FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 03, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 33 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 21 01 2- CR-J LK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us ROSA STEWART, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 34 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 21 01 2- CR-J LK UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,ve rs us

CARLOS STEWA RT, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma y 3, 2 01 0) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BIRCH an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ro saSte wart(“ Ro sa ”) an d C arl os Ste wart(“ Carl os ”) (c ol le ct iv el y “ th e St ewart s” ) pl edgu il ty to co ns pi racy to c omm itm ai l fr au d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 1 34 9, an d t he di stric t co urt s en te nc edth em to pri so n t erm s o f 60 m on th s. The y no w app eal th ei r se nt en ces , con te nd in g (1 ) th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin de te rm in in g t he ir o ffen se lev el s u nd er the Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es by refus in g t o affo rdth em

a th ree- le ve l re du ct io n p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 2X1 .1(b )(2 ), an d (2 ) 1 th atth ei r se nt en ces are u nr eas on ab le . W e co ns id er the se co nt en ti on s i n turn. I. The Gui de li ne ap pl ic ab le to co ns pi racy to c omm itm ai l fr au d i s U.S.S.G.

“We re view the district cour t’s application of the guidelines de novo , and its fac tual 1 finding s for c lear

err or.” United States v. W atkins , 477 F.3d 1277, 1279 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 2§ 2 X1.1 , whi ch co ve rs att em pt , so li ci ta ti on , andco ns pi racy offen se s n otco ve red by a sp eci fic off

en se Gui de li ne . U.S.S.G. § 2X1 .1. Whenth e o ffen se of
co nv ic ti on is a co ns pi racy, § 2X1 .1(b )(2 ) pr ov id es fora th ree- le ve l re du ct io n t o th e d efen da nt ’s bas e o ffen se lev el :
un le ss th e d efen dantor aco -co ns pi rat orco m pl et edall th e act s t he co ns pi rat or s b el ie ve d n eces sa ry on th ei r pa rt f

orth e su cces sf

ul co m pl et io n o f th e subs ta nt iv e o ffen se or t he cir cu m st an ces de m on st rat e th atth e co ns pi rat or s wer e ab ou t t o c om pl et e al l s uc h a ct s bu t fo r ap pr eh en si on or i nt errupt io n b y so m e si m il ar ev en t b ey on d th ei r co nt ro l. U.S.S.G. § 2 X1.1 (b )(2 ). The co m m en tary to § 2 X1.1 off

ers th e fo ll owi ng cl ari fic at io n: Inm os t p ro se cu ti on s fo r co ns pi raci es or a tt em pt s, the subs ta nt iv e o ffen se was s ub st an ti al ly com pl et edor wa s in te rrupt edor p rev en te d o n t he ve rg e o f co m pl et io n b y th e in te rces si on of l aw en fo rcem en t au th or it ie s o r th e vi ct im . In s uc h c as es , no reduc ti on of t he off en se lev el is warra nt ed . Som et im es , ho wev er, the arre stoc curs well be fo re the de fen da ntor a ny co-c on sp ira to r ha s co m pl et edth e act s n eces sa ry

forth e subs ta nt iv e o ffen se . Und er s uc h c irc um st an ces , a reduc ti on of 3 lev el s i s pr ov id edun de r § 2 X1.1 (b )(1 ) or(2)
. U.S.S.G. § 2 X1.1 , comm en t. (b ack g’d)
. In Uni te d Sta tes v. K

ha wa ja , we con cl ud edth atde fen da nt s co nv ic te d o f
co ns pi racy to c omm itm on ey lau nd eri ng were en ti tl edto th e th ree- le ve l re du ct io n in § 2 X1.1 (b )(2 ) fo r th e fo ll owi ng reas on : 3The reco rdsh ows th atalt ho ug h t he co ns pi rat or s i nt en de d to lau nd er $ 2 m il li on , th ey m an ag edto lau nd er o nl y $5 70 ,55 6 p rio r to ap pr eh en si on . The co ns pi racy was de pe nd en t o n t he IRS’s fro nt in g o f th e p ur po rte d d ru g m on ey , andth e rec or d d oe s n otsh ow tha t atth e ti m e th e IRS t erm in at edit s s ti ng op erat io n, Ap pe ll an ts ha d arra ng edforsp eci fic tra ns act io ns to oc cu r in th e fu tu re. Acco rd in gl y , th e co ns pi rat or s h adno t t ak encru ci al st ep s (in cl ud in g fo r ex am

