FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 28, 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. 07- 10454 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -000 03 -C R -6 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 O R L E J A N D R O M A R Q U I S S M A L L S , 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 o rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 28, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O r l e j a ndr o M a rq u i s S m a l l s a ppe a l s hi s 40- m onth s e nt e nc e , i m pos e d a f t e rhe pl e d gui l ty , pur s ua ntt o a w r i t t e n pl e a a gr e e m e nt , t o pos s e s s i on of f i r e a r m s a nd a m m u n i t i o n b y a c o n v i c t e d f e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

1 8 U. S . C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 ) . On2

appeal , S m al l s a rgues the i m po si t i on of hi s s ent ence const i tut ed an i m prop er upw a r d de pa r tur e f

r om the a ppl i c a bl e S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge of 15 t o 21 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. H e a ls o c h a lle n g e s th e r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f h is s e n te n c e . A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. T he r el ev an tf

a c t s a r e the s e . O n M a r c h 10, 2006, S m a l l s w a s i ndi c t e d on one c ountof

be i ng a f

e l on i n pos s e s s i on of

f i r e a r m s a nd am m u n i t i on, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). P ursuantt o a w ri t t en p lea agre em ent , he pl ed gu i l ty a s c ha r ge d. A c c or di ng t o the f a c tua l pr of

f e r i n the pl e a a gr e e m e nt , S m a l l s w as found i n pos s e s s i on of

tw o f i r e a r m s a nd s i x r ounds of a m m uni t i o n . S m al l s ha d a pr i or f e l ony c onvi c t i on f

ors a l e of

m ari j u an a i n 1995, a nd a pr i orf e l ony c onvi c t i on f

or pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m by a c onvi c t e d f e l on i n 1 9 99. T he pl e a a gr e e m e nt c ont a i ne d the f

ol l ow i ng a ppe a l - w a i ve rpr ovi s i on: U n d erst an d i n g th at1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 p r o v id e s f o r an ap p eal b y a de f e nda ntof

the s e nt e nc e unde rc e r t a i n c i r c um s t a nc e s , the de f e nda nt as p a r t o f th is ag re em en t an d in co n sid er atio n fo r th e g o v er n m en t’ s pr om i s e s he r e unde r , e xpr e s s l y w a i ve s a ny a nd a l l r i ght s c onferr e d by thatst atut e t o app ea l any s ent ence im po se d t hati s w i thi n t he st atut ory m axi m um s s etou tabov e.

. . . . N o tw i th st an d i n g th ese w ai v ers, th e d efen d an treserv es th e ri g h tt o f ile a di r e c ta ppe a l . . . of t he s e nt e nc e i m pos e d . . . , i n the e ve ntthe se n tenci ng C ou rtup w ar dl y depar t s f rom the gu i del i ne ra ng e i tfi nd s a s a m att erof l aw appl i cabl e t o t he defendan t a n d the offens e, w hether3

tha tupw a rd d e pa r tur e i s m a de pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 3 ( f r om c r im in a l h is to r y ) o rU .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .0 ( o f f e n s e le v e l) . . . . A f t e rthe di s tr i c tc our ta c c e pt e d hi s gui l ty pl e a , S m a l l s pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng. A c c or di ng t o the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t ( “ P S I ” ) , S m a l l s w as a p a s s e n g e rin a v e h ic le th a t a p p r o a c h e d a c h e c k p o in t c o n d u c te d b y G e o r g ia S ta te P atrol T roop er s. T he checkpointoffi ce rs det ec t ed the od or of m ar i j uana and asked S m a lls to s te p o u t o f

th e c a r . A f

te rg e ttin g o u t o f

th e v e h ic le , S m a lls a tte m p te d to fl ee the sc ene on foo t . O ne of the offi ce rs shotS m al l s i n t he back w i th a t as er w e a p o n . A f

te rb e in g s h o t w ith th e ta s e r , S m a l l s g o t u p a n d a tte m p te d to f le e a g a in b u t w a s a p p r e h e n d e d a f te ra s h o r t c h a s e a n d s tru g g le . S m a lls w a s f o u n d in p o s s e s s io n o f

tw o s e m ia u to m a tic p is to ls a n d f if te e n r o u n d s o f

a m m u n itio n . T h e P S I a s s ig n e d S m a lls a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

