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 ay18,2007 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. J AM ES LYNN HI LL, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6276 ( D. Ct . No . 0 6 - CR- 9 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

____________________________ 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 the 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 ythator 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 j uryconvi ct ed A ppel l antJ ames Lynn H i l l of one c ountof bei ng a fe l onT he drug par aphernal i a i ncl uded tw o gl as s pi pes w i th w hi t e drug r es i due, 1 a s e t o f e le c tr o n ic s c a le s , a n d s e v e ra l e m p ty zi p -l o c k b a g s . -2- in p o ss e ss io n o f

a fire a rm , in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). H e n o w a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e , arg u in g in su fficie n t ev id e n c e su p p o rts h is c o n v ictio n ; th e fe d e ra l fe lo n -in -p o ss e ss io n sta tu te, 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), is u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l ; a n d h i s 1 2 0 - mo n th s e n t e n c e i s u n r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m M r. H ill’ s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . I . Factual B ackgr ound O n A p r i l 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , a p o l i c e o ffi c e ri n d o w n t o w n O k l a h o m a C i ty, O kl ahoma, s t opped a c arforfai l i ng t o have a t ag l i ght . T he occ upant s i ncl uded the d ri v er, as w ell as M r. H il l, w h o w as th e f ron t seat pa ssen g er, an d M r. H il l’ s g ir lfri en d , w h o o cc u p ied th e b ac k sea t. A fter rec eivin g ea ch o cc u p an t’ s i d e n t i fi c a t i o n , t h e o ffi c e rg o ti n t o h i s p a tr o l c a rt o ru n a b a c k g r o u n d c h e c k . At thatt i m e M r . H i l l j um ped outof the ca rand r an aw aycarry i ng a bac kpack. T he offi cerfol l ow ed on footunt i l M r . H i l l r ounded a c or nerand the off i cerl os ttr ack of hi m . A tt hatcornerthe patr ol offi cers t opped and s ear ched the ar ea, i ncl udi ng a l ar ge tr as h can, w her e he found the bac kpack. T he bac kpack c ont ai ned a l oaded re v o lv e r, d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia, a n d M r. H ill ’s ta x re tu rn d o c u m e n ts, to g e th e r w ith 1 s o m e o f h is g ir lf

ri e n d ’s p a p e rs .-3-

A tt r i al , a fe der al agentt es t i fi ed thatbas ed on hi s tr ai ni ng and r es ear ch the fi r earm , s t amped w i th the w or ds “A r m s C o. , N as hvi l l e, T ennes s ee, ” w as m anufa ctur ed i n N as hvi l l e, T ennes s ee, s om et i m e betw een 1968 a nd 1978 and p re v io u slyc ro ss e d sta te lin e s in to O k lah o m a . P rio r to tes tify in g , M r. H ill s t i p u l a t e d h e h a d p r e v i o u s l yb e e n c o n v i c t e d i n Ok l a h o ma s t a t e c o u r to f a c r i me puni s habl e byi m pr i s onm entfora t erm exce edi ng one y ear . M r . H i l l al s o t es t i fi ed a t trial, cla im in g h is g irlfr ien d p u t th e b a c k p a c k in th e c a r a n d h e o n lyto o k it w hen he r an bec aus e s he as ked hi m t o t ake i t . W hi l e he s t at ed he ha d nevers een the gun i ns i de the bac kpack, M r . H i l l admi t t ed he kne w the bac kpack c ont ai ned d ru g p a ra p h e rn a lia a n d th a t is w h yh e p u t itin th e tra sh c a n . F o llo w in g h is t es t i m ony , M r . H i l l ’ s gi r l fr i end t es t i fi ed s he s aw M r . H i l l w i th a s i m i l arorthe s ame fi r earm one ort w o day s befor e the i nci dentand deni ed s he t ol d hi m t o t ake th e b a c k p a c k b e fo re h e ra n o ff. A tt he conc l us i on of the evi dence and ar gum ent s , M r . H i l l gener al l ym oved forj udgm entof ac qui tt al , w hi ch the di s tr i ctcour toverrul ed. Fol l ow i ng del i ber at i ons , a j uryfound M r . H i l l gui l tyof bei ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fir e a rm , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ).-4- I I . Pr ocedur al B ackgr ound P ri o r t o sen tenc ing , a p rob ati o n o fficer p rep are d a p rese n tenc e re p o rt cal cul at i ng M r . H i l l ’ s s ent ence underthe appl i cabl e U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G uidel i nes (“G uidel i nes” or “U . S . S . G . ”). T he p robat i on offi cer s ethis base o ffe n se lev e l at tw e n ty -fo u r p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .1 (a )(2 ) b e c a u se M r. H ill comm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e s ubs equentt o s us t ai ni ng tw o fel onyconvi ct i ons for co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce o ffen ses. T h e p rob ati o n o fficer the n incre ase d M r. H il l’ s b ase leve l fo u r l ev els p u rsua n t t o § 2 K 2 . 1 (b)(5 ) be ca u se h e p o sses sed the fir ea rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith th e fe lo n yo ffe n se o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m ethamphet ami ne, r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw enty - ei ght . T he pr es ent ence r eportal s o s etM r . H i l l ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryatV I , w hi ch, t ogetherw i th an offens e l evel of tw enty - ei ght , r es ul t ed i n an advi s oryG ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange of

