FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUGUST 15, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T 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. 06- 16348 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 0 6 6 - C R - 3 - L AC 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 V I D J O H N S O N , 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 N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 15, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2 I. D a v id J o h n s o n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s f o rc o n s p ir a c yto di s tr i but e a nd pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 5 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne a nd 50 gr a m s orm or e of

c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841, a nd pos s e s s i on o f af ir e a rm in f

u rth e r a n c e o f

ad ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 924( c ) . F orthe r e a s ons tha tf ol l ow , w e a f

f i rm J ohns on’ s c onvi c t i ons a nd sen t en ces. II. J ohns on a nd s i x othe r s w e r e c ha r ge d w i th c ons pi r a c yt o di s tr i but e a nd pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 50 gr a m s orm or e of c r a c k c oc a i ne a nd 5 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C § 841 ( C ount1) , a nd J ohns on w a s c ha r ge d w i th tw o othe r s w i th pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm i n f

urthe r a nc e of ad ru g tr a f

f ic k in g o f f e n s e , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( C o u n t 2 ) . P r io rto tr i a l , the gove rnm e ntf

i l e d anot i c e of

i nt e ntt o s e e k e nha nc e d pe na l t i e s unde r21 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 b a s e d o n J o h n s o n ’s p r io rc o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e c o n v ic tio n s in S e pt e m be r2004 a nd J a nua ry2006. J ohns on obj e c t e d, a s s e rt i ng tha tthe pr i or c o n v ic tio n s w e r e p a rt o f th e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e . A ttr i a l , the gove rnm e nte s t abl i s he d the f ol l ow i ng: S haron D i xo n o pera t ed a drug ri ng , se l l i ng drug s t o Joh nson , al so kn ow n as3

“D a y - D a y ,” h is b r o th e rF r e d , a n d h is c o u s in , A lo n z o . J o h n s o n a ls o in v o lv e d h is gi r l f r i e nd, aj uve ni l e f

e m a l e na m e d A s hl e y , a nd V a l e nt i ne V a s s e ri n the di s tr i but i on of

drugs . A l onz o J ohns on t e s t i f i e d tha tJ ohns on s ol d drugs , a nd he authe nt i c a t e d avi de o i n w hi c h J ohns on w a s s e e n c ount i ng m one ya nd s e l l i ng drugs f r o m a n a r e ak n o w n a s “th e h o le .” A lo n z o a ls o a d m itte d th a t D ix o n w a s th e m a in drug s uppl ys our c e f

orhi m s e l f

a nd J ohns on. W i r e t aps f

r om the i nve s t i ga t i on r e c or de d c a l l s f r om J ohns on t o D i xon a nd a c a l l f r om D i xon t o a n uni de nt i f i e d w om a n us i ng J ohns on’ s phone . I n the ba c kgr ound on tha tc a l l , J ohns on c oul d be he a r d thr e a t e ni ng D i xon by r a c ki ng the s l i de a nd f

i r i ng agun. T he uni de nt i f i e d w om a n w a s he ar d s a y i ng, “ D a vi d, D a vi d, d o n ’t.” T h e s e w ir e tap s le d to a rr e s t a n d s e a r c h w a rr a n ts f o rJ o h n s o n a n d o th e r s . D eputy B l ake W ee kl eyw i th the S ant a R osa C ou nty S heri ff’ s O ff i ce s e a r c he d J ohns on’ s hom e , f i ndi ng c r a c k on the ki t c he n t abl e , pl a s t i c ba gs c ons i s t e ntw i th drug pa c ka gi ng, ba ki ng s odaa nd as poon w i th c r a c k r e s i due , a nd $ 8 ,0 0 0 c a s h . A u th o r itie s f o u n d p ic tu r e s o f

A s h le yw ith m o n e ya n d ab a g w ith John son’ s c l othes, i dent i fi ca t i on , cr ac k, and d i gi t al sc al e. John son l at eradm i tt ed the ba g w a s hi s . A f

e w da y s a f

t e rhi s a rr e s t , J ohns on s poke w i th author i t i e s a nd a dm i tt e d tha the , D i xon, F r e d, a nd V a s s e rw e r e i nvol ve d i n the di s tr i but i on of cr ac k. W hi l e J oh nson w as i n cust od y, he m ade f re qu entca l l s t o A shl eyi n w hi ch4

