## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ONAL D W. S I MM S, II, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No s. 07- CR-223, 08-C R- 86

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Chief Ju dge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 13, 2010

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 23, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudge . The defendant ple aded gui l ty to gun and drug o ff enses and w as se n tence d to a t ota l of2 70 m onths i n pri son

— 240 m onths f ortho se offenses ( o fwhi ch1 80 months was the mandat o r y min i m um sente nce f orthe gun off ense because i n com bi nati on wi th hi s thr e e p r e v i o us “ s e r i o us dr ugo ff e ns e [ s ] ” i tma de him a n arm ed c areer crim inal, 1 8 U
. S. C
. § 924(e)( 1))

— pl us2 N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 30 m on th s fo r h av in g v i o l a te d su p er vis ed rele as e. H is appe alr ai se s bo thF o ur thAm en dm en t an d s en te nc i ng i ssues . H i s gu ilty pl ea re ser ved to hi m the ri ght t o appeal f ro m the distric t j ud ge’ s deni alo fhi s m oti on t o supp ress evi dence se i zed pursuant to a warr ant that ha d b e e n b a s e d in pa r to n mar ij ua na f o un d in a s e a r ch o fg arbage can s athi s ho m e i n Mil wauk ee . W i th o ut tha tfi nd the s e a r c h wa r r a ntwo ul d n o th a v e be e n s up port ed by probabl e ca use. T he affidav it on the ba sis ofw hich th e se arch w arr an t was i ss ue d a l l eg ed th e f o l l o wi ngf ac ts : The de f en dant’s ga rba ge car ts ( w heel ed garbage co ntai ners ) w er e l o c a t e d in the y a r d o fh i s h o us e , n e xtt o h i s dr i veway . “ [ O] n t r as h pi ck

- up da y , ” th e af fi dav i t st at es , the car ts “ar e t ake n to t he end ofthe curb” ( w e’ re not su r e ex ac tl y whattha t m ea ns , b utpr o babl y i t m ea ns abu t t i ngthe s t r e e t ) b y the h o meo wne r . A p o l i c e de tective had, however, co l l ecte d the defendant’s ga rba ge f r o m a g a rb a g e c a r t th a t s h e f o u n d “ i n s i de th e f ence”

— a fence six feet h igh su rroun d ing the yard

— an d sea rche d i t. Thi s was ea rl y in the m or ni ng o fFr i day, Dec embe r 7, a nd the de te ct i ve was “a war e th atthe re gul artr ash p i ck up day f orthi s l oca ti on i s F ri day, and that a s o fDecem ber1 the c i ty garbage co l lector re tr i eve s the g arbage fro m the [ own er ’ s] pro pertyf or sn o w re m o val re as o ns . ” The i m pl i ca ti o n was tha t th e defe nd ant co uld be a ss u m ed to have co nsented t o have hi s g a rb a g e c a r twh e e l e d fr o m hi s p r o pe r t y t o the st re et by the g arbag e col l ecto rs wh en the ci ty’ s “ w i nterr ule s” ar e in eff ect.N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 3 The a ffi dav i t di d no t m en ti o n tha t th e he i g hta nd opaci ty ofthe f ence preve nt ed anyo ne dri vi ng o r wa l k i ngb y o n the s t r e e tfr o m s e e i ngi ns i de the y a r d, th at th e fence h ad a gate tha t w he n closed blocked entry to the y ar d, that a “ N o Tres passi ng” s i gn was affi xed to the g ate , and that al thou gh the gat e was o pen w hen the det ecti ve ente re d and sear ched the g arbage car t, th e a c c u m u lat ion of sn ow th at m o r n i n g p re ve n te d it f r o m be i ngc l o s e d. T he affidav it is s il en t on w he th er garbage coll ectors ever actuall y went on the defendant’s pro pertyto col l ect hi s g arbage

. H e t est i fi ed at the s up press i on he ar i ngtha t he a l way s whee l ed his garb ag e ca r ts t o the curb orthe end of the dri veway

—but notthathe ha d an understa nd i ng with the g arb ag e col l ecto rs that th e y w e r e n o tt o e n f o r c e “ win t e r r u l e s ” a g a i n s th i m. Pres um abl y they woul d have i gnor ed such a re q uest, si nce the r ule s a re i ntended t o preventi nter f er ence w i th the ci ty’ s s now plo w s. I t appe ar s, mor eo ve r, tha t th e “ wi nt err ul es ” ha d the f or ce o fl aw , thus c re ati ng a n e asem ent t o enterthe def e nd a nt ’ s p r o pe r t y t o co l l e c tg a rb a g e . Mi l wa uk e e Co de ofOr di na nc e s § 7 9