1 4 , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 K2 . 1 ( a ) ( 6 ) , a n d r e c o m m e n d e d a 2 - l e v e l u p wa r d a d j u s t m e n t , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) , be c a us e both of the w e a pons t h atS m a l l s pos s e s s e d w e r e s t ol e n, a nd a 3- l e ve l r e duc t i on, pur s ua nt t o U . S . S . G . §§ 3E 1. 1( a ) a nd ( b) , fo r a c c e pt i ng r e s p o n s ib ility a n d a s s is tin g a u th o r itie s . S m a lls h a d t h r e e c r im in a l h is to r y p o in ts base d o n a 19 99 fe l on y c on vi ct i on and 3 0-m on th sent ence for posse ss i on of a fi rearm b y a co n v i ct ed fel o n . A l th o u g h n o p o i n t s w ere assi g n ed , th e P S I al so not e d tha tS m a l l s ha d be e n c onvi c t e d i n 1995 f ors a l e of

m a r i j ua na , t o w hi c h he pl e d gui l ty a nd r e c e i ve d 4 y e a r s ’ pr oba t i on. B a s e d u p o n a t ot a l of f e ns e l e ve l of

134

a nd a c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gory I I , S m a l l s f a c e d a n a dvi s or y G ui d el i ne s r a nge of 15 to 2 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t . T h e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rn o te d th a t, p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 3, an up w ar d d epar ture m i gh tbe w arra nt ed i f the courtdet er m i ned tha tS m a l l s ’ s cr i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y s i gni f i c a nt l y unde r - r e pr e s e nt e d the s e r io u s n e s s o f

h is c r im in a l h is to r y . I n a su p p l em en t t o th e P S I, th e p ro b at i o n o ffi cer reco m m en d ed th at a v a r ia n c e f

r o m th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e , to a s e n t e n c e o f 4 2 m o n th s , w a s w a r r a n te d in thi s c a s e be c a us e : ( 1) S m a l l s ’ s 1999 f e l ony c onvi c t i on a nd 30- m onth s e nt e nc e f or pos s e s s i on o f a fi rearm by a c onvi c t e d f e l on di d notde t e rhi m f r om c om m i t t i ng the i nst antoffe nse; (2) S m al l s’ s 19 9 5 co n vi ct i on narr ow l y f el l ou t si de of the 10 -y ea r w i nd ow ; ( 3) i f the 19 95 c on vi c t i on w a s c ou nt e d, Sm a l l s w ou l d ha ve ha d a cr i m i nal hi s t or y c a t e gor y of

I I I a nd a n of

f e ns e l e ve l of

19, r e s ul t i ng i n a gui de l i ne r a nge of 37 t o 46 m onths . T he p ro b at i on of f i c e rs t a t e d, “ a s e nt e nc e of f or ty - tw o m onths p r o mo t e s r e s p e c tf

o rth e l a w , p u r s u a n tt o 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) , a n d a f f or ds a d e q u a te d e te r r e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t, p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) .” N e ith e rth e g o v e r n m e n t n o rS m a lls o b je c te d to th e P S I o rth e s u p p le m e n t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, S m a l l s di d notobj e c t t o the f a c tua l a c c ur a c y of the re po rtor the P S I’ s c al cul at i on of the advi sory G ui d eli nes r ange. T he di stri ct court adop t ed the fa ctual st at em ent s i n the P S I and det er m i ned tha t t h e G u idel i nes5

r a nge w a s a c c ur a t e l y c a l c ul a t ed . T h e di s tr i c tc our tthe n s t a t e d, “ the pr oba t i on o ffi cer h as reco m m en d ed a sen t en ce o u ts id e o f th e ad v i so ry g u i d el i n es, s i gni f i c a nt l y s o. T ha tr e s ul t s f r om the d e f

e nda nt ’ s pr e vi ous c onduc ta nd pr e vi ous s e nt e nc e s . ” T he gove r nm e ntr e s pon d ed t h at i tw oul d de f e rt o the c our t , a l though th e r e c o m m e n d a tio n “s e e m [ e d ] c o n s is te n t w ith th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e .” S m a lls as ked the c ou r tt o s e nt e nc e hi m w i thi n the G ui de l i ne s r a ng e be c a us e a s e nt e nce w i thi n t he ra ng e of 15 t o 2 1 m on ths “ w o u ld d o exac t l y w hatthe prob at i on offi ce r sugg es t s the 42 m on ths w ou l d otherw i se do . ” T he court st at ed that i talw ay s g iv es

