FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 11806

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 8 0 0 5 0 - C R - DT KH 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 D A M O N A M E D E O , D e f e 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 f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 24, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T , an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: D a m o n A m e d e o ap p e a ls h is 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o llo w in g ag u ilty p le ato o n e c o u n t o f

c o c a in e d is tr ib u tio n o n th e g r o u n d s th a t ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ldThe underlying f acts a re set forth in our prior opinion in United States v. Amede o, 370 1 F.3d 1305 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (“Ame deo I”), a nd we do not re count them here. See id. at 1308-11. 2 h a v e r e c u s e d its e lf

f r o m h is r e s e n te n c in g ; ( 2 ) th e s e n te n c e v io la te d th e m a n d a te rul e; (3) the se nt ence vi ol at ed 18 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(g); (4) hi s due proces s r i gh t s w er e vi ol a t e d by the r e tr oa c t i ve appl i ca t i on of B oo ker; and (5) the se nt ence w as u n r e a s o n ab l e . Fo rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I . Ba c k g r o und O n F e brua ry 7, 2002, A m e de o w a s a rr e s t e d i n c onne c t i on w i th the de a th of D ougl a s R oz e l l e I I I . H e w a s l a t e rc ha r ge d i n ani ne - c ounts upe r c e di ng i ndi c tm e nt 1 w i th one c ounte a c h of

unl a w f ul drug us e w hi l e i n pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm , 18 U . S . C . § 922( g) ( 3) ; di s tr i but i on of c oc a i ne t o am i nor , 18 U . S . C . § 859; c oc a i ne di s tr i but i on, 21 U . S . C . § 841; pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m a r i j ua na , 21 U . S. C. § 8 4 1 ; a n d f

i v e c o u n t s o f

d i s tr i b u t i o n o f

ma r i j u a n at o ami n o r , 2 1 U . S. C. § 859. P ur s ua ntt o apl e aa gr e e m e nt , A m e de o pl e a de d gui l ty t o the c ountof di stri bu t i ng coca i ne t o a m i no r, 21 U . S . C . § 8 59 (a ), and the G ov ernm entdrop ped th e rem ai n i n g ch arg es. A ft erthe se nt enci ng hear i ng on F ebruary13 , 20 03 , the di stri ctcourt se nt ence d A m edeo t o 2 16 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entand ei gh tye ar s of s up ervi se d r e l e a s e , ba s e d on a n of

f e ns e l e ve l of

37; ac r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gory of I ; a nd e nha nc e m e nt s f

orvul ne r abl e vi c t i m , U . S . S . G . § 3A 1. 1, abus e of trus t , § 3B 1. 3, a ndThis court vac ated the § 5K2.8 depar ture (ex treme c onduct) ba sed on Amede o’s 2 eng ag ing in unprotected sexwith Roz elle despite be ing inf ecte d with hepatitis C. But this court affirmed thealtern ativ egroun d f

or thi s depa rt ure—Ame de o’ s f

ailureto c all 9 11 a fter Roze lle was unc onscious—beca

use Amede o failed to a

ppeal it. Amede o I , 370 F.3d at 1324 n.18. 3 obs truc t i on of

j us t i c e , § 3C 1. 1. T he s e nt e nc e a l s o i nc l ude d upw a r d de pa r tur e s on th e g r o u n d s th a t: ( 1 ) A m e d e o c o m m itte d th e o f f e n s e to f a c ilita te as e x u a l a s s au lt on R oz e l l e , § 5K 2. 9; ( 2) A m e de o’ s of f e ns e r e s ul t e d i n R oz e l l e ’ s de a th, § 5K 2. 1; ( 3) A m e de o e nga ge d i n e xtr e m e c onduc tby f a i l i ng t o s e e k m e di c a l he l p f or R o z e lle a n d b y h a v in g u n p r o te c te d s e x w ith R o z e lle d e s p ite b e in g in f e c te d w ith h ep at i t i s C , § 5 K 2 . 8 ; an d (4 ) A m ed eo d i stri b u t ed d ru g s t o m u l t i p l e m i n o rs, § 5K 2. 0. T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d A m e de o’ s r e que s tf orar e duc t i on ba s e d on ac ce pt ance of re spon si bi l i ty pursuantt o § 3E 1. 1(a) . A m edeo appeal ed the se nt ence t o thi s c ou rt , and o n M ay28 , 20 04 , thi s c ou rt af fi rm ed i n p art , vaca t ed i n p art , and rem anded for further procee di ng s. U ni t ed S ta te s v . A m e d e o , 3 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “A m e d e o I ” ) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , thi s c our ta f

f i rm e d a l l of

the e nha nc e m e nt s a nd the de ni a l of the a c c e pt a nc e - of

- r e s pons i bi l i ty r e duc t i on. I d. a t1316- 21. T hi s c our tva c a t e d the u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e s u n d e r§ § 5 K 2 .0 , 5 K 2 .1 , 5 K 2 .8 , a n d 5 K 2 .9 , o n th e g r o u n d s th a t: 2 A m edeo’ s N ov em ber 200 1 sexual as saul ton R ozel l e, hi s drug u se w i th m i no rs o th erth an R o ze ll e, h is Ja n u ar y 2 0 0 2 se x u al en co u n ters w ith R o ze ll e, an d R o ze ll e’s death w er e bey on d the sc op e of “ re l evantcond uct ” f or pu rposes of § 1 B 1. 3, asBur ns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 111 S.C t. 2182, 115 L .Ed.2d 123 (1991). 3 Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L .Ed.2d 403 (2004). 4 4 th e s e in c id e n ts d id n o t c o n s titu te a“c o m m o n s c h e m e o rp la n ” in c o n n e c tio n w ith A m e d e o ’s o f

