# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 36 57

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mat th ew Pau l Br own in g

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Sp rin gf ie ld

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 16 Fil ed : Au gu st 8, 2 01 6 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, MELLOY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Mat th ew Pau l Bro wni ng ap pe al s hi s se nt en ce arg ui ng th e di st ric t co ur t erre d 1 by rel y in g on th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ’ eq ui va le nc y rat io fo r synth et ic
Te t r a h yd r oc an na bi no l (“ THC”) to m ari juan a of 1: 16 7. Alt ho ug h no t pr eci se ly

art ic ul at ed as su ch , h e ap pe ars to arg ue hi s s en te nc e in vo lv es bo th pr oc ed ur al erro r

an d s ub st an ti ve un reas on ab le ne ss . W e affi rm

.

I.

Bro wni ng was in di c t ed fo r dr ug of fen se s an d co ns pi racy to co m m it m on ey la un de rin g an d m ai l frau d, al l rel at ed to h i s p r o c e ss in g an d sa le of synth et ic

can na bi no id s. He pl ead ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to co m m it m on ey la un de rin g an d m ai l
frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 19 56 (h ) an d 13 41
, res pe ct iv el y

. Each c o u nt of

co nv ic ti on carr ie s a m ax im um st at ut or y se nt en ce of 20 y ears

. The ap pl ic ab le
Gui de li ne fo r hi s m on ey -la un de rin g of fen se , U.S.S.G. § 2S 1.1
, in co rp or at es by cro ss refe ren ce th e ba se of

fen se le ve l of “ th e un de rlyin g of fen se fro m whi ch th e la un de red
fu nd s were d e r i v e d .” U.S.S.G. § 2S 1.1 (a)( 1)

. Pu rs ua nt to th is cro ss refe ren ce, th e

co nt ro ll in g Gui de li ne is th e dr ug -o ffen se Gui de li ne fo un d at U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1. At

se nt en ci ng , Bro wni ng co nc ed ed a dr ug qu an ti ty, bu t he ob

je c t e d t o th e us e of th e

m ari juan a-eq ui va le nc e m

ul ti pl ie r fo un d in th e dr ug eq ui va le nc y ta bl e a t U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1 cm t. 8( D). Tha t t a b l e di rect s co ur ts to tre at 1 gr am of synth et ic THC as
eq ui va le nt to 16 7 gr am s of m ari ju an a. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed Bro wni ng ’s

arg um en t an d c al cu la te d t he ba se off en se lev el us in g t he 1: 16 7 ra ti o.

A ft er ap ply ing oth er ad

j ust m en ts an d co nside rin g Bro wni ng ’s Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg or y I, th e di st ric t co ur t cal cu la te d th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s se nt en ci ng ran ge as 10 8 to 13 5 m on th s. The n, whe n di sc us si ng se ve ral of th e se nt en ci ng fact or s o f 18
U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), th e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n refe ren ced Bro wni ng ’s ch al le ng e to th e us e

The Hon or ab le M. Dou g l a s H a r po ol
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-of th e 1: 16 7 m ari juan a-eq ui va le nc y m

ul ti pl ie r. The go ve rn m en t so ug ht a to p- of -th eran ge se nt en ce, an d Bro wni ng ur ge d th e co ur t to im po se ti m e se rv ed an d su pe rv is io n. The co ur t ul ti m at el y im

po se d a se nt e n c e of 72 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Bro wni ng
ap pe al s.

II.

On ap pe al Bro wni ng arg ue s th e 1: 16 7 rat io is fla wed as a m at te r of sc ie nc e an d

po li cy an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by em pl oyin g th e rat io

. W e pr ev i ou sl y ha ve he ld th e rat io is ap pr op ria te fo r cas es li ke th is

. See Uni te d St at es v. Carl so n, 81 0 F.3 d
54 4, 55 6 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 1 6) (“ Alt ho ug h Carl so n arg ue s th at th e 1: 16 7 rat io la ck s

sc ie nt ifi c su pp or t be cau se recr eat io na l m ari juan a co nt ai ns a hi gh er le ve l of THC th an th e gu id el in e rat io as su m es , a se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay us e gu id el in e co m m en ta ry ‘as a
to ol fo r cal cu la ti ng th e ba se of fen se le ve l’ fo r a c o n v i c t ed de fen da nt .” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mu ck le
, 75 5 F.3 d 10 24
, 10 26 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ))). W e al so ha ve he ld
it is no t erro r to us e th e 1: 16 7 rat io in a cas e in vo lv in g dr ug weig ht s de riv ed fro m a