pl e, pr ep ari ng fal si fie d do cu m en ta ti on , sec ur in g c as hi er’s ch eck s, o r arra ng in g m eet in gs forth e ex ch an ge ) to lau nd er the rem ai ni ng ba la nc e o f $2 m il li on . Con se qu en tl y , App el la nt s n ei th er be li ev edth atth ey

ha d c om pl et edall th e act s n eces sa ry on th ei r pa rt n orwere the y ab ou t t o c om

pl et e al l s uc h act s fo r th e laun de rin g o f th e en ti re $ 2 m il li on . 11 8 F .3d14 54 , 14 58 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). App lying Kh aw aj a , we subs eque nt ly hel d i n Uni te d Sta tes v. Pu ch e th at
m on ey -laun de rin g c on sp ira to rs were s im il arl y en ti tl edto th e th ree- le ve l re du ct io n be cau se , altho ug h t he y

pre vi ou sl y

ha d l au nd eredov er $ 70 0,0 00 , th ey ha d n ot

“ ta ke n c ru ci al st ep s, s uc h a s co nt act in g t he [un de rco ve r] agen ts or p rep ari ng pape rwo rkfor

m or e tr an sf

ers , to lau nd er the rem ai ni ng si x m il li on do ll ars .” 35 0 F.3 d 1 13 7, 1 15 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Ind eed , th e d efen da nt s i n Puc he sp eci fic al ly to ldth e u nd erco ve r ag en t tha t the y “ wan te d t o h ol d o ff o n [f utur e] tran sf

ers ” fo r th e ti m e b ei ng . Id

. In Uni te d Sta tes v. Le e , we hel d t ha t d efen da nt s co nv ic te d o f m ai l fr au d
were n oten ti tl edto th e an al og ou s t hr ee-l ev el reduc ti on foratt em ptoff en se s i n 4§ 2 X1.1 (b )(1 ). 42 7 F .3d88 1, 8 93 -9 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) ; se e U.S.S.G.

§ 2 X1.1 (b )(1 ). W e arr iv edat t hi s co nc lu si on be cau se , alt ho ug h t he de fen da nt s
subm it te d fr au du le ntch eck s t ha t wer e n otho no red , th ey ha d n on ethe le ss

“ cl earl y . . . co m pl et ed al l th e act s n eces sa ry to co m m itm ai l fr au d” be cau se th e factth atth os e fraudul en t ch eck s wer e n otho no redwas b ey on d t he ir c on tro l. Lee , 42 7 F .3dat 8 94 (em

ph as is ad de d) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e d efen da nt s h adm ai le d
se ve ral let te rs an d “ co m

pl et edth e act s u nd erl y in g the ir s ch em e to de frau d” ). Mo re re cen tl y , in W

atki ns , we add res se d wh ethe r th e an al og ou s t hr ee-l ev el reduc ti on forso li ci ta ti on off en se s i n § 2X1 .1(b )(3 )(A) ap pl ie d wh enth e d efen da nt
so li ci te d a n u nd erco ve r ag en t t o c omm itars on . 47 7 F .3dat 1 27 8; see U.S.S.G. § 2 X1.1 (b )(3 )(A). Aft er we “ ad op t[e d] th e ap pr oa chtak enin[it s] app li cat io n o f § 2 X1.1 (b )(2 ),” the is su e b ecame “whe th er o r no t the pe rs on so li ci te d h adtak en al l th e ‘cruc ia l s te ps ’ ne ces sary to de m on st rat e to th e d efen da ntth atth e o ffen se
was ab ou t t o b e co m

pl et ed .” W

atki ns , 47 7 F .3dat 1 28 1 (e m ph as is inori gi na l). W e u lt im at el y

rem an de d t he cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt fo r fu rth er fi nd in gs , bec au se