f e n s e o f c o n v ic tio n . A m e d e o I , 3 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 3 - 2 4 . O n A u g u s t 2 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is s u e d aB u rn s n o tic e in d ic a tin g its 3 in te n tio n to c o n s id e ro n r e m a n d ad e p a r tu r e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .3 ( unde rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of

c r i m i na l hi s t ory ) . A nt i c i pa t i ng af or thc om i ng de c i s i on by the S upr e m e C our ta ddr e s s i ng the appl i c abi l i ty of B l a ke l y t o the S e nt e nc i ng

4 G ui del i nes, A m edeo fi l ed a m ot i on for acont i nu ance , w hi ch the di stri ctcourt g r a n te d . O n January12 , 20 05 , the S up re m e C ou rti ss ued i t s opi ni on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), w hi ch hel d, i nt er al i a, thatthe S ent enci ng G ui del i nes c ou l d n otbe i m po se d i n a m andat ory m anner, b u t th a t s e n te n c in g c o u r ts w e r e r e q u ir e d to c o n s id e rth e G u id e lin e s a lo n g w ith othe rs t a tut or i l y r e l e va ntf a c t or s . I d. a t258- 67, 125 S . C t . a t764- 69. T he B oo ker C ou rtal so hel d thatthi s r em edi al ho l di ng w as t o b e app l i ed t o cas es pe ndi ng on di r e c tr e vi e w . I d. a t268, 125 S . C t . a t769. O n F e brua ry 1, 2005, the di stri ctcourti ss ued an am ended n ot i ce of i t s i nt entt o con si der adeparture und er § 4A 1. 3 ba s e d on A m e de o’ s s e xua l c ont a c tw i th R oz e l l e . P r i ort o the r e s e nt e nc i ng5

hear i ng , A m edeo fi l ed a m ot i on re qu es t i ng thatthe di stri ctj ud ge re cuse hi m se l f, w hi c h the c our tde ni e d. A tthe re se nt enci ng hear i ng on M ar ch 11 , 20 05 , the di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed the G ui de l i ne s r a nge a t37- 46 m onths , de c i de d n o t t o i m po se an up w ar d d eparture, a n d f o u n d th a t th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e d id n o t r e f le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e c r im e in l i ghtof 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . T he c our the l d tha tB ooke rc ons t i tut e d a n e xc e pt i on t o the m a nda t e rul e , a s i tw a s a n i nt e rve ni ng “ r a di c a l c ha nge i n the l a w gove rni ng se nt enci ng gu i del i ne appl i ca t i on s” thatre qu i re d the courtt o app l y the G ui del i nes in a n a d v is o ry m a n n e rb y im p o s in g ar e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e in lig h t o f § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T h e c o u r t th e n im p o s e d as e n te n c e o f 1 2 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. I I . D i s c u s s i on A . R e c u s al f

r o m R e s e nt e nc i ng O n ap p eal , A m ed eo arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rterred i n fai l i n g t o recu se i t sel f fo r h i s resen t en ci n g . W e rev i ew a j u d g e’ s d eci si o n n o tt o recu se fo r an ab u se of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. B er ger, 37 5 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 27 (11th C i r. 20 04 ). S e c tio n 4 5 5 o f

T itle 2 8 o f

th e U .S . C o d e c r e a te s tw o c o n d itio n s f o rr e c u s a l. U ni t ed S t at es v. P att i , 33 7 F . 3d 13 17 , 13 21 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). F i rs t , § 4 55 (a ) p r o v id e s th a t aju d g e s h a ll d is q u a lif y h im s e lf in a n y p r o c e e d in g in w h ic h h is i m part i al i ty m i gh tre as on abl y be quest i on ed. 28 U . S . C . § 4 55 (a ). U nd er§ 4 55 (a ),6

r e c u s a l is ap p r o p r ia te o n ly if “a n o b je c tiv e , d is in te r e s te d , la y o b s e rv e rf u lly in f o rm e d o f th e f a c ts u n d e r ly in g th e g r o u n d s o n w h ic h r e c u s a l w a s s o u g h t w o u ld ent ert ai n a si gn i fi ca ntdo ub tabou tthe j ud ge’ s i m part i al i ty. ” P att i , 33 7 F . 3d at 1 3 2 1 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A n d “ju d ic ia l ru lin g s a lo n e a lm o s t n e v e rc o n s titu te av a lid ba s i s f orabi a s orpa r t i a l i ty m ot i on. ” L i t e ky v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 510 U . S . 540, 555, 1 1 3 S .C t. 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 5 7 , 1 2 7 L .E d .2 d 4 7 4 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S ec on d, § 4 55 (b) provi des thata j ud ge al so shal l di squal i fyhi m se l f w here , i nt eral i a, he a c tu a lly “ h a s ape r s ona l bi a s orpr e j udi c e c onc e rni ng apa r ty , or pe r s ona l know l e dge of

