg ard. See Doca mpo, 573 F.3d at 1097.

6W e al so re je c t D e ns on ’s cl ai m th at hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. As pr ev io us ly di sc us se d, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err i n f a i l i n g to

co ns id er th e go ve rn m en t’s al le ge dl y im pr op er co nd uc t in bu y in g dr ug s fro m Den so n

on se ve ral oc cas io ns

. Fu rth erm or e, th e di st ric t co u r t ’s se nt en ce of 26 2 m on th s’
im pr is on m en t was on th e lo w en d of th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e im pr is on m en t ran ge of

26 2 to 32 7 m on th s, an d we wou ld or di na ril y ex pe ct su ch a se nt en ce to be reas on ab le

. See Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d at 78 8. In ad di ti on , hi s se nt en ce of 26 2 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t

was well be lo w th e st at ut or y m ax im um te rm of li fe im

pr is on m en t. See Uni te d St at es

v. Gon zal ez, 55 0 F.3 d 13 19 , 13 24 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ) (co nc lu di ng th at th e se nt en ce was

reas on ab le in pa rt be cau se it was well be lo w th e st at ut or y m ax im um ), cert

. de ni ed , 12 9 S .Ct. 2 84 8 (2 00 9)

. The di st ric t co ur t, m or eo ve r, ex pr es sl y sa id th at it co ns id ered al l of th e fact or s

co nt ai ne d wit hi n § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) an d th at it ha d gi ve n “ a lo t of th ou gh t” to Den so n’s

arg um en t fo r a be lo w-g ui de li ne se nt en ce. See Tall ey , 43 1 F.3d at 78 6. The di st ric t

co ur t al so di sc us se d, i n d e p t h, th e ap pl ic at io n of se ve ral of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,
in cl ud in g Den so n’s fam il ia l ci r c u ms t an ces , hi s pa st cri m in al co nd uc t, an d th e
ci rcu m st an ces of th e of

fen se s th at le d to Den so n be in g cl as si fie d as a care er of fen de r.
See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) (1 ). The co ur t fu r th er no te d th at th e se nt en ce av oi de d

un warra nt ed se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es wit h th e se nt en ces of ot he r de fen da nt s who were

7cl as si fie d as care er cri m in al s. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 6)

. The co ur t ack no wled ge d

th at it co ul d se nt en ce Den so n be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , bu t fo un d th at a
wit hi n- gu id el in e se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te gi ve n th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. See 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 3)

. Giv en th e du e co ns id erat io n to th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s de m on st rat ed by
th e di st ric t co ur t an d th e di sc ret io n th e co ur t is affo rd ed in ev al ua ti ng an d weig hi ng
th os e fact or s, 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 l o w - e nd

gu id el in e ran ge sen te nc e.
AFFIRMED.

8