140 t o 175 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . H ow ever , as the pr obat i on o ffi c e rp o i n t e d o u t , t h e ma x i mu m t e r m o f i mp r i s o n me n tu n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 (a )(2 ), fo r v io latio n o f § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), w a s te n y e a rs, o r 1 2 0 m o n th s, w h ich is le s s th a n th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s ra n g e . M r. H ill filed a se n ten c in g m e m o ra n d u m in w h ich h e c laim e d h e sh o u ld r e c e i v e a s e n t e n c e o f

o n l yfi v e y e a r s p r o b a t i o n b a s e d o n th e fa c t o r s i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 55 3(a) . In suppo rt , he p rovi ded a dis cussi on of h i s hi st oryand charact eri st i cs,I n t he mem or andum M r . H i l l gener al l yr ecount s : 1) hi s fatherdi ed w hen 2 he w as t en y ear s ol d; 2) he r el ocat ed t o anothers chool w her e he di d notfi ti n due t o hi s rur al acc entand l ack of “cool ” cl othes , exper i ence d s us pens i ons and expul s i ons due t o hi s conduct , and as s oci at ed w i th m i s fi t s ; 3) hi s m other r emar r i ed, caus i ng hi m t o m ove and e nt eranothers chool w her e he be gan us i ng drugs , hi s gr ades dr opped, and he goti nt o tr oubl e, i ncl udi ng arr es tand i ncar cer at i on thr ough a D epart m entof C orr ect i ons pr ogr am; 4) he bega n us i ng coca i ne and methamphet ami ne att he age of ni net een; 5) hi s gr andfa therpas s ed aw ay , caus i ng hi m t o go on a drug bi nge and ge tarr es t ed; 6) he obt ai ned var i ous j obs , butdue t o i nt erveni ng drug- r el at ed arr es t s he l os tt hos e j obs and w as i ncar cer at ed; and 7) he has r ece i ved ment al heal th car e and drug abus e couns el i ng a n d ta k e s p re s c ri p tio n m e d ic a tio n to h e lp w ith h is m e n ta l h e a lth is s u e s . -5- i ncl udi ng a gener al di s cus s i on of hi s fami l y hi s t or y . H e al s o acknow l edged the 2 s er i ous nes s of hi s offe ns e and thathe mustbe puni s hed, not ed hi s i nt ent i on t o be l aw - abi di ng i n t he futur e, admi t t ed t o pr i ors er i ous s ubs t ance abus e pr obl ems, and i ndi cat ed he w oul d benef i tfr om s ubs t ance and ment al heal th couns el i ng and edu cat i on al and vo cat i on al trai ning. A tt he sentenci ng heari ng , M r. H i l l al so acknow l edged a nyfutur e cr i m i nal conductbyhi m w oul d have de tr i m ent al c o n s e q u e n c e s a n d a s k e d fo rl e n i e n c yb a s e d o n h i s c o mp l e t i o n o f a d ru g p r o g r a m, pos i t i ve att i tude t ow ar d t he futur e, des i r e t o r eturn t o s oci ety , and new - found re s p e c t fo r t h e la w . A fter h ea ri n g an d co n side ri n g the p arti es’ a rgu m en ts, the d istri ct co u rt s t at ed i thad r evi ew ed the pr es ent ence r eportand cons i der ed the t es t i m ony , t he p a rties ’ a rg u m e n ts, a n d M r. H ill ’s s tate m e n t an d su b m iss io n . It fu rth e r sta ted it h a d c o n sid e re d th e se n ten c in g fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 a n d th a t w h ile it-6-