di s put e d e vi de nt i a ry f

a c t s c onc e rni ng the pr oc e e di ng. ” 28 U . S . C . § 455( b) ( 1) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . T he bi a s orpr e j udi c e “ m us tbe pe r s ona l a nd e xtr a j udi c i a l ; i tm us tde r i ve f r om s om e thi ng othe rtha n tha tw hi c h the j udge l e a rne d by pa r t i c i pa t i ng i n the c a s e . ” M c W hor t e rv. C i ty of B i rm i ngha m , 906 F . 2d 6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . “[ O ]p in io n s h e ld b y ju d g e s a s ar e s u lt of w ha tthe y l e a rne d i n e a r l i e rpr oc e e di ngs ” do not c o n s titu te b ia s o rp r e

ju d ic e . L i t eky, 51 0 U . S . at55 1, 11 4 S . C t . at11 55 . T hu s, “ [i ] thas l on g b ee n regarded as n o rm a l a n d p r o p e rf

o raju d g e to s it in th e s a m e c a s e u p o n r e m a n d , a n d to s it in s u c c e s s iv e tr ia ls in v o lv in g th e s a m e d e f e n d a n t.” I d . H e r e , A m e de o a s s e r t s both tha tthe r e w a s a n appe a r a nc e of i m pa r t i a l i ty a nd th atth ere w as actu al b i as o n th e p arto f th e d i stri ctco u rt . H e arg u es th ata fu l l y-7

in f o rm e d la y o b s e rv e rm ig h t r e a s o n ab ly c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in te n d e d to s e nt e nc e hi m above hi s G ui de l i ne s r a nge w i thoutr e ga r d t o w ha tw a s a uthor i z e d by l a w , a s e vi de nc e d by , i nt e ra l i a , ( 1) the publ i c na tur e of the i ni t i a l s e nt e nc i ng, ( 2) thi s c our t ’ s r e

j e c t i on of

tw o of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s upw a r d de pa r tur e s , ( 3) the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c ons i de r a t i on on r e m a nd of ne w upw a r d de pa r tur e s , a nd ( 4) the di stri ctcourt ’ s use of § 3 55 3(a) t o i m po se an up w ar d v ar i ance on the sa m e f ac tual b a s e s it h a d u s e d to s u p p o r t th e u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e s th is c o u r t h a d r e je c te d in A m edeo I. H e a l so cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s use of § 3 55 3(a) at re se nt enci ng w as a pre t extual m ea ns of se nt enci ng hi m abov e the G ui del i nes r ange, there by dem on stra t i ng the di stri ctcourt ’ s bi as . W e di sa gree . F ir s t, r e g a r d in g A m e d e o ’s in itia l s e n te n c in g , th is c o u r t o b s e rv e d th a t “[ i]t is c l e a rthe di s tr i c tc our tc onduc t e d the [ or i gi na l ] s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e e di ngs w i th the utm os tc a r e a nd s e ns i t i vi ty t o the pa r t i e s , a nd gr appl e d r i gor ous l y a nd consci ent i ou sl y w i th the chal l engi ng i ss ues pre se nt ed. ” A m edeo I, 37 0 F . 3d at 1325. A nd a l though both A m e de o’ s i ni t i a l s e nt e nc e a nd thi s c our t ’ s ove r turni ng of thatse nt ence w er e “ pu bl i c e vent s, ” nea rl y a l l fe dera l j ud i ci al proceedi ng s a re p u b lic a n d m o s t d is tr ic t c o u r ts h a v e s o m e o f th e irru lin g s o v e r tu rn e d o n ap p e a l. T he fa ctthatthe di stri ctcourton re m and con t i nu ed t o v i ew A m edeo’ s c on du ctas s uf f i c i e nt l y s e r i ous t o w a rr a ntas e nt e nc e above the G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s not8

i m p ro p er. In d eed , “ [i ] f th e j u d g e d i d n o tfo rm j u d g m en t s o f th e act o rs i n th o se c our t - hous e dr a m a s c a l l e d tr i a l s , he c oul d ne ve rr e nde rde c i s i ons . ” L i t e ky , 510 U . S . at55 1, 11 4 S . C t . at11 55 . A gai n, “ op i ni on s hel d b y j ud ges a s are sul tof w hat the y l e a rne d i n e a r l i e rpr oc e e di ngs ” do not c o n s titu te b ia s o rp r e

ju d ic e . I d . N othi ng i n the re cord dem on stra t es thatthe di stri ctcourthad d evel op ed a pe rs onal or ex tr a ju d ic ia l bi as agai nstA m edeo (pursuantt o § 45 5(b)(1)), se e M cW ho rt er , 906 F . 2d a t678, ortha taf ul l y - i nf orm e d l a y obs e rve rw oul d e nt e r t a i n as i gni f i c a nt doubtaboutthe di s tr i c tj udge ’ s i m pa r t i a l i ty ( pur s ua ntt o § 455( a ) ) , s e e P a tt i , 337 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 1 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s d e c is io n n o t to r e c us e hi m s e l f

w a s nota n abus e of

di s c r e t i on. B . T h e M a n d a t e R u le A m e de o ne xta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of as e nt e nc e above the G ui del i nes r ange vi ol at ed thi s c ou rt ’ s m andat e i n A m edeo I because the di stri ct co u rt co n sid er ed co n d u ct b ey o n d th e o ff en se o f c o n v icti o n , n am ely A m ed eo ’s N ov em ber 200 1 sexual as saul ton R ozel l e, hi s drug u se w i th m i no rs other than R o z e lle , h is J a n u a ry 2 0 0 2 s e x u a l e n c o u n te r s w ith R o z e lle , a n d R o z e lle ’s d e a th . W hether the di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed ou r m andat e i n A m edeo I i s aqu es t i on of l aw thatw e r evi ew de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. T am ay o, 80 F . 3d 15 14 , 15 18 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) .9