“ th e o nl y st ep s t ak enwere a d ia gr am an d adi sc us si on ab ou t the pl acement o f th e in cen di ary de vi ces . There was n o e vi de nc e, ho wev er, tha t the un de rco ve r of fic er ha d o bt ai ne d t he actua l d ev ic es or t he m ean s t o c om pl et e th e ars on .” Id

. Inth is cas e, th e St ewart s an d the ir c o- co ns pi rat or s h adtak en“ cru ci al st ep s”
5to ward s co m pl et in g t he subs ta nt iv e m ai l fr au d o ffen se at t he ti m e la w enf or cem en t in te rv en ed . This is so be cau se th ey ha d e st ab li sh eda de ta il edpl anto carry ou t the of fen se , th ey

ha d t he m ean s t o e xe cu te th e p la n, an d t he y were o n t he ve rg e o f
ex ecu ti ng th e p la n. Th e d is tri ctco urt thu s d idno t err by decl in in g t o awardth e St ewart s a t hr ee-l ev el reduc ti on , pu rs ua ntto § 2 X1.1 (b )(2 ). W e th eref or e tu rnto th e St ewart ’s cla im

th atth ei r se nt en ces are s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le
.

II. The Ste wart s ar gu e th atbe cau se (1) th ei r 60 -m on th ’s pri so n t erm s ar e atlea st do ub le th ei r co rrec tl y -d et erm in edGui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng es , (2) no ot he r
co de fen da ntwas s en te nc edab ov e h is or h er Gu id el in es sen te nc in g ra ng e, (3 ) th e Gov ern m en t d idno t re qu es t a v ari an ce fro m th e se nt en ci ng ran ge foreit he r Ro sa
orCarl os , and(4) th e d is tri ctco urt fa il edto st at e wit h t he requi si te sp eci fic it y why
su ch dra m at ic al ly enh an cedsen te nc es were warr an te d, the ir s en te nc es are
subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le gi ve n the sen te nc in g fa ct or s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). The y furth er co nt en d tha t (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt i gn or edim po rta nt§ 3 55 3( a)
m it ig at in g fa ct or s, (2 ) th e co urt’s s ta te m en t tha t the y ha d a“ cav al ie r di sr eg ardfor th e la w” was un fo un de d, an d (3 ) th e co urt’s the ory th atth e p la nn edars onth at
un de rla y th e m ai l fr au d s ch em e h adth e p ot en ti al of c au si ng “ in cred ib le ha rm to ho m es ne arb y ” an d d an ge r to in di vi du al s t rav el in g o n n earb y roa ds is un supp orte d
6by the reco rd
.

W e rev ie w a fin al sen te nc e fo r rea so nabl en es s i n l ig htof t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fact or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Win in ge ar , 42 2 F .3d12 41 , 12 45 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Rev ie w forreas on ab le ne ss is de fere nt ia l an d i s an al y zedun de r th e ab us e o f di sc ret io n s ta nd ard
. Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . 58 6, 5 97 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7) . A sen te nc e o ut si de th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e is
no t p res um edun reas on ab le , bu t ra th er, we “ m ay co ns id er the ex te ntof t he de vi at io n,” gi vi ng “ du e d efer en ce t o t he di stric t co urt’s d eci si on th atth e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, o n awho le , just ify the ex te ntof t he va ria nc e.” Id

. W e wil l n otsubs ti tu te th e co urt’s jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he rel ev an t fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Amedeo ,