under s t ood the G ui del i nes ar e advi s or y , i tbel i eved theyw er e appr opr i at e i n the i ns t antcas e. T he di s tr i ctcourtfur thers t at ed M r . H i l l w as obvi ous l yan in tellig e n t an d a rticu late p e rso n , b u t th a t itc o u ld n o t b e sy m p a th e tic to h is r eques t s beca us e he ha d atl eas tni ne pr i orarr es t s . I tal s o i ndi cat ed thats uch a backgr ound and r ecor d r efl ect ed the nee d forhi s i ncar cer at i on t o keep hi m off the s tr e e t s . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tf u r th e rs t a t e d i th o p e d M r . Hi l l wo u l d s o me d a yb e c o me a produ ct i ve m em ber of society , bu tpo i nted out that hi s i nst ant offense w as a danger ous one i nvol vi ng drugs and w eapons . I tthen s ent ence d M r . H i l l t o 120 m o n th s in p ri s o n . I I I . D i s cus s i on O n appea l , M r . H i l l r ai s es thr ee i s s ues . Fi r s t , r el y i ng on hi s m ot i on for acqui t t al , he cont ends i ns uffi ci entevi dence s uppor t s the j ury ’ s gui l tyver di ctand h is s u b se q u e n t co n v ictio n b e c a u se th e e v id e n c e d id n o t p ro v e h e k n o w in g ly pos s es s ed the fi r earm i n the bac kpack orthatthe fi r earm w as “i n oraffect i ng comm er ce. ” Second, he s ugges t s the fe der al fel on- i n- pos s es s i on s t atut e, 18 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), is u n c o n stitu tio n a l, alth o u g h h e a d m its h e d id n o t ra ise th is cl ai m befor e the di s tr i ctcourtand ac know l edges hi s ar gum enti s for ecl os ed by thi s court ’ s deci s i on i n Un itedS ta tes v . D o rr is , 2 3 6 F .3 d 5 8 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). H o w e v e r, h e s u g g e s ts th re e S u p re m e C o u rt c a s e s , Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es , 529 U .S . 8 4 8 (2 0 0 0 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Mor r is on , 529 U . S. 598 ( 2000) ; and Uni t ed-7-

Stat es v. Lopez , 514 U . S. 549 ( 1995) , w hen cons i der ed t ogether , “s i gnal [] di s comfortw i th the expa ns i on of fe der al cr i m i nal s t atut es i nt o the pr ovi nce of wh a th a s t r a d i t i o n a l l yb e e n s t a t e p o l i c e p o we r , ” th e r e b yr e n d e r i n g 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ) u n c o n stitu tio n a l. L a stly , M r. H ill a rg u e s h is 1 2 0 -m o n th se n ten c e is unr eas onabl e and gr eat erthan nec es s aryt o compl yw i th the di r ect i ves i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . I n m aki ng thi s ar gum ent , he gene r al l ycont ends hi s hi s t or yand c h a ra c ter istics m a k e h is 1 2 0 -m o n th se n ten c e e x c e ss iv e a n d sim p lyre fe rs th is c o u rt to h is s e n te n c in g m e m o ra n d u m file d in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt .

A . Suffi ci encyof Evi dence t o Suppor tC onvi ct i on O u r sta n d a rd o f

re v iew o n th e iss u e o f su fficie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to s uppor ta convi ct i on i s s etfor th i n Un itedS ta tes v . Se lls , 4 7 7 F . 3 d 1 2 2 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ): W e r evi ew de novo w hetherthe governm entpr es ent ed s uffi ci ent e v id e n c e to su p p o rt a c o n v ictio n . In so d o in g , w e v iew th e fa c ts in evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the governm ent . W e w i l l not w ei gh confl i ct i ng evi dence ors econd- gues s the fa ct - fi ndi ng deci s i ons o f th e jury . R athe r, o u r role is l im it ed to d eterm ining w h ethe r a r eas onabl e j urycoul d fi nd gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , bas ed on th e d ire c t an d c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e , tog e th e r w ith th e re a so n a b le i n fe r e n c e s t o b e d r a wn th e r e f r o m. Id. a t 1 2 3 5 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ).

