H ono rab le R ob er tM
. Dow , J r. , Uni t ed S t at es Dis t ri c tJ udge  f or the Northe rnDis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 08

- 2655 & 08

- 2661 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B ERNARD D OUGL AS, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC ourt fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No s. 04 CR10074 &07 C R 10080

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judg e.
A RGUED M AY 4, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 17, 2009

Befo re K ANNE an d E VANS, C ircu it Judges , a nd D OW, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . T hi s i s a s e nt e nc i nga pp e a l
. On February6, 20 08, the d efend ant, Bernar d D ougl as, pl ed gui l ty to conspi ring to di str ibute m or e th an fi ve ki l ogr am s o f co c a i n e an d m or e th an fifty gra m s o f cr ac k in2 N os. 08

- 2655 & 08

- 2661 vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. § 8 41( a) ( 1) and ( b) (1)(A )
. Dougl as w as ser vi ng a thre e- yea r ter m o fsuperv i sed r el eas e for a pri oro ffen se , the te rm s o fwh i ch Dougl as vi ol ate d by hi s r ol e in the conspi ra cy. On J un e 27, 20 08, the dist ri ct c ou rtse n te n c ed D ou gla s t o a to t a l o f2 58 m on th s in pri son: 24 0 m onths f orthe conspi ra cy and ei ghtee n mo n th s f o rth e s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e v i o l a t i o n, th e t wo sentences to be s er ved co nsecuti vel y. Dougl as now cha ll enges bo th co m ponents o fhi s s entence
. W e turn fi rs t t o hi s s entence o n the drug co nspir acy charg e. A t s entencing, Dougl as obj ecte d to the o ffense lev el c alc u lat ion co n ta in ed w ith inh is P re se n te n c e In ve st ig a t i o n R e p o r t
. S p e c i fi c a l l y, D o u g l a s qu e s ti o n e d t wo upwar d a dj us tment s r ec o m m en ded i n the r epo r t: the fi r stf o rDo ug l as ’ s pur po r te d l ea der sh i p r o l e i n the c o nsp ira c y, see U
. S. S entencing Guidel i nes M anual ( “U
. S. S. G.” ) § 3 B1. 1( c) ; the seco nd f orhi s a l l ege d obst ructi on ofj usti ce, see id. § 3C 1.1. Th e repo rt r e c om m en d ed an u p w ard ad j u st m en t o f tw o p oi n t s o n ea c h gro u n d , s e ei d. §§ 3B1. 1(c ), 3C1. 1, f ora tot aladj ustm ent o ff our poi nts. A fteradding these f our poi nts t o Douglas ’s b ase o ffense l eve lo fthi rty- f our, and subtr actin g three poi nts for D o u g l a s ’ s a c c e p t a n c e o fr e s p o ns ib i l i ty, th e r e p o r tr e c o mm ended a to talo ffense l eve lo fthi rty- fi ve. T h e courtadopted the re com m ended enhancem ents ove r Dougl as’ s obj ect ion. A n offense l eve lo fthi rty- fi ve, com b i ne d wi th Do ug l a s ’ s c a t e g o r y V c r i mi na lh i s t o r y, pl a c e d h i s Gu i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e b e t we e n 2 6 2 an d 327 m onths i n pri son. The co urt, however, went bel ow th e G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e t o s e n t e n c e D o u g l a s t o theN os. 08

- 2655 & 08

- 2661 3 st atut o r y min i m um o f2 40 months f o r hi s r o l e i n the dr ug conspi ra cy. On app eal, Dougl as ar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d i n apply i ng the l eader shi p and obst ructi on o fj usti ce en h an c em en ts . W e n ee d n otd elv e in to th e d et a i l s o f h is argu m en ts, how ever, becau se even assu m ing tha t the re wer e er r o r s, the r e i s no th i ng w e c o ul d do t o c ha ng e th e i m posed s en tence , wh i ch the cour t r endered pursuant to a s tatutor y m i ni m um . U nd erthes e f acts , any potenti al er ro r w as harm l ess . B ec au se D ou gla s h ad a p rior felon y d r u g c on vic tio n in I l l i noi s state cour t, 24 0 m onths w as the m i ni m um pri son se n te n c e p er m itt ed by st at u te
. See 2 1 U. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( “I fany perso n com m i ts s u c h a v i ol ati on a ftera pri or c on vic tio n for a felon y d ru g off en se h as be c om e fin al, s u c h p e r s o n s h a l lb e s e n t e n c e d t o a t e r m o fi m pr i so nme n twh i c h ma y n o tb e l e s s th a n 2 0 y e a r s . . . . ” )
. As we h av e sta ted, “[ a] dj ustm ents
. . . m att erto the Gu i del i nes’ se nt en cingr an g e butdo no t affec t st atut o r y min i m um sente nces. ” U nited Sta te s v . Riv era , 41 1 F
. 3d 864, 86 6 ( 7th Cir
. 20 05) . T hus, ev en i fwe w er e t o re m and fo r re sente nci ng ba sed o n an e rr ori n cal cul ating the Guidelin es ran ge , th e s ta tu to ry m in im u m w ou ld st ill con tr ol, m ea n in g th atD ou gl a s’s n ew se n te n c e c ou ld n otp os sib ly b e le ss th an h is firs t. See i d. ; s e eal s o U
. S. S. G. § 5 G1. 1( b) (“W h er e a s ta tu to rily re q u ire d m in im u m se n te n c e is g r ea t e rth a n th e ma x i mu m o fth e a p p l i c ab l e g u i d e l i ne ra n ge , th e s ta tu to rily re q u ire d m in im u m se n te n c e s h all be th e guid eli ne sent en ce.”).4 N os. 08