th e tw o d is c u s s e d f

ir e a rm s , s e llin g c r a c k , a n d c o o k in g c r a c k . D uri ng W ee kl ey ’ s t es t i m on y, the go vernm entas ked, “ on the day y ou se rved the w arrant , w as there al so a j uv eni l e c auca si an fe m al e pre se nt ? ” D ef ense coun se l di d notobj e c tt o the c ha r a c t e r i z a t i on. W e e kl e yr e s ponde d tha tJ ohns on’ s gi r l f r i e nd A shl eyw as pres ent . In hi s t es t i m on y, D eputy S heri ff C hri s W i l l i am s c on fi rm ed th a t aw h ite f

e m a le n a m e d A s h le y w a s p r e s e n t d u r in g th e s e a r c h . A utho ri t i es al so foun d a Ja gu arre gi st er ed t o the sa m e a dd re ss John son l i st ed a s hi s r e s i de nc e , w hi c h w a s atr a i l e rl oc a t e d a t“ the hol e . ” T he J a gua rm a t c he d the c a rs e e n i n the vi de o A l onz o t ook. A uthor i t i e s c oul d not , how e ve r , i de nt i f yw ho o w n e d th e c a r . I n s i d e th e J a g u a r , au th o r i t i e s f o u n d mo n e y , s e v e r a l f

i r e a rms i ncl ud i ng a s ho rt -barre l ed shot gu n, and d rugs. P ol i ce al so foun d a gu n b ox un der a tr a i l e ra t“ the hol e ” a nd aC he vyc ont a i ni ng drugs a nd af i r e a rm . T he C he vy bel on ged t o A l on zo, bu tagent s c ou l d n otdet erm i ne w ho used i t . T he Ja gu arw as r e g is te r e d to a n u n id e n tif ie d f e m a le , b u t F r e d u s e d it. D ep u ty S co ttH ain es testified th at h e h ad co n d u cted a tra ff ic sto p o f F re d ’s c a r , d u r in g w h ic h o f

f ic e r s f o u n d ah a n d g u n , m o n e y , ale d g e r , a n d b a n kr e c e ip ts . T h e r e a ls o w a s an o te s ig n e d b y“D a y - D a y ,” w h ic h r e f e rr e d to ja il a n d A s h le y . O f f i c e r s a s s um e d the not e w a s w r i tt e n byJ ohns on. A ts om e othe rpoi ntdur i ng the i nv es t i gat i on , autho ri t i es ob se rved John son, w ho m they knew t o h ave an5

ou t st andi ng w arrant , si tt i ng al on e i n a bl ue C adi l l ac . A un i form ed offi ce r approached the car, and o rder ed John son t o exi t . A subsequentse ar ch of the car u n c o v e r e d c r a c kc o c a in e . A fterth e g o v ern m en t res ted it s c as e- in -c h ief, an d th e c o u rt d en ied Jo h n so n ’s m o tio n f o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l, J o h n s o n p r e s e n te d te s tim o n yo f h is s is te r , L in d a . A c c o r d in g to L in d a , J o h n s o n d id n o t liv e a t “th e h o le ,” b u t, r a th e r , h e liv e d w ith A shl ey . “ T he ho l e” w as a pl otof l and w i th three m ob i l e hom es l ocat ed on the si t e, al l of w hi ch used the sa m e a dd re ss . L i nd a a l so t es t i fi ed thatJohn son d rove a C ad il lac, F re d d ro v e a Ja g u ar , an d A lo n zo d ro v e a C h ev y. A fterL in d a’s t es t i m on y, John son res t ed hi s c as e. T he go vernm entca l l ed T abi tha D i xo n as are bu tt al w i tness . T abi tha w as S h a r o n D ix o n ’s g ir lf

r ie n d a n d k n e w J o h n s o n th r o u g h h is d e a lin g s w ith D ix o n . T ab ith aw itn e s s e d J o h n s o n b u yd ru g s f r o m D ix o n b e tw e e n e ig h t a n d te n tim e s . D i xon w oul d dr i ve t o “ the hol e , ” w he r e J ohns on a nd the othe r s w oul d appr oa c h the w i nd ow of the car and pu rc hase drug s f rom D i xo n and T abi tha. T abi tha al so kn ew A shl ey , and, af

t erJohn son’ s arr es t , A shl eyt ol d T abi tha thatJohn son t augh ther ho w t o coo k cra ck and thatshe w as try i ng t o sel l drug s. T he go vernm entthen re st ed i t s c as e, and Joh nson re new ed hi s m ot i on for j ud gm entof ac qu i tt al , w hi ch th e c o u rt a g a in d e n ie d .6