T o e sta b lish M r. H ill v io late d 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ), th e g o v e rn m e n t h a d to-8-

pr ove: 1) he had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed of a fel ony ; 2) he ther eaf t er know i ngl ypos s es s ed a f i r earm ; and 3) s uch pos s es s i on w as i n oraffect ed in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e b yc ro s s in g s ta te lin e s . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Jam es on , 478 F. 3d 1204, 1208- 09 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . O f thes e thr ee e lem e n ts, M r. H ill d isp u tes w h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t p ro v e d h e k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d a fir e a rm a n d th a t it a ffe c te d in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . W e have r epea t edl yhel d that“pos s es s i on can be actual orcons truct i ve. ” Id. at1209. “A ctual pos s es s i on exi s t s w hen a pe r s on has di r ectphy s i cal contr ol overa fi r earm ata gi ven t i m e, ” w hi l e “[ c] ons truct i ve pos s es s i on exi s t s w hen a per s on ‘ know i ngl yhol ds t he pow erand abi l i tyt o exer ci s e domi ni on and contr ol overa fi r earm . ’ ” Id. (cit ati o n s an d alt era ti o n o m itted). M o reo v er, a d efen d an t’ s p o sses sion o f a firearm n ee d n o t be len g thyfo r co n v ict ion u n d er § 9 2 2 (g); i nst ead, know i ng po sses si on “for a m ere s econ d o r tw o” is suffici ent t o im po se c ri m in a l lia b ility. S e e Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 1 1 8 8 , 1 1 9 4 (10 th C ir . ), cer t . deni ed, 12 6 S . C t . 17 8 (200 5). T o the ext ent M r. H i l l i s cl ai m i ng this w as a j oi ntoccupa ncys i tuat i on, w e have s ai d know l edge, dom i ni on, and contr ol m ay n o t b e in fe rr e d s im p ly b yp ro x im ity to th e fir e a rm . Jam es on , 478 F. 3d at1209 . I ns t ead, the governm entm us tpr ove ei theractual pos s es s i on orcons truct i ve pos s es s i on thr ough evi dence s how i ng s om e conne ct i on ornexus betw een the d e fe n d a n t a n d th e fir e a rm . Id.-9-

I n thi s cas e, w hen M r . H i l l r an fr om the ca r , he phy s i cal l yt ook the backpa ck cont ai ni ng the l oaded r evol ver . E ven i f w e vi ew thi s as a j oi nt occupa ncys i tuat i on, M r . H i l l t ook actual pos s es s i on of the fi r earm w hen he f l ed w i th the bac kpack, and an obvi ous nexus exi s t s , as demonstr at ed byM r . H i l l ’ s t ax r eturn document s bei ng i n the s ame backpac k w i th the l oaded f i r earm . U nder th e se fa c ts, it w a s n o t u n re a so n a b le fo r th e ju ryto c o n c lu d e h e k n o w in g ly p o s s e s s e d th e g u n . I n addi t i on, the j uryobvi ous l ycr edi t ed hi s gi r l fr i end’ s t es t i m onys he s aw hi m w i th a s i m i l arorthe s ame fi r earm j us ta dayortw o befor e the i ns t ant o ffe n se . W h ile M r. H ill tes tifie d h e to o k th e b a c k p a c k a t h is g irlfr ien d ’s r e q u e st, w e w i l l notw ei gh confl i ct i ng evi dence ors econd- gues s the fa ct fi ndi ng deci s i ons o f th e ju ry , w h ich c lea rlyc re d ited h e r c o n tra rytes tim o n ya n d d isc re d ited h is tes tim o n y , d e sp ite th e fa c t th e b a c k p a c k a lso c o n tain e d so m e p a p e rs b e lo n g in g to her . U nderthe ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed, w e ca nnots ayi tw as unr eas onabl e for th e j u ryt o c o n c l u d e M r . Hi l l k n o wi n g l yp o s s e s s e d th e fi r e a r m.