“T h e la w o f

th e c a s e d o c tr in e , s e lf

- im p o s e d b y th e c o u r ts , o p e r a te s to c r e a te ef ficien cy , fin ality[ ,] an d o b ed ien ce w ith in th e ju d icial sys tem ” s o th at “[a]n appe l l a t e de c i s i on bi nds a l l s ubs e que ntpr oc e e di ngs i n the s a m e c a s e . ” I d. a t1520 ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T he m a nda t e rul e i s s i m pl y a n appl i c a t i on of the l a w of

the ca se do ctri ne t o a spec i fi c s etof fa ct s. ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). A cc ordi ng l y, w hen a c t i ng unde ra n appe l l a t e c our t ’ s m a nda t e , adi s tr i c tc our t“ c a nnotva ry i t , or exam i ne i tfor a ny other purpo se than execut i on ; or gi ve any other or f urther r el i ef

; orr e vi e w i t , e ve n f

orappa r e nte rr or , upon am a tt e rde c i de d on appe a l ; or i nt e rm e ddl e w i th i t , f

ur the rtha n t o s e tt l e s o m uc h a s ha s be e n r e m a nde d. ” I d. (quo t i ng L i tm an v. M as s. M ut . L i fe Ins. C o. , 82 5 F . 2d 15 06 , 15 10 -11 (11 th C i r. 1987) ) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T he l a w of the c a s e doc tr i ne ( a nd, by i m pl i c a t i on, the m a nda t e rul e ) appl i e s t o f i ndi ngs m a de unde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes. S ee , e. g. , U ni t ed S t at es v. B ordo n, 42 1 F . 3d 12 02 , 12 07 -08 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( decl i ni ng t o con si der achal l enge t o a G ui del i nes c al cul at i on thatw as p r e v io u s ly r e v ie w e d a n d a f f irm e d b y th is c o u r t) . T hi s c ou rthas r ec og ni ze d three exce pt i on s t o the m andat e rul e: “ (1) a s u b s e q u e n t tr ia l p r o d u c e s s u b s ta n tia lly d if f e r e n t e v id e n c e , ( 2 ) c o n tr o llin g a u th o r ity ha s s i nc e m a de ac ontr a ry de c i s i on of l a w appl i c abl e t o tha ti s s ue , or( 3) the pr i or [app el l at e] deci si on w as cl ea rl y e rr on eous and w ou l d w ork m ani fe sti nj ust i ce . ”10

U ni t ed S t at es v. S t i nson , 97 F . 3d 46 6, 46 9 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). O n ap p e a l, A m e d e o c o n te n d s th a t th is c o u rt’s A m e d e o I m a n d a te n o t o n ly s tru c kth e u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e s , b u t al s o pr ohi bi t e d the di s tr i c tc our tf r om c o n s id e r in g th e f

a c tu a l b a s e s f

o rth e s e d e p a r tu r e s , n a m e ly , A m e d e o ’s d ru g u s e w ith R o z e l l e a n d o th e rm i n o r s , h i s s e x u a l c o n t a c twi th R o z e l l e , a n d R o z e l l e ’ s d e a th . He a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e in te rv e n in g d e c is io n in B o o k e rd o e s n o t q u a lif y a s ac h a n g e in c ontr ol l i ng author i ty s uf f i c i e ntt o a l l ow thi s c our t ’ s m a nda t e i n A m e de o I t o be exce eded on re m and b ec ause B oo ker “ w as no ta c hang e i n con trol l i ng l aw w hi ch m a de ac ontr a ry r e s ul tappl i c abl e , ” a nd thi s c our t ’ s or i gi na l de c i s i on i n A m e de o I w as n o tcl earl y erro n eo u s. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th e s e c o n d e x c e p tio n to th e m a n d a te ru le ap p lie s in th is ca se , as B oo ker c on st i tut ed an i nt erveni ng change i n the l aw of se nt enci ng that m ade acontra rydeci si on of l aw appl i cabl e. W e a gree thati m po si ng a G ui del i nes dep a rtu re ba s e d on a c t s tha tthi s c our tde e m e d be y ond the s c ope of r e l e va nt c onduc tunde r§ 1B 1. 3 w oul d ha ve vi ol a t e d the A m e de o I m a nda t e , a s , i nde e d, the offi ci al t i t l e of § 1B 1. 3 i s “ R el evantC on du ct(F ac t ors thatD et erm i ne the G ui de l i ne R ange ). ” U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 3 (em ph as i s a dd ed). B utaf t erB oo ker, w hi ch w as de c i de d a f ter A m edeo I, the di stri ctcourton re m and h ad the di sc re t i on t o i m po se a vari an ce— as e nt e nc e out s i de th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e — b a s e d o n th e f a c to r s s e t f