- 5 ( 3 ) mak e s i t “ the r e s po ns ib i l i t y o f th e o w n er s a n d te n an ts of ev er y p re m ise s w h er e s olid w ast e i s co l l ecte d to provi de a c l earand unhindere d path to al l co ntai ners . The p ath s hal l be a width speci fi ed by the c om m iss ioner a nd shal l be f re e o fhi nd ra nces such as, but not l i m i ted to , l ar ge debri s, ve hi cles , l ock ed fen c e s , a n im als, i ce or 3 orm or ei nc he s of s now ” (e m p h as is add ed). A nd § 79 -3( 1) r equi re s that t ra sh co ntai ners “be4 N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 f re e a nd full y a cces sibl e a t a ll t i m es f orhandli ng f or col l ecti on. ” Hom eo w ners ar e i nfo rm ed at the o nset ofwinter, by fly er s pl aced o n thei r garbage car ts, that sa ni ta ti o n wo r k er s wi l l b e whee l i ng the c ar ts fr o m the hom eowners’ pro pertyto the garbage tr ucks i n the str eet s. Because no ne ofthese fa cts w as disc l ose d to the j ud i ci al offi c e r wh o i s s ue d the s e a r c h wa r r a nt, we h e s i t a t e to up hol d the s ear ch ofthe house, pursu an t to the warr ant, on th e groun d t h a t the officers w ho sea rch ed i t w ere re l yi ng i n go od f ai th o n the w ar ra nt’ s v al i dity

— th ough one can ar gue, as J ud ge Fr i endlydi d m any y ear s a go, f ora good-f ai th defense that m i ght c ove r a ca se such as th is. “T h e b en efic en t a im oft h e e x c lu sio n ar y ru le t o de t e r p o l i c e mi s c o n d u c tc a n b e s u ffi c i e n t l y a c c o mpli s he d b y a pr a c t i c e . . . o ut l a wi ng e v i de nc e o b t a i ned by fl agran t or deliberate viol ation of ri gh ts.” H en ry J
. Fr i endly, “The Bi l l o fRi ghts as a Code o fCri m i nal Pro

cedure, ” 5 3 C a l. L. Rev

. 929, 953 (1965 ) (f o otn ote om itted ). I n J ud ge Bou d in’s para phrase, “The dete rr ent v al ue o f ex cl us i o n i s m i ni m alf o r i na dve r te nt fum bl es , a nd the evi dence r em ai ns rel i abl e albei t w ro ngl y s ei zed. ” M i chael Bo udi n, “ J udg e H en r y F r i en dl y a nd the M i r r o r o fCo ns t i t ut i o na l La w , ” 8 2 N .Y .U . L. R ev . 9 75 , 9 90 ( 20 07 )
. And so the g o ve r nm en t ar g ue s i n thi s ca se tha t th e ex cl usi onar y r ule sho uld notapplywh en a sea rc h i s ba sed on a m ist a k e n , b u t in n oc en tly m ist ak en , belie f th at it is law fu l. The Suprem e Cour t has notgo ne thi s f aras ye t, tho ugh it cam e c l o se i n H erringv. U nited Sta tes , 1 2 9 S
. Ct
. 6 95 ( 2009 ) ; se e a l so Arizona v. Evans , 514 U
. S. 1, 10-16 (1995).N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 5 N o r ha ve we; no r ne ed we in thi s ca se . Al th o ug h the d ist ric t j ud ge did notr ule o n w hetherthe om i ssi on f ro m the affi davi t o ff acts co ncer ni n g the g arbage se ar chwas a cc i den ta l o r de l iber at e, e xc us ab l e o r i ne xcusabl e, o n bal ance the o m i tte d fa cts confi rm th e le gal i ty of t h e s ea rc h . Th e M ilw a u k e e ord in an c e a lon e c ou ld wel l b e th o ug htde ci si ve s uppo r t for it