W e n e x t tu rn to M r. H ill ’s c laim in su fficie n t ev id e n c e p ro v e d th e re q u isite in ter sta te c o m m e rc e e lem e n t. A s w e h a v e e x p lain e d b e fo re , the in ter sta te c o m m e rc e re q u ire m e n t is sa tisfied b yp ro o f th e fire a rm p o ss e ss e d h a d p re v io u sly tr a v e le d in in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . S e e Wi l l i a ms , 403 F. 3d at1195. I n thi s cas e, t he-10-

g o v e rn me n t ’ s e x p e r twi tn e s s t e s t i fi e d th e fi r e a r m, s t a mp e d wi th th e wo r d s “ Ar ms Co . , Na s h v i l l e , Te n n e s s e e , ” wa s ma n u fa c tu r e d i n Na s h v i l l e , Te n n e s s e e , s o me t i me betw een 1968 a nd 1978 and pr evi ous l ycr os s ed s t at e l i nes i nt o O kl ahoma. Pr oof th e fire a rm w a s m a n u fa c tu re d in T e n n e ss e e a n d p o ss e ss e d b yM r. H ill in O k la h o m a is s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h th e re q u ir e d n e x u s w ith in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . Id. T hus , s uch evi dence w as s uffi ci entforthe j ur yt o r eas onabl yconcl ude the fi r earm cr os s ed s t at e l i nes . Forthes e r eas ons , M r . H i l l has notes t abl i s hed insu ffici en t evid en ce su p p o rt s h is co n v ict ion u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ).

B . C ons t i tut i onal i tyof 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) M r. H ill n e x t ar g u e s th e fe d e ra l fe lo n -in -p o ss e ss io n sta tu te is u n c o n stitu tio n a l – a n iss u e h e ra ise s to p re se rv e o n a p p e a l, ev e n th o u g h h e a d m its h e d id n o t ra ise th is c laim b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt a n d a c k n o w led g e s h is ar gum enti s for ecl os ed byt hi s court ’ s deci s i on i n Un itedS ta tes v . D o rr is . G ener al l y , w e do notaddr es s ar gum ent s pr es ent ed forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al and fin d n o re a s o n to d e v ia te f ro m th a t g e n e ra l ru le in th is a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Mora , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). E v en if w e c o n side red M r. H il l’ s ar gum ent , i ti s the s ame ar gum entpat ent l yr ej ect ed byourdeci s i on i n D o rr is , in w hi ch w e hel d the s ame Supre m e C our tcas es r el i ed on byM r . H i l l di d notr ender 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) uncons t i tut i onal orr equi r e thi s cour tt o overtur n pr i or p re c e d e n t. S e e D o rr is , 236 F. 3d at584- 86 ( di s cus s i ng Jones v. Uni t ed Stat es ,1 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: 3 ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t or yand 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 ectthe s er i ous nes s of the offens e, t o pr om ot e r es pect forthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entfort he 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 ) to p ro tec t th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal tr ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothercorr ect i onal tr ea tm en t i n the m o st effec ti 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 th 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 . -11- Uni t ed Stat es v. Mor r is on , and Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez ).

C . R eas onabl enes s of Sent ence Fi nal l y , M r . H i l l cont ends hi s 120- m onth s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e and g rea ter th an n ec essa ryto co m p lyw ith the d ir ec ti v es in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a), 3 bas ed on hi s hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs . I n hi s s ubm i s s i on, M r . H i l l s um m ar i zes h i s l i fe , d e s c r i b i n g h i s fa m i l y c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d c r i m i n a l a n d d ru g h i s t o ry, i n c l u d i n g : 1 ) th e d e a th o f h i s fa th e rwh e n h e wa s t e n ; 2 ) h i s r e l o c a t i o n t o t wo di ffe r ents chool s w her e he di d notfi ti n, as s oci at ed w i th a bad c r ow d, r ece i ved b a d g ra d e s, b e g a n u sin g d ru g s, a n d g o t in to tro u b le w ith a u th o rities ; 3 ) h is p ro b lem s w ith d ru g s a s a n a d u lt an d h is d ru g -re late d a rre sts w h ich c a u se d h im to-12-

l ose vari ou s j ob s; and 4) hi s m ental health an d d rug t reatm ent, i ncludi ng his use o f p re s c ri p tio n m e d ic a tio n to h e lp w ith m e n ta l h e a lth is s u e s . W e begi n bypoi nt i ng outM r . H i l l ’ s 120- m onth s ent ence i s the maxi m um s t atut oryt erm of i m pr i s onm entunder18 U . S. C . § 924( a) ( 2) , w hi ch i s l es s than th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s s e n te n c in g ra n g e o f 1 4 0 to 1 7 5 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. B eca us e “the s t atut or i l yauthor i zed maxi m um s ent ence i s l es s than the mi ni m um