o r th11

i n § 35 53 (a ), i ncl ud i ng the defendant ’ s hi st ory a nd char ac t er i st i cs , the G ui del i nes ra ng e, af fordi ng adequat e det erre nce, and p rot ec t i ng the pu bl i c f rom further c ri m es o f th e d e f e n d a n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . M c V a y , 4 4 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . O n r e m a nd, the di s tr i c tc our tdi d noti m pos e a n upw a r d de pa r tur e , r a the r , the di s tr i c tc our tappl i e d B ooke r , a n i nt e rve ni ng c ha nge i n the l a w tha tm a de the G ui de l i ne s a dvi s ory , a nd i m pos e d as e nt e nc e ba s e d on i t s c ons i de r a t i on of the f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t o u r“r e le v a n t c o n d u c t” m andat e i n A m edeo I di d n otappl y t o the di stri ctcourt ’ s i m po si t i on of a vari an ce base d o n § 35 53 (a ), and there fore , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otvi ol at e our m andat e. C . 18 U . S . C . § 3742( g) A m e de o a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tvi ol a t e d 18 U . S . C . § 3742( g) ( 2) b y im p o s in g a n ab o v e - th e - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e o n b a s e s n o t c o n s id e r e d in h is or i gi na l s e nt e nc e . W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on of

the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a r a ka t , 130 F . 3d 1448, 14 52 (11th C i r. 19 97 ). S e c tio n 3 7 4 2 ( g ) ( 2 ) p r o v id e s th a t, a t r e s e n te n c in g , [ ad is tr ic t c o u r t] s h a ll n o t im p o s e as e n te n c e o u ts id e th e ap p lic ab le gui de l i ne s r a nge e xc e ptupon agr ound tha t

— ( A ) w a s s pe c i f i c a l l y a nd a f f i rm a t i ve l y i nc l ude d i n the w r i tt e n s t a t e m e ntof r e a s ons r e qui r e d by s e c t i on 3553( c ) i n c onne c t i on w i th the pr e vi ous s e nt e nc i ng of the de f e nda ntpr i ort o the appe a l ; a nd ( B ) w a s he l d by the c our tof appe a l s , i n r e m a ndi ng the c a s e , t o be ape rm i s s i bl e gr ound of12

departure. 18 U . S . C . § 3742( g) ( 2) . A m e de o’ s or i gi na l s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng w a s he l d on F e brua ry 13, 2003, a nd j udgm e ntw a s e nt e r e d on M a r c h 5, 2003. S e c t i ons 37 42 (g)( 2) and 3 55 3(c) w er e e nact ed on A pri l 30 , 20 03 . S ee P rose cut ori al R e m e di e s a nd O the rT ool s t o E nd the E xpl oi t a t i on of C hi l dr e n T oda y A c tof

2000, ( P R O T E C T A c t ) , P ub. L . N o. 108- 21, T i t l e I V , § 401, 117 S t a t . 650, 669- 71. T hi s c ou rthas notaddres se d w hether a nd ho w § 3 74 2(g)(2) appl i es t o cas es w he r e the or i gi na l s e nt e nc e w a s i m pos e d b ef o re the c urr e ntve r s i on of § 3742( g) ( 2) w as enac t ed. B utci rc ui t s thathave address ed thi s i ss ue have hel d that § 3 7 4 2 ( g ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ’s r e q u ir e m e n t r e g a r d in g aw r itte n s ta te m e n t o f r e a s o n s is i na pp l i cabl e i n the s e c i r c um s t a nc e s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ol e , 357 F . 3d 780, 786 (8th C i r. 20 04 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. D erbes, 36 9 F . 3d 57 9, 58 3-84 (1stC i r. 20 04 ); U n ite d S ta te s v . K o s ta k is , 3 6 4 F .3 d 4 5 , 5 3 ( 2 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . F o rin s ta n c e , in K o s ta k is , th e S e c o n d C ir c u it r e a s o n e d th a t “b e c au s e s u c h s ta tu to ry lim ita tio n s d id n o t e x is t a t th e tim e o f

” th e d e f e n d a n t’s in itia l s e n te n c in g , “n e ith e r[ th e d e f e n d a n t] northe s e nt e nc i ng c our tw e r e a w a r e tha tthe s e gr ounds c oul d be pr e c l ude d on r e m a n d .” K o s ta k is , 3 6 4 F .3 d a t 5 3 . R e ga r di ng the appl i c abi l i ty of § 3742( g) ( 2) , w e j oi n ours i s t e rc i r c ui t s a nd h o l d th atth i s p ro v i si o n d o es n o t appl y t o s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d b ef o re § 3742( g) ( 2)13

w a s e na c t e d. W e the r e f or e c onc l ude tha tA m e de o’ s s e nt e nc e on r e m a nd di d not v io la te § 3 7 4 2 ( g ) ( 2 ) .