“ grea tconsi dera t i on ” to th e re com m endat i on of the prob at i on offi ce r a nd as ked S m a lls to “te ll [ it] w h y t h a t r e c o m m e n d a tio n s h o u ld n o t b e f o llo w e d .” S m a lls r e s p o n d e d th a t h e h a d ta k e n r e s p o n s ib ility f o rth e c h a r g e s a n d w a s a tt e m p t i n g to c o r r e c t h is lif

e . H e a ls o h ig h lig h te d th a t h e w a s e m p lo y e d a n d p r o v id e d s u p p o r t to f o u rc h ild r e n . P r io rto im p o s in g s e n t e n c e , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d th a t it h a d lis te n e d to S m a lls a n d h is c o u n s e l a n d s tu d ie d S m a ll s ’ s r e c o r d “in g r e a t m e a s u r e a n d d e ta il.” T he di stri ctcourt f

o u n d thatthe P S I w as concl usi ve and t hati tadequat el y c ov er ed the 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T he c our tthe n i m p o sed a 40- m onth t e r m of i m pri sonm ent , no t i ng that S m alls ’ s pre vi ou s 30-m on th sent ence for s i m i l ar cond uct “ di d not have m uch of a det erre nt ef fe ct . ” In addi t i on , the di stri ct co urtAcc ordingto the g overnment, Smalls waived his right to bring this appe al bec ause he 1 was sentenced w ithin the statutory maxi mum, and bec au s e n o n e of the exceptions in the plea agree ment apply . The g overnme nt urg es that the district cour t’s statements at th e sentencing hearing, which attempted to e ffe ct a modification of the appeal-waiver provision, do not impact the enforcea bility of the provision. In light of the“upwa rd depa rture”languag e used at the sentenc ing hearing, to whic h the g overnme nt did n o t o b j ec t, we ca

nnot find that Smalls knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to appeal the imposit ion of sentenc e above theGuidelines ra ng e. In any event, a pplication of the waiver is not outcome-de terminative. 6 e xpl i c i t l y s t a t e d tha tS m a l l s ha s “ h ad a hi s t or y of di s tr i but i ng drugs a nd pos s e s s i ng f i r e a r m s . . . [ a nd] pr e s e nt s a gr a ve r i s k t o the c om m uni ty . ” A l so i m p o rt an t t o the c o u r t w a s th e f

a c t th a t S m a lls a tte m p te d to e s c a p e a n d h a d to b e a p p r e h e n d e d w ith th e u se o f a ta s e r . T h e c o u rt stated , “ th e s en ten ce sh o u ld sp ea k to th e d ef en d an t’ s c o n d u c t. H o p e f

u lly it d o e s .” P rio r to ad

jo u rn in g th e h ea rin g , th e d istrict co u rt to ld S m all th at h e h ad “a ri gh tt o app ea l i f he s ho ul d d es i re , b ec au se I s ent ence d h i m beyond the advi sory gui de l i ne s , ” a nd “ I c e r t a i nl y w a nt hi m t o ha ve hi s r i gh t t o a pp e a l . ” The c ou rtt hen a s ke d S m a l l s, “ I’ m qui t e s ur e tha ty ou obj e c tt o the C our t ’ s de pa r t i ng upw a r d f r om the a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s . I s tha tc or r e c t. . . ? ” S m a l l s i ndi c a t e d tha t h e d i d , a nd the c o u r t p r e s e r v e d h is o b

je c tio n . A t n o p o in t d u r in g th e c o u r t’s e x c h a n g e w ith S m a lls di d the g ove r nm e ntl odge a n obj e c t i on t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i m pl i c i ti nt e rpr e t a t i on of the appe a l - w a i ve r pr ovi s i on i n S m a l l s ’ s pl e a a gr e e m e nt a s a l l ow i ng t h e i n st ant a ppe a l . T hi s a ppe a l f