T h e ju ryc o n v ic te d J o h n s o n a s c h a r g e d in b o th C o u n ts O n e a n d T w o . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), as si gn i ng a bas e off

ense l evel of 38 for C ou nt1, w i th a 2-l evel enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 4 b ec ause John son u se d a m i no r t o com m i tthe offens es , for at ot al o f f e n s e le v e l o f

4 0 . C o u n t 2 w a s n o t g r o u p e d w ith C o u n t 1 b e c au s e C o u n t 2 carr i ed a m andat ory m i ni m um t en ye arconsec ut i ve se nt ence , as the fi re arm i nvol ve d w a s as hort - ba rr e l e d s hot gun. 18 U . S . C . § 924( c ) ( 1) ( B ) . I n de t e rm i ni ng J ohns on’ s c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e gory , the pr oba t i on of f i c e rl i s t e d num e r ous pr i or c onvi c t i ons a nd j uve ni l e a dj udi c a t i ons , i nc l udi ng the S e pt e m be r2004 c onvi c t i on f orpos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o s e l l ac ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e , a nd tw o J a nua ry2006 c o n v ic tio n s f

o rp o s s e s s io n a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to s e ll ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . A s ar e s ul tof

the c onvi c t i ons , J ohns on’ s c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e goryw a s V . T he pr oba t i on of

f i c e ra l s o not e d tha tm a nyof the pr i orc onvi c t i ons i nvol ve d drugs a nd w eapo ns. T he prob at i on offi ce r f urther not ed thatthere w er e pendi ng char ges i nv ol vi ng drug s and w eapo ns. W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 40 and a cri m i nal h is to ryV , th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 3 6 0 m o n th s to lif e im p r is o n m e n t. 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 41 , 85 1; U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 1(b). F or the fi re arm conv i ct i on , the prob at i on offi ce r no t ed thatJohn son cou l d b e heard fi ri ng a r ou nd i nt o the ph on e duri ng an i nt er ce pt ed t el epho ne ca l l . U nd er§ 9 24 (c ), John son fac ed an enhanced m andat ory7

m in im u m s e n te n c e o f

te n y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t b e c au s e th e o f f e n s e in v o lv e d as h o rtb a rr e le d f

ir e a rm . J o h n s o n o b

je c te d to th e P S I , a s s e rtin g , in te ra lia , th a t th e c o n v ic tio n s u s e d to e nha nc e hi s s e nt e nc e w e r e pa rtof the ove r a l l c ons pi r a c yi n the i ns t a ntc a s e a nd shou l d n otbe coun t ed as pri or conv i ct i on s f or enhancem entpu rposes . H e f urther c ha l l e nge d the e nha nc e m e ntf orthe § 924( c ) of

f e ns e be c aus e the r e w a s no e vi de nc e tha tthe f

i r e a rm w a s us e d i n f

urthe r a nc e of

the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e , a nd he a s s e rte d th a t th e typ e o f f ir e a rm h a d n o t b e e n c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t. A tse nt enci ng , John son rei t er at ed hi s argum entthathe shou l d n otfa ce e nha nc e d pe na l t i e s f

orthe type of

w e apon i nvol ve d i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L .E .2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , b e c au s e n o f a c ts w er e proven t o the j ury. T he courtov errul ed the obj ec t i on , bu tal so no t ed that e v e n if th e m a n d a to rym in im u m w a s f iv e y e a r s in s te a d o f

te n y e a r s , th e c o u rt c o u ld e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o i m pos e at e n- y e a rs e nt e nc e . J ohns on the n obj e c t e d t o the § 8 51 enhancem entbase d o n p ri or conv i ct i on s, as se rt i ng thatthe conv i ct i on s w er e s u f f i c i e n t l yr e l a t e d t o th e i n s t a n to f f e n s e s , a s th e yi n v o l v e d th e s a me c a s e , th e s a me p l an n i n g an d ex ecu t i o n , an d th e sam e l o cal . T h e g o v ern m en td i sag reed b ecau se th e p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s we r e a s s i g n e d two d i f f e r e n tc a s e n u m b e r s a n d i n v o l v e d two s e pa r a t e f