D . E x P ost F acto A p p l i cati on of B oo k er a t R e s e nt e nc i ng A m e de o a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s e x pos tf a c t o appl i c a t i on of B o o k erto h is d etrim en t at res en ten cin g v io lated h is d u e p ro ce ss rig h ts. “ W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ad e f

e n d a n t’s c la im th a t h is s e n te n c e v io la te d e x p o s t f a c to pri nci pl es . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T ho m as , 44 6 F . 3d 13 48 , 13 50 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A s s t at ed abov e, i n B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thati t s r em edi al hol di ng, m a ki ng the G ui de l i ne s a dvi s ory , w a s t o be appl i e d t o c a s e s pe ndi ng on di r e c tr e vi e w . B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t268, 125 S . C t . a t769. I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D u n c a n , 4 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 6 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e r t. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 4 3 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , th is courtre j ec t ed the defendant ’ s a rgum entthatthe re troac t i ve appl i ca t i on of B oo ker to h is ca se w o u ldin cr ea se h is se n ten ce b ey o n d th at au th o rize d b y th e ju ry ’s v erd i ct , th ereb y o p erat i n g as an ex p o stfact o l aw i n v i o l at i o n o f h i s d u e p ro cess ri gh t s. D un ca n, 40 0 F . 3d at13 07 . W e r ea soned thatal tho ug h m andat ory G ui del i nes w er e i n p l ac e a tthe t i m e of the defendant ’ s c ri m i nal cond uct , “ the l aw of thi s C i r c ui tthe n r e c ogni z e d the U . S . C ode a s the s our c e of the m a xi m um s e nt e nc e . ” I d. a t1308 ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . A s s uc h, thi s c our the l d tha tthe d e f e n d a n t “h a d s u f

f ic ie n t w a rn in g to s a tis f

y ” d u e p r o c e s s c o n c e rn s . I d .14

H er e, A m edeo cont ends thatD un ca n i s notcontrol l i ng because he pre se rved hi s obj e c t i on be l ow , e nt i t l i ng hi m t o de novo r e vi e w , w he r e a s i n D unc a n, the i s s ue w a s c ons i de r e d on pl a i n e rr orr e vi e w . H e a l s o a r gue s tha tthi s c our t ’ s A m e de o I m a n d a te le f

t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w ith a n e x a c t G u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n th a t it s h o u ld have i m po se d and thatB oo ker w as appl i ed t o h i s detri m ent . H e f urther a rgues that be c a us e he pl e a de d gui l ty , he di d not have any re al i st i c not i ce or expect at i on that he c oul d be s e nt e nc e d t o 10 y e a r s . W e a r e unpe r s ua de d. F ir s t, A m e d e o ’s a tte m p t to d is tin g u is h D u n c a n a s a“p la in e rr o rc a s e ” is m i s pl a c e d, a s i tr e l i e s on apor t i on of the D unc a n opi ni on r e ga r di ng the s e nt e nc i ng c our t ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l e rr orof appl y i ng the G ui de l i ne s i n am a nda t ory f a s hi on ba s e d on j udi c i a l f

a c t f i ndi ng. S e e D unc a n, 400 F . 3d a t1299, 1304. T he por t i on of the op i ni on re

j ec t i ng the defendant ’ s e x p ostfa ct o cl ai m hel d thatthere w as no ex p o s t f a c to /d u e p r o c e s s v io la tio n , a n d th u s , n o e rr o rin th is r e g a r d . I d . a t 1 3 0 7 - 0 8 . M oreover, w e have appl i ed bo th the re as on i ng and h ol di ng of D un ca n i n cas es w h ere th e fai r w arn i n g / d u e p ro cess i ssu e w as n o t b e f o r e u s o n p la in e rr o rr e v ie w . S ee , e. g. , T ho m as , 44 6 F . 3d at13 54 -55. N ext , as di sc usse d abo ve, B oo ker w as an i nt erveni ng change i n the l aw m aki ng m andat ory app l i ca t i on of the G ui del i nes un l aw ful . F i nal l y, the t erm s of A m edeo’ s pl eadeal m ade c l ea r thatthe di stri ct c our tha d the a uthor i ty t o i m pos e as e nt e nc e up t o the s t a tut ory m a xi m um of 4015

y e a r s . T hus , A m e de o ha d s uf f i c i e ntw a rni ng t o s a t i s f

y e x pos tf

a c t o a nd due pr oc e s s c onc e rns . S e e D unc a n, 400 F . 3d a t1308. W e the r e f or e c onc l ude tha tthe r e tr o a c tiv e ap p lic a tio n o f B o o k e rto A m e d e o ’s c a s e d id n o t v io la te h is r ig h ts . E . R eason ab l en es s of t h e S en te n ce F i nal l y, A m edeo argues thathi s s ent ence of 12 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entw as un re as on abl e. W e r evi ew the se nt ence i m po se d for re as on abl enes s. U ni t ed S t at es v . C a s tr o , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 5 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . A ft ercorr ec t l y c al cul at i ng the advi soryG ui del i nes r ange, “ [a ] di stri ctcourt m a y im p o s e as e n te n c e th a t is e ith e rm o r e s e v e r e o rle n ie n t th a n th e s e n te n c e [ th is c our t ] w oul d ha ve i m pos e d, buttha ts e nt e nc e m us ts t i l l be r e a s onabl e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . O ur“ [ r ] e vi e w f or re as on abl enes s i s def

er ent i al , ” a nd “ the party w ho chal l enges the se nt ence bear s th e b u r d e n o f

e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in th e lig h t o f b o th [the] re cord and the fa ct ors i n sec t i on 35 53 (a ). ” I d. “ T he w ei gh tt o b e a cc orded a ny gi ve n § 3553( a ) f