. Pr i va cyi n the se ns e o fconc eal m en t ( o fs en si ti ve i nf o r m at i o n, o fthe bo dy, e tc
. ) i s con ven ti o na l : i t depe nds o n e xpe ct at i o ns that var y a cro ss soc i eti es and acro ss ti m e. W e ca nnot see how an expectation of pri vacythatcan be r eal i zed on ly b y b re ak in g t h e la w ca n be co n sid er ed rea so n ab le an d the r efo r e pr o te ct ed bythe Co ns ti tu ti o n, unl es s th e l a w i n qu e s t i o n i s i nv a l i d. A nd wh en the ga te w as open, as i t w as w hen the detect ive cond uc ted the sea rch, th e garbage coll ectors w oul d assum e that the defendant w anted hi s g arbage car t e m pti ed; and w hat they r eas onabl y b el i eve d they c o ul d d o , the de t e c t i v e c o ul d d o . No ttha tp o l i c e c a n go s e a r c h in g a n y p riv at e p lac e t h at so m e o th er st ra n ge r is en tit led to en te r. Stonerv. Ca li forni a , 37 6 U.S
. 48 3, 48 9 ( 1964 ) . The f act that one’ s cl eani ng se rv i ce i s a uthor i zed to e n tero ne’ s ho m e a nd em pty the wastepaper bask ets do es no t au th o r i ze the p oli ce t o e nt ero ne ’ s ho m e an d s e a r c h th o s e b a s k e t s . No r d o e s th e f a c ttha to n e th r o ws papers ( orf or t h at m att erm ar ij uana butts ) i nto a wastepaper ba ske t a uthor i ze the pol i ce t o e n teryo ur ho use to sea rc h the bask et on the the or y that y ou ab andoned w hatev erpro pertyyo u pla ced i n i t. T h e re as on for t h es e lim ita tio n s o n p olic e s ea rc h es is that peopl e hav e a st ro n g inter est

— cal l i t pr i vacyo r6 N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 ri ghts ofpro perty

— i n kee ping unw an te d str anger s, i nc l udi ngl aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi ce r s, o uto fthe i r ho m e, a nd the inter esti s deem ed a r eas onabl e o ne i n ourso ci ety
. Pe op le have a sim il ar i nt erest in ex clu d in g stran gers f ro m the proper ty that i m m edi ate l y surr ounds th eir house . Iftheyar e s unbathi ng i n the nud e i n thei r f enced yard they do not w ant the pol i ce e nter i ng the ya rd to sea rch garbage car ts. N ot that that w as a l i kel y a cti vi ty on a sn ow y d ay in D ecem ber. Bu t a hom eow ne r’s garbage car ts can be unavoi dabl y pr oxi m ate to por ti ons of hi s p r o pe r t y u s e d fo r p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s . He nc e the c o nc e pt of the “cu rtil age,” a v a r ia nt of th e O ld Fren ch w ord f or a l i t t l e c o ur t [ y a r d]

. I ti s n o tthe e nt i r e t y o fa per so n’ s p r o per ty ; i t is j u st th e p ar t u se d for p riv at e a c tiv itie s. U nited St at e s v. D unn , 480 U .S. 29 4, 30 1 (1 98 7); C alif ornia v. Ciraolo , 47 6 U .S. 20 7, 21 2-1 3 (1 98 6); O liv er v. U nited Sta tes , 4 66 U
. S. 17 0, 1 80 ( 19 84 )
. As the e m pha si s i n i nt er pr et at i o n o fthe Four th A m endm ent shi fted (ahi sto ri cal l y) fro m the prot ectio n of p ro p er ty to th e p ro te c tio n of p riv ac y, Kyll o v. U nited Sta tes , 533 U .S. 27, 31-3 2 (2 00 1); Wa rden v. Ha yd en , 387 U
. S. 294, 30 1- 07 ( 1967 ) ; M or gan Cl oud, “Pragm ati sm , Pos i ti vi sm , and Pri nci ple s i n Fo urth Am endm ent Th eor y, ” 4 1 U C LA L. R ev. 199, 22 1 -22 , 248-49 (1993), p arts of one’s proper ty that don’tpl ay hostto pri vate act i vi ti es l ostm uch of t h eir Fou rt h A m en d m en t p ro te c tio n . O liv er v. U nited Sta tes , sup ra , 46 6 U .S. at 1 77- 84. But curt i l age

— the par t o f on e’ s pro perty, bes i des the house i tse l f, i n w hi ch pri vate acti vi ti es nor m al l y t ake pl ace

