P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40976 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. CO RNE L GO L S T ON D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 08- C R
- 22- 4 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C o r n e l G o ls to n a p p e a ls th e 1 7 8 -m o n th s e n t e n c e im p o s e dfo llo w in gh is gu i l t y pl ea conv i ct i on t o conspi racy t o m an u fact u re , di st ribu t e, di spen se, or possess w i t h i n t en tt o m an u fact u re, di st ribu t e, or di spen se over 50 gram s of cocai n e base. G ol st on argu es t h at th e di st ri ct court erred i n ref u si n g t o i m pose a no n- gui del i ne s s e nt e nc e b e c aus e t he s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s r ang e r e s ul t i ng from th e c a r e e r off

en d er en h a n cem en t w a s m u ch gre a ter th a n n ece ssa ryto United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 11, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40976

2 ach i eve t h e goal s of

18 U . S . C . § 3553 ( a) . H e f u rt h er argues t h at th e di st ri ct cou rt sh ou l dh a ve calcu l a tedh i s ba se o ff en se leve lba sed on a 2 5 :1 cr a ckto p o w d e rco c a in e ra tio ra th e rth a n o n a n a m e n d e dg u id e lin e in c o r p o r a tin ga7 5 :1 rat i o. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no tc o m m i ta ny e r r o r s i n c al c ul at i ng t he s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i n es r an ge, di d n ott reatt h e G u i del i n es as m an da t ory, speci f i cal l y st ated t h at itha d consi dered the § 355 3( a) fact ors, an d ga ve an adeq u ate expl an ati on f o r t he s e nt e nc e i t i m po s e d. The di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t c o m m i t any si gn i f i c ant p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r s a t s e n te n c in g . S ee G a ll v . Un ite dS ta te s , 128 S . C t . 586, 597 ( 200 7) . R egard i n g t h e sub st an t ive reasona bl en ess of t h e sentence, t h e di st ri ct c o ur tc o ns i de r e d t he ar gum e nt s of bo t h c o uns e lb e f

o r e de t e r m i ni ng t hatano ngui del i nes s ent enc e w as notw ar r ant ed. The di st r i c tc our ts t at ed thatt he 178- m on t h sentence w as reasonab l e i n l i gh tof t h e na t u re a n d ci rcum st an ces of G ol st on ’ s of

fen se and hi s pri or c ri m i n alh i st ory. In t h i s regard , the d i st ri ctcourt s pe c i f i c all y no t e d Gol s t o n’ s part i ci pa t i o n i n t he c r ac k c o c ai ne dr ug- t r af f i c ki ng conspir acy; t h e d isc overy of drug s and drugparap h erna l i a i n hi s r esi den ce, w hi c h was w i t hi n 1 , 00 0 fe e to f apl ay gr o und; hi s o t he rdr u g convic t i o ns a nd o f fe ns e s i nvo lvi ng vi o l e nt c o nduc t ; hi s hi s t o r y o f m ul t i
- s ubs t anc e a bus e ; a nd the factt h at he ha d com m i t t e d the i n st an tof fen se w h i l e on p arol e. Th e di st ri ct c o ur tc o nc l ude d thatt he 1 78
- m o nt h s e nt e nc e w o ul d s e rvea s aj us tpun i s hm e nt an d w ou l d d et er f

u t u re vi ol ati on s of t h e l aw . T h e rec ord ref l ect s t h at th e di st ri ct c o ur tm ad e a n i ndivi dua l i z e d a s s e s s m e nto n t he fac t s pr e s e nt e d i n l i ghto f t he § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s a n dim p o s e das e n te n c e ina c c o r d a n c e w ith th o s e f in d in g s . I

d. at596- 98. W i t h res pect t o t h e cr ack to pow der coc ai n e rat i o, t h e di st ri ctcourt ad o pt e d the pr e s en t e nc e r e po r t , w hi c h a ppli e d the a m e nde d s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i n es r ati o of

75: 1, an d i tgave no i n di cat i on t h at i tbel i evedt h at itl acked t h e au t h orit y t o rely on a di f ferent rat i o. G ol st on ’ s s en t en ce, how ever, w as not b a s e do n th e a m o u n t of c r a c k c o c a in e in v o lv e d in th e o ffe n s e , b u t ra th e r o n h isN o. 08- 40976

3 s t at us a s ac ar e e r o f

fe nde r , w hi c h t he di s t r i c t c o ur the l d was a ppr o pr i at e . The 178
- m on t h sentence i m posedw as, t h u s, w i t h i n t h e properl y cal cu la t ed s e n te n c in gg u id e lin e s ra n g e a n dis p r e s u m p tiv e lyre a s o n a b le . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . Sc rogg i ns , 4 85 F. 3d 82 4, 83 5 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7) . Gol s t o n ha s no ts ho w n t hatt he di st r i c tc ourt’ s d ecisi on t o s ent enc e hi m w i t hi n t hatgui del i nes r ange w as an a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n . T h e s e n t e n c e i s A F F I RMED.