- 2655 & 08

- 2661 A n y e rro r, th er efo re , w ou ld b e ha rm les s by d efin itio n, a fac t th atw e h av e r ec og n ize d rep ea te d ly. Se e, e . g. , R ivera , 411 F.3d at 867 (“ B o o k er does not confero n dis tr i ct j ud ges any di scr eti on t o gi ve sente nces b elow st atuto ryfl oo rs . A n y e rro r th e d i s t r ictj u d ge m ay h av e m ad e in re sol vi ng f actuald isp utes i n or der t o apply the Gui del i nes was har m l ess .”); U nite d States v. G iacom et ti, 28 F. 3d 69 8, 7 04 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( “In c er ta i n c as es we k no w the er ro r is h ar m les s: w h en , for ex am p le, t h e d ist ric t c ou rt
. . . er red o n t h e high si de but the se ntence coul d not hav e been any l o w er beca us e of a statu tory m inim um . ”); U ni t e d St at e s v. K o z inski, 16 F. 3d 795, 81 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( fi nd i ng a sente ncin g e rr orhar m l ess and re fusi ng to re m and fo r re sente nci ng wh en “the di str i ct c ourtwas ob liga te d to i m p o se th e s en te n c e itd id ”); see also U nited Sta tes v. Lee, 3 99 F
. 3d 86 4, 8 66 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( “Nothi ng i n B o o k er g i v e s a j ud g e a nydi s c r eti on to d i s r e g a r d a m andator y m i ni m um , so ther e [ i s] no need to specul ate ab o utpr ej udi ce . ”)
. T hi s o ut co m e r en der s su per fl uo us any fur th era na l y si s o fDo ug l as ’ s at ta cko n h i s co nspi ra cy sente nce. W e ne xttur n t o Do ug l as ’ s ch al l en g e to hi s ei g ht ee nm on th p ris on s e n t e n c e fo r vio lat in g th e t er m s o f h is supervi sed r el eas e. Thi s a rgum ent bor d ers o n fri vol i ty, an d we r ej ect i t o uto fha nd. Do ug l as do es no t ar g ue that the di str i ct c ourtm iscal cul ate d the appro pri ate Gui del i ne s r an g e, whi chwas ei g ht ee n t o t wenty - f o ur m on th s. See U. S
. S
. G. § 7B1
. 4. N o rdoe s he s ug g es t th atthe tw o s en te n c es w er e n otto ru n co n se c u tiv ely
. Se ei d. § 7B1
. 3( f )
. In f ac t, a si de fr o m the he adingi n his b r i ef, he does not appear t o conte st the e i ghtee n -m onth por ti on of h is s en te n c e a t a ll.N os. 08

- 2655 & 08

- 2661 5

For pur pos es ofar gum en tpr es er vat i on, Dougl as al s o con- 1 te n d s t h a t h is se n te n ce v io la te d th e S ix th A m en d m en t, a c l a i m th a th e c o n c e d e s h a s b e e n r e s o l v e d b y th e S u p r e me C o u rt
. S ee A l m end arez- Torrez v. U n i te d S tat es , 52 3 U .S. 2 2 4 (19 9 8 ).

6- 17- 09 I nstea d, he f ocuse s o n a c om m ent m ade i n passing by the di str i ct j ud ge afterhanding dow n both sent en ces: “[ The com bin ed se ntence of25 8 m onths] i s a ctual l y l ess than the bo tto m o fthe gui del i ne ran ge o n the or i gi nal se n te n c e [o f 26 2 m on th s on t h e c on sp ira c y c h ar ge alon e].” Do u gl as tr i es to cl oakthi s s tat em ent in proc eduralr obe s, w hich w ou ld trigger d en o v o r e vie w . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ndoz a , 510 F.3d 749 , 754 (7 t h C ir. 2007 ). Bu t the cou rt’s com m entar y was m or e a m athem ati caltruis m

— ak in to one plus one i s l ess than fi ve

— than a rung in the l add er ofse ntenci ng pro cedure. Sim plychar acte ri zi ng the st ate
m ent o ne way orano therdoes notchange i ts nature
. I n e ss en ce , Do ug l as ’ s ch al l en g e, o st en sibl y t o the “pr o ce dur e” us ed t o s en te nc e hi m f o rv i o l at i ngthe t e r ms o fh i s s up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , i s a n a t t e mpta tb a c k do or review oft h e cons p iracy sent en ce. I f th e d istri ct cou rt ha d c o r r ectl y c al cul at ed th e Gui del i ne s r an g e o n the conspi ra cy charg e, Dougl as ar gues, the af or em en ti oned sta tem ent woul d have be en i ncor re ct. But w e hav e al read y d i scar ded Dougl as’ s chal l enge to the c onspi ra cy se nt en ce . Do ugl as ’ s no ne xi st en t “c ha l l en g e” t o the ei ghtee n-m onth s entence f ai l s. 1 Dougl as’ s s entence i s A FFI RMED .