— r e mai ns p r o t e c t e d. W e a re notpre pared to say th at a pla ce in w hi ch g arba g e ca r ts o r c an s ar e k eptc anne ve r b e pa r t o fthe c u rt ilag e. P eo p le w h o live in c iti e s a n d h av e s m allN os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 7 ya rd s p re fer to lea ve th eir ga rb ag e c ar ts in a n alley , i f ther e i s o ne ne xt t o the i r ho us e . I f no t, the y wi l l have to l ea ve the c arts in the i r y ar d, o fte n i n a s he d a t th e edge o fthe yar d; i n ourcas e the ca rt s were l eft next to the s e g men to fthe dr i v e wa y tha t i s i ns i de the fe nc e d y a r d. B ut th e fact th at th e d efend an t’s garba ge c a r t s w ere ( we m a y a s s u me ) w i th i n th e c u r t i l a g e o fh i s h o me d oes not conc lud e the cons titution al a na lysi s. For there i s th e o r di na nc e, a nd the r e i s a related i ss ue o fa ppar en t co ns en t to the s ea r ch

. S uppo se tha t every Fri daythe d efe n d an t o p en e d h is ga te , pla c ed h is ga rb ag e c ar ts in th e m i ddl e o fthe dr i ve way j ust in si de th e o peng at e, a nd by these m ove s s i gnal ed that he wanted the garbage col l ecto rs to ente r the y ar d , wheel the garbage car ts to the str eet, em pty them , and r etur n them to th eir p l ace in the drivew ay. T his w ou ld sh ow that noth ing very pri vate w as going on i n the yar d on ga rba ge- col l ecti on d ay. B y l eavin g the gate op en w he n w inter rules w ere in force, w ithou t not ic e t h at th e garbage coll ectors w ere not to enter

— a no ti ce they woul d not be bo und to obey b ecause i t would vi ol ate the or dinance

— the defendant al l owed a re aso nabl e per son to thi nk tha t no th i ng p r i va te was g o i ngo n i n h i s y ar d b ec au se he co ul d e xpe ctthe g arba g e co l l ec tor s to e nt eri t an d w heelaway the car ts, co nsi ste nt with th e w i nterr ule s ofwh i ch al l hom eowners w er e noti fi ed. That would be the naturali nfe re nce fro m the ci rcu m sta nces al though i t i s p o s s ib l e th a t th e g a t e wa s o p e n o n l y b e c a us e th e snow prevente d i t fro m being shut. ( Bu t then the defen d an t m u st h av e o p en ed it ea rlier .)8 N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 W e co nc l ude tha t th e g arbage s ea r chwas l awful

— that i t was autho ri zed by an a pp earance ofco nsent to col l ect the g arb ag e fr om the f enced ya rd under winte r rul es w i th the ga te open. But ther e i s a notherFo urth A m en d m en t issue: w he th er the sea rch of th e d efend an t’s c ar th at yield ed th e g u n th at p ro vid ed th e b as is f or h is m andator y 1 5- yea r sente nce as an a rm ed car eer cri m i nal was perm i ssibl e. Pol i ce c onducti ng underco versur vei l l ance in prepar ation for ex ecu ting th e w arran t to search the d efend an t’s house saw him dri ve hi s ca r to hi s ho use, parki t a cro ss the s tr eet, walkto ano thercar, wh ich h ad j ust ba cked into his d r iv ew ay, take from the tru nk of th at car a pac k ag e th ata po l i ce o fficer t es ti fi ed was c o ns i st en t w i th the way thathe’ d seen m ar ij uana packag ed bef or e, and carr y the packa ge i nto hi s ho u se . The pol i ce had eve ryr eas on t o th in k th e pack age co ntai ned drugs ( as i nd eed i t di d); the questi on i s whether they had probabl e ca use t o thi nk the re was contr aband orev i dence of c rim e in th e d efe n d an t’s ca r as w ell. T h e a n sw er is y es . The y h ad r ea so n t o b el i ev e th athe was a dr ug deal erand used hi s ca r i n hi s d ru g busi ness. H ence the c a r p r o b a b l y c o nt a i ne d mo ne y , a g un, o r e v i de nc e (ev en if j u st tra c e q u an tit ies ) of il l e ga l d ru gs , esp ec ially si nce the de f e nd a ntwa s dr i v i ngt o a r e nd e z v o us with an ot h er d ru g d ea ler . C f. U nited Sta tes v. Sto tler, 59 1 F
. 3d 935, 939-40 (7th C ir. 2010). M or eov er, he w as about to be ar re ste d, and jai l ed in d efi ni tel y. H i s ca r coul d not be l eft unatt ended indefini tel y. Eventual l y i t w ou l d have be en i m pound ed byN os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 9 th e po l i ce a nd s ubj ec te d t o a n i nv en to r y s ea r ch