e l oni e s , w hi c h oc c urr e d a tdi f f e r e ntt i m e s a nd a tdi f

f e r e ntl oc a t i ons , one8

of w hi c h pr e da t e d the da t e s of the i ns t a ntc ha r ge d c ons pi r a c y . T he gove rnm e nt a l s o not e d tha tthe r e w a s athi r d c onvi c t i on tha tc oul d be us e d f orthe § 851 e nha nc e m e nt . T he c ourtc onc l ude d tha tthe P S I w a s a c c ur a t e a nd ove rrul e d the o b je c tio n . T he c ourts e nt e nc e d J ohns on t o m a nda t oryl i f e i m pr i s onm e nton C ount1, and a consecut i ve 24 0-m on th t erm on C ou nt2. T he courtal so st at ed thati thad consi dere d the se nt enci ng fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , thatthe se nt ence w as m andat ory by s t atut e, thatthe se nt ence w as suff i ci ent , and that“ no grea t er s e n te n c e is n e c e s s a ry .” J o h n s o n o b je c te d to th e s e n te n c e a s u n f a ir . J o h n s o n n o w ap p e a ls . III. J ohns on f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe gove rnm e nt ’ s r e pe a t e d i ntr oduc t i on of te s tim o n yc o n c e rn in g aw h ite ju v e n ile f e m a le d u r in g th e tr ia l o f ab la c km a le , in f r o n t o f a n a ll- w h ite ju ryw a s irr e le v a n t a n d p r e ju d ic ia l, a n d th a t th e c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e s u as p o n t e s tr i c k e n th e t e s t i m o n yd e s p i t e n o o b j e c t i o n h a v i n g b e e n m a d e . He c ont e nds tha tthe e vi de nc e c r e a t e d the “ pr obabi l i ty ” tha the w a s c onvi c t e d ba s e d on prej ud i ce , and the evi dence had no prob at i ve val ue un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 4 0 3 . A cco rd i n g t o Jo h n so n , th e erro r i n ad m i tt i n g th e t est i m o n y w as n o th arm l ess b e c au s e th e r e w a s n o o v e rw h e lm in g e v id e n c e a g a in s t h im .9

A s J o h n s o n d id n o t c h a lle n g e th e a d m is s io n o f th e te s tim o n ya t tr ia l, th is c o u rt r e v ie w s f

o rp la in e rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . S c h ie r , 4 3 8 F .3 d 1 1 0 4 , 1 1 0 6 n .1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ; U n ite d S ta te s v . C a m p b e ll, 2 2 3 F .3 d 1 2 8 6 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) .

“ A n appe l l a t e c ourtm a ynotc orr e c ta n e rr orthe de f e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e i n the d is tr ic t c o u rt u n le s s th e r e is : ‘( 1 ) e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts subst ant i al ri gh t s. ’ ” U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11th C i r. 20 05 ), ce rt . deni ed, 54 5 U . S . 11 27 (200 5) (c i t at i on om i tt ed). “ ‘ If al l three cond i t i on s are m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm ayexer ci se i t s di sc re t i on t o n ot i ce a f or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl yi f

( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l ya f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , or pu bl i c r eput at i on of j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. ’ ” I d. (c i t at i on om i tt ed). T hi s c ou rt de t e rm i ne s w he the ra n e rr orha d s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e on the out c om e byw e i ghi ng the re cord as a w ho l e. U ni t ed S t at es v. H ands, 18 4 F . 3d 13 22 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ) . H e r e , th e te s tim o n ya t is s u e d id n o t p r e ju d ic e J o h n s o n ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . F i rs t , there w er e onl y tw o i sol at ed com m ent s i n w hi ch John son’ s gi rl fr i end w as n o te d to b e aw h ite ju v e n ile . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . D ia z , 2 6 F .3 d 1 5 3 3 , 1 5 4 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1994) ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe r e w a s no i m pr ope ri nj e c t i on of r a c e a nd a f