. . . app l i cable guidel i ne rang e, t he st atutor i l yauthori zed m axim um sent ence .. . [i s] the g u ideline s en tenc e.” U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1 . 1 (a).

W e r evi ew forr eas onabl enes s the s ent ence ’ s l ength, as gui ded bythe fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( per curi am ). T hese factor s “i nclude t he n ature of the offen se and cha r act er i s t i cs of the defendant , as w el l as the nee d forthe s ent ence t o r efl ect the s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e, t o pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence , t o pr ot ectthe publ i c, and t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d tr ai ni ng ortr eatm ent. . . . ” Id. W e have d e ter m in e d 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 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 id . at 10 5 3 -54 . W e re q u ir e r eas onabl enes s i n tw o r es pect s – “the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as the m ethod 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 s is o m itte d ). I f the di s tr i ctcourt“pr oper l ycons i der s the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd-13-

se n ten c e s th e d e fe n d a n t w ith in th a t ra n g e , the se n ten c e is p re su m p tiv e ly r eas onabl e. ” Id. “Thi s i s a defer ent i al s t andar d thatei therthe defendantorthe governm entm ayr ebutbydemonstr at i ng thatthe s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e w hen vi ew ed aga i ns tt he otherfac t or s del i neat ed i n § 3553( a) . ” Id . at1054 . In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r 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 ui del i nes r ange, w e r evi ew i t s l egal concl us i ons de novo and i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs fo r c le a r e rr o r. See i d.

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 . 2 0 0 6 ).[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 the r ecor d thatt 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. a t 1 1 1 7 (q u o ta tio n m a rk s , a lte ra tio n s , a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ).

B eca us e the di s tr i ctcourti n thi s cas e s ent ence d M r . H i l l atthe G ui del i nes ra n g e , h is s e n ten c e is p re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le a n d h e m u st re b u t th is-14-

pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng the s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the se n ten c in g fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). In a ttem p tin g to re b u t th is p re su m p tio n , M r. H ill gener al l yar gues hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bas ed on hi s hi s t oryand ch ara cterist ics. H o w ev er, a rev iew o f th e re co rd e stab li sh es th e d istri ct co u rt cons i der ed M r . H i l l ’ s hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs dur i ng s ent enci ng but det erm i ned, bas ed on other§ 3553( a) fac t or s , a s ent ence of 120 m onths w as appr opr i at e.

M ore speci fi cal l y , t he d i stri ctcou rti nd i cat ed ithad con si dered t he p art i es’ a rg u m e n ts a n d M r. H ill ’s s tate m e n t an d su b m iss io n – a ll o f w h ich d isc u ss e d h is h ist o ryan d ch ara cterist ics. W h il e the d istri ct co u rtco n side red M r. H il l’ s a rg u m e n ts re g a rd in g h is h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics , itin d ica ted a 1 2 0 -m o n th s ent ence w as appr opr i at e bas ed on the other§ 3553( a) fac t or s , i ncl udi ng hi s pr i or ni ne arr es t s , t he s er i ous nes s of the i ns t antoffe ns e, w hi ch i nvol ved drugs and a w eapo n, and the n eed to i ncarcerat e him t o g ethim off the st reet s for the p urpose of pr ot ect i ng t he publ i c. G i ven M r . H i l l ’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t oryand the s er i ous natur e of hi s i ns t antoffe ns e, w e ca nnots ayhe has s how n hi s hi s t oryand ch ara cterist ics, w h en v iew ed in li g h t of the o ther § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors, are s u ffic ie n tly c o m p e llin g fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f m a k in g h is s e n te n c e u n re a s o n a b le .-15- I V . C oncl us i on Forthes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM M r. H ill’ 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