. The d isc ov er y o ft h e g u n w as th u s in ev ita b le. N ix v . Willia m s, 467 U
. S. 43 1 ( 1984 ) ; U n i t e d Sta tes v. Sto tler, sup ra , 59 1 F. 3d at 940. W e tu r n t o the s en te nc e. The g o ve r nm en t h as co nf ess ed er ro r, st ati ng: Si m m s chal l enges hi s s entence o n sev er algr ounds. H e c la i m s th e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n ot ad eq u at ely e x p l a i n i t s c h o i c e o f s e n t e n c e , r e l y i n g o n S i mms ’ c r i mi nal r eco rd to the excl us ion of othe r sect i on 3 553( a) f ac t o r s , a r e c o r d a l r e a dy a c c o un t e d fo r i n the c a l cul ati o n o fthe a r m ed care erc r i m i na l po r ti o n o fthe s en tence
. S i m m s co m pla i ns thatthe dist ri ct c ourtf ai l ed to a dequa tel y expl ain i ts de ci si o n t o i m po se c o ns ec uti ve s en te nc es , o r a ckno wl edg e th ata g ui del i ne s en tence would have i nvol ved co ncurr ent s entence s. Si m m s co ntends thatthe dist rict cour t s eem ed un aw are th atthe s en te nc e i t i m po se d e xc ee ded th e Gui d e l i n e s r a n g e . F i n a l l y , S i mms a r g u e s th a tt he d istri ct cou rt i m p rop erly reli ed on th e pros p ect of a succes sful sente nci ng appeali n d eci ding to i m pose the r evo catio n sent ence conse cuti vely t o the o ther sente nces. The g o ve r nm en t co nc ede s th at th e r ec o r d do es no t co nta i n s uffi ci en t i ndi ca ti o n the c o ur t w as awar e th atthe sente nce i t i m posed exce eded the gui del i nes ra nge, nor do es i t co nt ain a suffi ci en tl y c l ea r e xpl an at i o n f o r the cour t’ s cho i ce o fse ntence. A s a r esul t, the U ni ted S tat es r es pectful l y c o nc ede s th ata r emand f o r r es en te nc i ng w oul d be a pp ro pri ate
.10 N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 T he j ud ge erred , bu t only i n tw o m inor resp ects
. Th ere m ay be no need f orano therse ntenci ng hea ri ng. H e r evo ked the o rdero fsup er vis ed r el eas e that had been i ssued i n conj unction w i th a previ ous c onvi cti on o f th e defen dan t, o r der ed hi m i m pr i so ne d f o r 3 0 m o nths as puni sh m en t f o r hi s vi o l at i o n o f th e te r m s o f th e su p ervi se d r el ea se , a nd made th e 30

- m o nth s en tence r un c o nsecuti vely to the se ntences f orthe cri m es ofwh i ch th e defen dan t was c o nv i ct ed i n the pr es en t ca se . But the j ud ge’ s r eas on f orm aki ng t h at sente nce co nsecuti ve ( o r s o the de f en d an t ar g ue s an d the g o ve r nm en t, i n the passag e we j ust q uoted, ag re es) was that i fthe def endant succee ded o n appeal in knocki ng o ut o ne o r m or e o fhi s o thersentences , wh at re m ai ned m i ght b e i nsuffi ci ent to provi de adequate puni shm ent forhi s cr i m es co ns i der ed as a who l e. Tha t i s i ll ogical b ec au se i t m ea ns th at ifthe oth er sent en ces are affi rm ed on ap p eal, as w e are ab o utt o do ( wi th a m i no r qua l i fi ca ti o n) , the de f en dan t ends up w i th a heavi er o ve ral l se ntence than the j ud ge i ntended to i m pose. W e don’ t thi nk the j ud ge w as confused ove r w hether he was g i vi ngthe de f en d an t th e sh o r te sts en te nc e he co ul d. He s ai d h e w as g i vi ngthe de f en dan t th e m a nd a to rym i ni m um f orthe gun off ense