f i rm i ng c onvi c t i on a f

t e rw i tne s s r e c ount e d as t a t e m e ntr e f e rr i ng t o the de f

e nda nti n a ra ci al l y der og at ory m anner). S ec on d, the evi dence agai nstJohn son w asJohn so n doe s n ot challeng etheenh anc ement u nder e ith er § 85 1 o r § 92 4. Hi s so le 1 argument is that the court’s de cision to sentencehim above the manda tory minimumfor the firea rm count wa s unrea sonable. 10 ov erw hel m i ng . T he go vernm entsubm i tt ed evi dence fr om vi deo t apes and w i re t ap c o m m u n ic a tio n s , a s w e ll a s th e te s tim o n yo f s o m e o f J o h n s o n ’s c o - c o n s p ir a to r s . T h e v id eo sh o w ed Jo h n so n se ll in g d ru g s, an d th e w iretap d etailed Jo h n so n ’s conv er sa t i on abou tdrug s w i th A shl ey . A l on zo and T abi tha bo th t es t i fi ed thatthey had see n Joh nson se l l i ng drug s. In st at em ent s t o autho ri t i es , John son al so adm i tt ed hi s i nv ol vem entand i dent i fi ed hi s s ou rc es . F i nal l y, autho ri t i es se i ze d evi dence f r o m J o h n s o n a n d h is h o m e th a t lin k e d J o h n s o n to d ru g s , d ru g s a le s , a n d w e ap o n s . A l s o, the gove rnm e nta dm i tt e d phot ogr aphs of A s hl e yw i th m one y , thus e nabl i ng th e j u ryt o s e e As h l e y ’ s r a c e . I n l i g h to f th i s e v i d e n c e , th e a d m i s s i o n o f o n l ytwo c o m m e n ts r e g a r d in g J o h n s o n ’s g ir lf r ie n d ’s r a c e d id n o t a f

f e c t h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . A cco rd i n g , w e affi rm Jo h n so n ’ s co n v i ct i o n s. S e c ond, J ohns on a r gue s tha tthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d w a s unr e a s onabl e , a nd thatthe courtfa i l ed t o con si der a l l the evi dence w hen i ti m po se d an u pw ar d v a r i a n c e f

r o m th e t e n - y e a rm a n d a t o rym i n i m u m s e n t e n c e o n th e f i r e a rm c o u n t . He a s s e rt s tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s di s pr oport i ona t e t o the s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d on hi s c oc ons pi r a t or s , a nd tha thi s y oung a ge a nd l a c k of pr i orpr i s on t i m e r e nde rthe se nt ence un re as on abl e. 111

A f te rB o o k e r , th is c o u rt r e v ie w s ad e f e n d a n t’s s e n te n c e f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow d, 451 F . 3d 1244, 1256 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1244 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . J o h n s o n b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t h is se nt ence w as un re as on abl e. U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 2005) . I n i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c tc ourtm us tc ons i de rthe f a c t or s i n § 3553( a ) , s uc h a s the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , the hi s t orya nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt , the ne e d f

ora de qua t e de t e rr e nc e a nd pr ot e c t i on of th e p u b lic , th e p e rtin e n t S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p o lic ys ta te m e n ts , a n d th e n e e d to avoi d u nw arrant ed se nt enci ng di spar i t i es . 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1)- (7). H ow ever , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt is n o t r e q u ir e d to m e n tio n e a c h o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , a n d it is suff i ci enti f the re cord ref

l ec t s thatthe courtconsi dere d the fa ct ors. U ni t ed S t at es v . J o h n s o n , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . H er e, John son fac ed a t en-y ear m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence un der § 924( c ) , butthe c ourts e nt e nc e d hi m t o tw e ntyy e a r s i m pr i s onm e nt . I n r e a c hi ng th e s e n te n c e , th e c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th e h is to rya n d c h a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e f e n d a n t, as w el l as John son’ s s t at em ent s t o the court . T he courtal so spec i fi ca l l y s t at ed that ith ad co n sid er ed th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac to rs . G iv en th e c o n sp irac y in v o lv ed , Jo h n so n ’s cr i m i nal hi st ory, and h i s app ar entw i l l i ng ness t o u se the fi re arm , the se nt ence12

i m po se d w as re as on abl e. T h i rd , Jo h n so n arg u es th atth e co u rtv i o l at ed b o th § 3 5 5 3 (a) an d d u e p ro cess byf a i l i ng t o both a ddr e s s the s t a tut oryf a c t or s a nd by f

a i l i ng t o f

i nd tha tthe se nt ence i m po se d w as “ no tgrea t erthan n ec es sary . ” H er e the di stri ctcourtst at ed tha ti tha d “ c ons i de r e d a l l the f a c t or s i n T i t l e 18 U ni t e d S t a t e s C ode 3553( a ) ” a nd th a tth e s e n t e n c e i s “ s u f f i c i e n ta n d c e rt a i n l yn o g r e a t e rs e n t e n c e i s n e c e s s a ry . ” As J o h n s o n c o n c e d e s , h o w e v e r , th is c o u rt h a s p r e v io u s lyr e je c te d th is a r g u m e n t. I V. A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM J o h n s o n ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e s .