m ix tu re of THC an d in ert pl an t m at eri al

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ram os , 81 4 F.3 d 91 0,
91 8– 20 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (rejec ti ng th e arg um en t th at th e Gui de li ne s rat io fo r pu re THC

w a s in ap pl ic ab le to weig ht s ob ta in ed fo r m ix tu res of pu re THC an d in ert pl an t

m at eri al ), bu t se e Ram os , 81 4 F .3d at 9 20 –2 4 (B rig ht , J., di ss en ti ng ) (d is cu ss in g in
de ta il th e se nt en ci ng ta bl es an d th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n pu re THC an d m ix tu res

co nt ai ni ng THC).

Bro wni ng ne ve rth el es s arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erred by fai li ng to se co nd gu es s th e se nt en ci ng co m

m is si on an d fai li ng to co nd uc t an in de pe nd en t in qu iry as to th e
pr op rie ty of th e se nt en ci ng co m m is si on ’s de te rm in at io n of th e 1: 16 7 rat io

. In m ak in g th is arg um en t he rel ie s up on d i st ric t co ur ts ’ au th or it y , as reco gn iz ed in Sp ears v. Uni te d St at es , 55 5 U.S. 26 1, 26 6– 67 (2 00 9)
, an d Kim br ou gh v. Uni te d St at es , 52 U.S.
85
, 10 2– 10 (2 00 7)
, to de pa rt fro m th e Gui de li ne s ba se d up on di sa gr eem en t wit h th e

un de rlyin g po li cy an d fact ua l fi nd in gs or as su m pt io ns in he ren t in th e Gui de li ne s.

-3

-Sp ears , 55 5 U.S. at 26 6– 67 (“ [D]ist ric t co ur ts are en ti tl ed to r e je ct an d va ry
cat eg or ic al ly fro m

. . . G ui de li ne s ba se d on a po li cy di sa gr eem en t wit h th os e Gui de li ne s.”)

. Bro wni ng se ek s to st ret ch Kim br ou gh an d Sp ears to o far. Alt ho ug h
Kim br ou gh pe rm it s di st ric t co ur t jud ge s to se co nd gu es s th e Gui de li ne s an d im po se

se nt en ces th at refl ect jud ge s’ di sa gr eem en ts wit h po li ci es or co nc lu si on s refl ect ed in
th e Gui de li ne s, Kim

br ou gh do es no t re qu ir e di st ric t co ur ts to reject th e Gui de li ne s. Nor do es it r e q ui re co ur ts to co nd uc t an in de pe nd en t in qu iry in to em pi ric al
de te rm in at io ns un de rlyin g th e Gui de li ne s. H av ing re vie w ed the se nte nc ing tr an sc ri pt, we ha ve no do ub t th at th e di st ric t cou rt was well aware of Bro wni ng ’s po si ti on an d
al so well aware of it s own au th or it y to reject th e 1: 16 7 rat io

. The co ur t ex p r e s s ly
ch os e n ot to do so

.

It was no t le ga l erro r to rel y up on th e Gui de li ne s, a n d i t w a s no t pr oc ed ur al

erro r to reje c t Bro wni ng ’s arg um en t in th is reg ard whe n cal cu la ti ng th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge or whe n as se ss in g th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fact or s. Fu rth er, th e be lo wGui de li ne s se nt en ce was no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. See Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7) (as se ss in g su bs ta nt iv e r e a s o na bl en es s un de r th e ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n st an da rd ). The co ur t vi ewed Bro wni ng as pa rti cu la rly in co rri gi bl e an d as fai li ng to own up fu ll y to th e il le ga li ty of hi s sc he m e. The co ur t no te d rep eat ed ly th at th e go ve rn m en t co nc ed ed a dr ug qu an ti ty far be lo w wha t s e i z e d d r u gs an d reco rd s li ke ly wou ld ha ve su pp or te d. The co ur t al so rejec t e d a s i nc red ib le Bro wni ng ’s

pu rp or te d be li ef of th e le ga li ty of hi s act io ns , gi ve n th e sc al e o f t he pr of it s he
ach ie ve d th ro ug h hi s sa le s of synth et ic can na bi no id s. Fu rth er, th e co ur t em ph as iz ed
th at Bro wni ng co nt in ue d de al in g in il le ga l su bs ta nc es whi le on pr et ria l su pe rv is io n. W e fi nd no ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n t he co ur t’s s el ect io n o f an ov eral l s en te nc e.

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-