ol l ow e d. 17

S m al l s a rgues thathi s s ent ence i s a n i l l egal and u nrea sonabl e upw ar d d ep artu re. W h en rev i ew i n g a sen t en ce im p o s ed b y th e d i stri ctco u rt , w e fi rst ensur e tha tthe di s tr i c tc ou r tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d the Se nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s r a nge. U ni t ed S t at es v . W in in g ear, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). “ Iti s onl y a ft er a di st rict co u rtcorr ec t l y c al cul at es the G ui del i nes r ange, w hi ch i tst i l l m ustdo af t er B oo ker, thati tm ay consi der i m po si ng a m or e se v ere or m ore l eni entse nt ence . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . M c V a y , 4 4 7 F .3 d 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 5 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . In re v iew ing t he ul t i m at e s ent ence i m po se d for re as on abl enes s, w e c on si der onl y the f

i na l s e nt e nc e , r a the rtha n e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de d u ri n g the s e n te n c in g p r o c e s s . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 5 . R e a s o n a b le n e s s r e v ie w is

“ de f e r e nt i a l ” a nd “ the pa r ty w ho c ha l l en g es t h e s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e i n l i ghtof b oth [ the ] r e c or d a nd the f a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3 d 7 8 4, 788 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . I nc l ude d a m ong th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c t or s a r e ( 1) the na tur e a nd ci rcu m st an ces o f th e o ffen se; (2 ) th e h i st o ry an d ch aract eri st i cs o f th e d efen d an t; ( 3 ) th e n e e d t o r e f

l e c t t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , t o p r o m o t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, a nd t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e ntf orthe of f e ns e ; ( 4) th e n eed f

orde t e r r e nc e ; ( 5) the n e e d to p r o te c t th e p u b lic ; ( 6 ) th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r a n g e ; a n d ( 7 ) th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a n te d s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .8

T he go vernm enturg es thatthe di stri ctcourtappl i ed a vari ance , ra ther than a n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e , b e c a u s e th e c o u r tr e s t e d i t s d e t e r mi na t i on o n th e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3 (a ) fa cto rs and n ota s ec t i on of the G ui del i nes. In det er m i ni ng w hether a deci si on to se nt ence a def endantabov e the G ui del i nes r ange i s a vari ance or a departure, w e have consi dere d t w o fa ct ors: (1) w hether the se nt enci ng courtci t ed t o a spec i fi c departure provi si on i n t he g u id elin es, and (2) w hether the di stri ctcourt not e d the i na de qua c y of the gui de l i ne s r a nge . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E l di c k , 4 43 F . 3d 78 3, 78 8 & n. 2 (11 th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 7 S . C t . 25 1 (20 06 ). A ft erE l di ck, w e have expanded o n t he di st i nct i on betw ee n an u pw ar d departure a nd a var i ance . S ee U n it ed S t at es v. Ir i za rry, 45 8 F . 3d 12 08 (11t h C i r. 2006) , pe t . f

orc e r t . f

i l e d, ( U . S . O c t . 26, 2006) ( N o. 06- 7517) . I n I r i z a r r y , the di s tr i c tc our ti m pos e d a s t a tut or y m a xi m um s e nt e nc e of 60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt a f te rit h a d c a lc u la te d a G u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 4 1 t o 5 1 m o n t h s . I d . a t 1 2 1 0 . W e det er m i ned t hatthe hi gh er -than-G ui del i nes s ent ence w as a var i ance , no tan up w ar d d e p a r tu r e : ( 1 ) w e n o te d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e a d e q u a c y o f its c or r e c t l y - c a l c ul a t e d a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s r a nge “ i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s a nd the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, ” a nd ( 2) i tw a s c l e a rtha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s e x e r c is in g “its p o s t- B o o k e rd is c r e tio n to im p o s e a r e a s o n a b le se nt ence ou t si de the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes r ange, ” bec ause the di stri ctcourthad9

c onc l ude d tha ta s e nt e nc e w i thi n the r a nge w a s i na de qua t e t o a ddr e s s one of the sp ec i fi c § 35 53 (a ) f