48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 32 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The pa rty chal le ng in g asen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce is un reas on ab le in li gh t o f bo th th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ca mpb el l , 49 1 F .3d13 06 , 13 13 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). The re vi ew fo r subs ta nt iv e
un reas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es anex am in at io n o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces , in cl ud in g a n i nqui ry

in to whet he r th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s s up po rt t he sen te nc e in qu es ti on . Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ), cert
. de ni ed , 12 9 S .Ct. 2 84 8 (2 00 9) . If a di st ric t co urt d eci de s t ha t a s en te nc e o ut si de of th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e is warran te d, i t “ m us t co ns id er the ex te ntof t he
7de vi at io n a nden su re tha t the jus ti fic at io n i s s uf fic ie nt ly com

pe ll in g t o s up po rt t he de gr ee o f th e v ari an ce.” Gal l , 52 2 U.S. at50 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 7. A sen te nc e m ay

be subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le if i t d oe s n otach ie ve th e p ur po se s of sen te nc in g s ta te d i n § 35 53 (a). Uni te d Sta tes v. Pugh , 51 5 F .3d11 79 , 11 91 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . Mor eo ve r, whe n c on si de rin g wh ethe r a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e is
reas on ab le , we hav e co m pa redth e se nt en ce ac tu al ly im po se d t o the st atut ory
m ax im um . Se e, e.g ., Uni te d Sta tes v. Va ln or , 45 1 F .3d74 4, 7 51 -5 2 (1 1t h C ir. 20 06 ) (uph ol di ng sen te nc e as reas on ab le inpa rt b ecau se itwas “ ap pr eci ab ly bel ow th e st atut ory

m ax im um ”). “ [T]here i s a r an ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es fro m whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt m ay

ch oo se .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th

Ci r. 20 05 ). An o ut si de -th e-Gu id el in es sen te nc e n eedno t b e jus ti fie d b y “ ex tra or di na ry ci rcu m st an ces ,” an d t he Supr em e Co urt h as reject edth e u se of “ a ri gi d
m athe m at ic al form

ul a th atus es th e p erce nt ag e o f a d ep artur e as th e st an da rdfor de te rm in in g t he st ren gt h o f th e jus ti fic at io ns requi redfora sp eci fic sen te nc e.” Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at47 , 12 8 S .Ct. at59 5. Th e fac t tha t we re as on ab ly mig htco nc lu de th ata di ffer en t s en te nc e is ap pr op ria te is no t s uf fic ie ntto warran t re ve rs al
. Uni te d St at es v. W

il li ams , 52 6 F .3d13 12 , 13 22 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s i nc lu de , am on g o th er thi ng s: (1) th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es 8ran ge ; (2 ) th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se ; (3 ) th e h is to ry

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t he de fen dant ; (4 ) th e n eedforth e se nt en ce i m po se d t o re fle ct th e se rio us ne ss of the off en se , to pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, andto pro vi de jus t pu ni sh m en t fo r th e o ffen se ; (5 ) th e n eedforad equa te de te rren ce t o c riminal
co nduc t; (6) pro te ct io n o f th e p ub li c fro m furth er cr im es of the de fen dant ; an d (7 ) th e n eed to av oi d u nwarran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s. 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) -(6 ). Bas edon th e rec or d, b ot h R os a an d C arl os ha ve fai le d t o c arry the ir b ur de n o f sh owi ng th atth ei r se nt en ces were s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le , gi ve n tha t the di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e m it ig at in g fa ct or s n ot edby the ir c ou ns el , gav e eac h o f th ei r cas es anin di vi du al iz edrev ie w, exp li ci tl y st at edth atitco ns id eredth e § 35 53 fact or s (a nddi d s o i n s ub st an ce o n t he reco rd ), an d u lt im at el y op in edth atth e
na tu re, ci rcu m st an ces , andser io us ne ss of t he off en se weig he d i n fa vo r of im po si ng pri so n t erm s o f 60 m on th s. Mo reo ve r, Ro sa ’s andCarl os ’s sen te nc es are well be lo w th e st atut ory

m ax im um of 2 0 years i m

pr is on m en t, an d t he co urt d idno t
ne edto sh ow ex tra or di na ry cir cu m st an ces to jus ti fy

th e o ut si de -th e-Gu id el in es
se nt en ces . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o e rro r in cal cu la ti ng th e Gui de li ne s s en te nc in g ra ng e, no r di d i t i m po se un reas on ab le sen te nc es . AFFIR MED.

9