— th a ti s , t he 180 m onths. H e a dd ed 60 m onths ( bef or e the further add i ti on o f30 m on th s f orvi ol ati on o fsuperv i sed r el eas e) b e c a u s e o th e r wi s e th e d e f e n d a n t wo u l d h a v e b e e n pun i shed onl y f orthe gun off ense, the sour ce o fthe 180- m onth te r m . A fte r sa y i nghe’ d i m po se d the mandat o r y min i m um offi ftee n y ea rs f orthato ff ense the j ud ge expla i ned thatN os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076 11 “a ddi ti o na l t i m e was ne ce ss ar y i n thi s ca se i n l i g hto fthe d e f e n d a n t ’ s l o n gc a r e e r a s a c r i mi n a l s t a r t i n gfr o m th e t i me he was ver y y outh ful. S o that i s why Im ade the othe r counts conse cuti ve to count t w o.” T he r esul t was a tot al sente nce o f24 0 m onths bef or e the j ud ge’ s m i sta ken add i ti on ofthe sente nce fo r vi ol ati on ofsup er vi sed r el eas e, ana ddi ti o n no t ba se d o n the j udg e’ s be l i efabo utwhatthe propero ver al l se ntence shoul d be. That w as five m onths abov e the gui del i nes r ange of 188 to 235 m onths, how eve r, and whil e th e s en tence ca nn ot be s ai d t o b e “u nus ua l l y hi g h, ” as i n U nited Sta tes v. K irkpa tr ick, 589 F.3d 41 4, 41 6 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ), th er e is a que st i o n whe th erthe j udg e k ne w th athe was s en te nc i ngthe de f en dan t ab o ve the g ui del i ne s r an g e. I n the “St ate m ent o fReas on s” fo r the s entence , r equi re d by 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 553( c) ( 2) , the j ud ge checke d both the bo x that s a i d “ T h e c o u r t i mp o s e s a s e n t e n c e o u t s i d e th e a dvi so r y s en te nc i ngg ui del i ne sy st em” a nd “ The s en te nce impos ed i s . . . b el o w the a dvi so r y g ui del i ne r an g e. ” Pr o babl y the s ec o nd c he ckwas a n e r r o r, b uto ut ofan abund ance o fcauti on we ar e o rder i ng a l i m i ted r emand to en ab l e th e j udg e to adv i se us wh eth er he w an ts to res en te n c e t h e d efe n d an t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Palad i no , 401 F.3d 471 , 483-84 (7th C ir. 2005). A nd fi nal l y there ’ s no r eas on to thi nk the j ud ge gave exce ss ive weight to the defe nd ant’ s cr i m i nal hi sto ry . Th at h ist or y, w h i c h w as ex te n siv e, figu re d in th e c alc u lat ion of th e g u id elin es ran ge , bu t a ju d ge is perm i tte d to gi ve m or e wei ght t o cri m i nal hi sto rythan the gui del i nes do. N ori s i t a pp ar ent what additi onal12 N os. 10

- 1055 , 10

- 1076

se nt en ci ngf ac to r s i den ti fi ed i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( a) the j ud g e i g no r e d. As h e e xp l a i ne d, The cour t, in i m posi ng i ts sente nce i n thi s m att er, has certa in l y t ake n i nto acco unt yo ur a ge, M r. S i m m s, an d y o ur b ac k g r o und a nd the ne ed to d et erthe o ng o i ng s a l e o f dr ug s c o nt r a r y t o l a w. W he n I l oo k at yourr eco rd and the f act th at you’ ve had offenses i n the past, wh er e y ou’ ve had guns, wh en Il oo k a t the o pp or tuni ti es you’ ve been given i n the past t o co m pl y wi ththe c ond i ti o ns o fs upe r vi si o n a nd r el ea se a nd the v i o l at ion s th atha ve o cc ur r ed dur i ng th e p e n d e n c y o fth e v a r i o u s c a s e s , i ts e e ms t o me that thi s s entence i s r eas onabl e a n d no gr eat er than nece ssa ryunde r the c i rcum sta nces to achi eve the pu rpos es seto ut i n the sta tutes , and that has m oti vate d the co urt to sente nce y ou as Ihave

. To c on c lu de, the sente nces m ust be co rr ecte d to m ake th e s e n t e n c e f o r v i o l a t i o n o fs u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e r u n c o nc u r r e n t ly w ith th e o th er se n te n c es ; an d th e jud ge is to i nf o r m us whether h e want s to r es en te nc e th e defe nda ntt o a s e nt e nc e wi thin the a pp l i c a b l e g ui delin es ran ge . In all ot h er res p ec ts th e jud gm en t is A FFI RMED .

11- 23- 10