a c t ori s am a tt e rc om m i tt e d t o the s ound di s c r e t i on of the di s tr i c tc our t [ , ] ” a nd “ [ w ] e w i l l nots ubs t i tut e ourj udgm e nti n w e i ghi ng the r e l e va ntf

a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1363 ( 11th C i r . 2006) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). “ A l tho ug h sent enci ng court s m ustbe gu i ded b y th ese factors, no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on the re cord that16

i tha s e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ort o di s c us s e a c h of the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s .” T h o m a s , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 5 7 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is in ori gi nal ). “ R ather, an ac kn ow l edgm entby the di stri ctj ud ge thathe or she has c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s w i l l s uf

f i c e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T urne r , 474 F . 3d 12 65 , 12 81 (11th C i r. 20 07 ). N on ethel es s, “ [t ] he re as on s gi ven b y the di stri ct courtfor i t s s el ec t i on of a s ent ence ar e i m po rt antt o ass es si ng re as on abl enes s. ” W illia m s , 4 5 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 1 . “A s e n te n c e b a s e d o n a n im p r o p e rf a c to rf a ils to ac hi eve the pu rposes of § 3 55 3(a) and m aybe un re as on abl e, re gardl es s of l ength. ” I d . R e g a r d in g th e f

a c to r s th a t m a y b e c o n s id e r e d in f a s h io n in g ar e a s o n ab le s e nt e nc e , 18 U . S . C . § 3661 pr ovi de s tha t“ [ n] o l i m i t a t i on s ha l l be pl a c e d on the i nf orm a t i on c onc e rni ng the ba c kgr ound, c ha r a c t e r , a nd c onduc tof ape r s on c onvi c t e d of

a n of f e ns e w hi c h ac our tof

the U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y r e c e i ve a nd c o n s id e rf

o rth e p u rp o s e o f

im p o s in g a n ap p r o p r ia te s e n te n c e .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 6 1 . A nd a f t e rB ooke r , “ c our t s m a y s t i l l c ons i de rr e l e va ntf a c t s c onc e rni ng a d e f e n d a n t’s b a c k g r o u n d , c h a r a c te r , a n d c o n d u c t” w h e n im p o s in g ar e a s o n ab le se nt ence . U ni t ed S t at es v. F aust , 45 6 F . 3d 13 42 , 13 48 (11th C i r. 20 06 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). A m edeo cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e bec ause (1) i tw as17

s u b s ta n tia lly g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry to m e e t th e g o a ls o f p u n is h m e n t s e t f

o r th in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ; ( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t im p r o p e r ly ig n o r e d m itig a tin g f a c to r s s u c h a s h is fi rs t -off ender s t atus, hi s vol un t ary s urre nd erof hi s l aw l i ce nse, hi s i nci dent -f re e i ncar ce ra t i on hi st ory, and h i s hi st ory of pub l i c s ervi ce ; and (3) the di stri ctcourt i m pr ope r l y r e l i e d on f

a c tua l f i ndi ngs tha tha d e i the rbe e n “ bui l ti nt o” the e nha nc e m e nt s s us t a i ne d on appe a l , orr e ve r s e d a s i nappr opr i a t e s e nt e nc i ng consi dera t i on s. W e di sa gree . H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d the G ui de l i ne s r a nge , a nd the court ’ s s t at em ent s duri ng the re se nt enci ng hear i ng and i n i t s r es ent enci ng order s how tha ti tc ons i de r e d the f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n § 3553( a ) . F ore xa m pl e , dur i ng the hear i ng , the courtem ph as i ze d i t s “ re spon si bi l i ty t o i m po se no grea t erse nt ence than i s r e qui r e d by the f

a c t or s s e tf

or th i n the gui de l i ne s a nd i n T i t l e 18, S e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” A nd i n the s e nt e nc i ng or de r , the c our ts t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d “ the part i cul arhi st ori ca l ci rc um st ance s a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant [, § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ] ” th a ti ti mp o s e d as e n t e n c e t o “ s a t i s f y th e d i c t a t e s o f

1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) [ , ] ” a nd tha ti tf ound “ [ A m e de o’ s ] s e nt e nc e t o be r e a s onabl e a nd nece ss ary t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c f rom further c ri m es of the defendant [, § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ], to r e f

le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e [ , § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ], to a f f or d a n a de qua t e l e ve l of de t e rr e nc e t o c r i m i na l c onduc t [ , § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( B ) ] , a nd18

t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf

orthe l a w [ , § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ] . ” A s s t a t e d above , i n i m pos i ng a re as on abl e s ent ence , the di stri ctcourtneed on l y “ ac kn ow l edge” thati t“ consi dere d the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s [ , ] ” T urne r , 474 F . 3d a t1281, a nd ne e d not di s c us s e a c h of these fa ct ors i n ei ther the se nt enci ng hear i ng or i n the se nt enci ng order, se e T ho m as , 44 6 F . 3d at13 57 . T hu s, al tho ug h the di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng order m ade no m ent i on of evi dence thatar gu abl y m i t i gat ed i n A m edeo’ s f avor un der § 3553( a ) , w e c a nnots a y tha tthe c our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o di s c us s thi s “ m i t i ga t i ng” e v id e n c e m e a n s th a t th e c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly “ig n o r e d ” o rf a ile d to c o n s id e rth is e vi de nc e i n de t e rm i ni ng A m e de o’ s s e nt e nc e . M or e i m por t a nt , A m e de o ha s not pe r s ua de d us tha tthe r e s ul t i ng s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the pa r t i c ul a r l y e gr e gi ous c i r c um s t a nc e s of thi s c a s e a nd the l i m i t e d m i t i ga t i ng va l ue of the evi dence he pres ent ed. A dd i t i on al l y, as di sc usse d abo ve, w e c on cl ud e that thi s c ou rt ’ s m andat e i n A m edeo I d id n o t pr ohi bi tthe di s tr i c tc our tf r om consi deri ng cond uctsuch as A m edeo’ s drug u se w i th o ther m i no rs , hi s s exual cont ac tw i th R ozel l e, and R ozel l e’ s dea th i n i m po si ng a var i ance ba s e d on the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . A n d a s f