ac t ors, t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c. Id. at12 11 -12; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v . S co t t , 4 4 1 F . 3 d 1 3 2 2 , 1 3 3 0 (1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) (d ecl i n i n g t o ad d ress se nt ence ou t si de the G ui del i nes r ange based on § 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors) . H er e, j ustl i ke i n E l di ck and Iri za rry, the di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o i m po se a hi ghe r - than - G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e w a s ba s e d on the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , a s s t a t e d by the c our tdur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i n g a nd r e c om m e nde d by the s uppl e m e ntt o the P S I , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc o u rt ad o pt e d. M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tc our tnot e d, on n u m er o u s o cc as io n s , th e in ad eq u ac y o f th e G u id elin es ra n g e, in li g h t o f S m alls’s re c i di vi s m a nd the ne e d f or de t e r r e nc e a nd pr ot e c t i on of the publ i c , a poi ntal so s t a t e d i n the s uppl e m en tt o the P S I . A l though the di s tr i c tc our tr e f e r r e d t o the up w ar d in cr ea se as a “ departure, ” the courtdi d n otre fe re nce a G ui del i ne as s u p p o r t f o rth e h ig h e r s e n t e n c e , b u t r a th e r , r e p e a te d ly d is c u s s e d f a c ts p e r ta in in g to th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors. O n th i s reco rd , w e read i l y co n cl u d e th a t th e s en t en ce w as a vari ance , and n otan up w ar d d epar ture. W e a l s o c o n c lu d e th a t th e a b o v e - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n a b le , w ith in the m ea ni ng of B oo ker. A gai n, atthe se nt enci ng h ea rin g , t he di stri ctcourt e x p lic itly s ta te d t h a t i t h a d c o n s id e r e d “th e f a c to r s s e t f

o r th in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” T h e c o u r t c o n s id e r e d th e a d v is o r y G u id e lin e s r a n g e s , 1 8 U .S .C . §We remain unpe rsuade d by Smalls’s argument that the district court imposed a 40- 2 month s e ntenc ebe c a

us eit s omeho w be lie ve d that Smalls ha d eng a g e d in c ri min a l c on du c t sinc ehis arrest for the present offense. At no point during its imposit ion of sentence did the district court say or intimate that it relied on such a belief i n fa s h ioning Smalls’s ultimate sentence . Nor a re w e convince d that the district court imposed the sentencebeca use Smalls’s children were bor ne, as the district court put it, “out of wedlock.” Rather, the district court was quite clea r in its rationale for the ab o v e- Gu i delines sentenc e, which thedistrict court summarized at the end of the sentencing he aringa s f

oll ow s: Th is C ourt

se ntenc e d th is d e fend ant t o 3 0 mo nth s c us tody for thesamec on du c t in 19 99 . O bv iou sly

that di d n ot h avemuc h of a d e te rre nt e ff e c t on Mr . Sm a lls , who is a convic ted fe l o n . T hat offense involved possessingfirea rms illegally . He ha s, as Ihave note d, had a history of distributing drug s and possessingfire arms. He p r e s e nt s a gr av eri s k

t o th ec o mmun i ty. As the[PSI ] not e s, hetrie d to e sc a pe . An d e ven when a

ta se r w a s u se d o n h im, it did not bring[hi m] into compliance with the law enforcement officials. It had to be used a se c on d ti me . So the se ntenc e sh ou ld spe ak to thede fend ant’ s c on du c t. H op e fully it d oe s. 10 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , a s w e ll a s th e f a c t th a t S m a lls ’s p r io r § 9 2 2 c o n v ic t i o n a n d 3 0 - m o n th se nt ence “ di d n ot h av e m u ch det erre ntef fe ct , ” 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (2)( A ), (B ). M o r e o v e r , th e co u rtn o t ed th atS m i th p o sed “ a g rav e d an g er t o th e co m m u n i ty .” 18 U . S . C . §3553( a ) ( 2) ( C ) . F i na l l y , the c our tf ound i m por t a nt t h e n at u r e a nd ci rc um st ance s of the i nst antoffe nse, i nclu d in g S m al l s’ s a t t em ptt o esc ape l aw enforce m ent . 18 U . S . C . § 355 3(a) (1). O n thi s re cord, the d istrict cou rt s uf f i c i e nt l y c ons i de r e d the a dvi s or y G u i de l i ne s r a nge , w hi c h i tde t e r m i ne d t o be i nadequ at e, and t he § 3 55 3(a) facto rs . A cc ordi ng l y, S m al l s has no tm ethi s burden 2 t o est abl i sh thathi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e.11

AF F I RME D.