o rA m e d e o ’s a r g u m e n t th a t c e r ta in a s p e c ts o f h is cond uct(s uch as the abuse of the att orney- cl i entre l at i on shi p) had al re ady bee n c ons i de r e d i n i m pos i ng a n e nhanc e m e nt u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .3 , A m e d e o p o in ts to no a uthor i ty tha tde e m s i ti m pe rm i s s i bl e f orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o a l s o ha ve19

c o n s id e r e d th is c o n d u c t in im p o s in g av a r ia n c e in lig h t o f th e f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . I n o u rv ie w , b a s e d o n th e e x tr a o r d in a ry c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e , it w as re as o n ab le fo r th e d istrict co u rt to re ly o n ce rtain as p ec ts o f A m ed eo ’s cond uct , part i cul ar l y hi s abu se of the att orney- cl i entre l at i on shi p, thati thad al re ady c on si dere d i n i m po si ng an enhancem ent . W e there fore concl ud e that A m e d e o ’s s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le . I I I . C on c l u s i on F or the foregoi ng re as on s, w e AF F I RM .The district cour t’s order makes no mention of the de ath as having be en amongthe 1 fac tors upon which it relied to impose an a bove-Guidelines sentenc e on remand. Although the judgeacknowledg ed the f act that Rozelle had died, heexpressly rec ognized that the death wa s not a par t of the off

ense of conviction, as weheld in Amedeo I . 370 F.3d at 1323 (11th Cir. 2006). More over, when the judg e discussed theevents that hedid consider in fa shioning the sentenc e, he made no mention of Rozelle’s death. In Ame de o I , w eob serv e d th at, whil eit w a s p os sib lethat Ame de o c ould b esepa rate ly 2 charg ed with Rozelle’s death, his offense of c onviction did not encompass Amede o’s death for sentenc ing pur

poses. I d. On remand, the district judg e did not make a ny findingthat Amedeo was re sponsible for Rozelle’s death, even though he of c ourse acknowledg ed the trag edy of the death at the sentenc ing he aring . There fore , Ido not believe that Rozelle’s death would have been a permissible factor under § 3553( a) f or distributing c ocaineto a minor. 20 B A R K E T T , C i r c ui tJ udge , s pe c i a l l y c onc urr i ng: I a g r e e th a t th e s e n te n c e in th is c a s e is r e a s o n ab le u n d e rth e e s p e c ia lly egre gi ou s f

ac t s of thi s c as e. I do n otagre e w i th A m edeo thatthe di stri ctcourt re l i ed on R ozel l e’ s dea th i n fas hi on i ng A m edeo’ s s ent ence . H ad the courtre l i ed 1 on the death, I w ou l d h ave f ou nd thi s t o b e a n i m perm i ss i bl e f ac t or. 2 M or e ove r , a l though the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e nt e nc i ng or de rm a de no m e nt i on of evi dence thatm i t i gat ed i n favor of A m edeo w i th res pectt o the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors ( n a m e ly e v id e n c e p e r ta in in g to h is h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s ) , th e r e c o r d c le a r ly show s thatthe di stri ctj ud ge sol i ci t ed i np utfr om defe nse c ou nsel and h ea rd ext ensi ve ar gu m enton the m i t i gat i ng evi dence. T he re cord do es no tsupp ort A m edeo’ s c l ai m thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otconsi der m i t i gat i ng evi dence or that the r e s ul t i ng s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof the pa r t i c ul a r l y e gr e gi ous c i r c um s t a nc e s of

thi s c a s e a nd the l i m i t e d m i t i ga t i ng va l ue of the e vi de nc e he21

p r e s e n te d . W hi l e w e w i l l gi ve due de f e r e nc e t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s w e i ghi ng of the re l evantfa ct ors und er§ 3 55 3(a) , a di sc ussi on by the di stri ctcourtof the fa ct ors be i ng w e i ghe d a nd c ons i de r e d s i gni f i c a nt l y a i ds appe l l a t e r e vi e w a s “ [ t ] he r e a s ons gi ve n by the di s tr i c tc our tf ori t s s e l e c t i on of

as e nt e nc e a r e i m por t a ntt o a s s e s s i ng r e a s o n ab le n e s s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . W illia m s , 4 5 6 F .3 d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . I f i nd that , i n thi s c as e, the di stri ctcourtdi d adequ at el y s etforth the fa ct ors w e ig h e d a n d c o n s id e r e d . T here fore , I c on cur.