T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t24,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. RA Y C HAR L E S KNOX, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2007 (D . N .M .) ( D. Ct . No . CR- 0 5 - 6 9 8 RB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

A p p e llan t R a yC h a rle s K n o x , a fe d e ra l p riso n e r re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l,-2-

a p p e a ls h is s e n ten c e fo llo w in g h is g u iltyp lea to p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e l es s t han fi ftyki l ogr ams of mar ij uana, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 2 and 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( D ) , on gr ounds tw o pr i orj uveni l e convi ct i ons shou l d n ot have b een u sed t o calcul at e his cri m i nal hi st oryscore. W e exerci se juri sd ict ion p u rsua n t t o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 7 4 2 an d 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d affirm M r. K nox’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . O n J anuary7, 2005, U ni t ed St at es B or derPatr ol agent s conduct ed a r out i ne t r aff i c che ck on a c om m er ci al bus atthe bor derpatr ol chec kpoi ntw es tof A l amogordo, N ew M exi co. A n agent , t ogetherw i th a dog tr ai ned t o det ectthe pr es ence of contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s , i ns pect ed the l ow erl uggage c om part m entof th e b u s, a n d th e d o g a ler ted to tw o su itca se s. T h e id e n tific a tio n tag s o n b o th s ui t cas es di s pl ay ed the name “M i chae l W r i ght . ” The bus dr i vers t at ed a man by t hatname boar ded the bus . A pas s engerthen i dent i fi ed hi m s el f as M i chae l W r i ght , butw as l at erdet erm i ned t o be R ayC har l es K nox, t o w hom w e r efe r her eaf t er . M r . K nox s ai d t he tw o s ui t cas es bel onged t o hi m and cons ent ed t o a s ear ch. A gent s di s cover ed tw entybundl es , w r apped i n gr ayductt ape a nd v a c u u m -s e a le d b a g s , w h ic h c o n ta in e d 2 4 .2 k ilo g ra m s o f m a riju a n a . M r. K no x p l ed g uil t yt o an i nd i ct m ent chargi ng him w i th p ossess i on of les s t han fi ftyki l ogr ams of mar ij uana w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e i t , i n vi ol at i on of 18-3-

U .S .C . § 2 a n d 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d (b )(1 )(D ). F o llo w in g M r. K n o x ' s g u ilty pl ea, a pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eport , i n w hi ch he c al cul at ed a r ecomm ended s ent ence us i ng t he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes (“ G u id e lin e s” o r “ U .S .S .G .”). B a se d o n th e D ru g Q u a n tityT a b le fo u n d in U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 12) , he ca l cul at ed M r . K nox’ s bas e offens e l evel at16 beca us e the amountof m ar ij uana i nvol ved w as atl eas tt en ki l ogr ams butl es s than t w entyki l ogr ams. T he pr obat i on offi certhen r educe d the offens e l evel thr ee po i nts un der U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1 fo r accept ance o f res po nsi bil i ty , for a t otal offense l evel of 13. I n cal cul at i ng M r . K nox’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryatV , the pr obat i on offi ceri ncl uded tw o C al i forni a j uveni l e cr i m i nal convi ct i ons , t ot al i ng t w o cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s eac h, i n w hi ch M r . K nox, atthe age of s i xt een, admi t t ed t o know i ngl ypos s es s i ng a s t ol en fi r earm ( w hi ch w as l oaded a nd conce al ed underhi s cl ot hi ng att he t i m e of hi s arr es t ) ; and, atthe age of fourt een, c o m m itte d a ro b b e ry b ya s s a u ltin g a n d ta k in g a p u rs e f ro m a fe m a le v ic tim . B as ed on a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 13 and a cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V , the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange w as thi r tyt o thi r ty - s even mont hs im p ri s o n m e n t.

M r . K nox di d notcont es tthe fi ndi ngs of fa cti n the pr es ent ence r eport , but o bjec ted to th e in c lu sio n o f h is tw o sta te ju v e n ile c o n v ictio n s in c a lcu latin g h is cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e. W i t h r es pectt o hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of a s t ol en-4-

fi r earm , M r . K nox cl ai m ed i tm etthe def i ni t i on of a “j uveni l e s t atus offe ns e” underU . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2( c) ( 2) beca us e i tcons t i tut ed a c r i m e w hi ch coul d notbe c o mmi t t e d b ya n a d u l t , g i v e n t h e c r i me wa s e n t i t l e d “ P o s s e s s i o n o f F i r e a r m by Mi nor .” H e f

u rth e r a rg u e d h is c o n v ictio n fo r ro b b e ryc o u ld n o t b e in c lu d e d in h is cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e bec aus e of the unce r t ai ntyas t o w hetherhi s s ent ence for t he offens e w as w i t hi n fi ve y ear s of hi s comm ence m entof the i ns t antoffe ns e, as re q u ir e d b yU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 (d )( 2 )( A ).

A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng on A ugus t29, 2005, M r . K nox’ s couns el ar gued t he unce r t i fi ed oruns i gned j udgm ent s i n the tw o j uveni l e convi ct i ons us ed byt he p rob ati o n o fficer in c alcu lat ing M r. K n o x ’s crim inal h ist o rysco re w ere in su fficie n t fo r th e p u rp o se o f a p p ly in g th o se c o n v ictio n s to h is s c o re . A t h is r eques t , and w i t h t he agr eementof the governm ent , the di s tr i ctcour tcont i nued M r . K nox’ s s ent enci ng t o a l at erdat e forthe purpos e of obt ai ni ng the r eques t ed j udgm ent s on M r . K nox’ s j uveni l e convi ct i ons . T her eaf t er , the governm ent o b tain e d c e rtifie d ju d g m e n ts f ro m th e C a lifo rn ia S u p e rio r C o u rt, Ju v e n ile D iv isio n , o n M r. K n o x ’s d isp u ted ju v e n ile c o n v ictio n s, w h ich d id n o t d e v iate fr om t he i nform at i on or i gi nal l yobt ai ned and us ed i n the i ni t i al pr es ent ence r e p o r t . An o t h e rs e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g wa s h e l d De c e mb e r1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , a twh i c h t i me t he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed M r . K nox’ s j uveni l e cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e obj ect i ons an d the g o v ern m en t’ s resp o n se to tho se o bjecti o n s; i t th en rejected M r. K n o x ’s-5-

a rg u m e n ts a n d se n ten c e d h im a t th e lo w e n d o f th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e to th ir ty m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t.

O n appea l , M r . K nox r enew s hi s cl ai m nei therof hi s j uveni l e convi ct i ons c a n b e u se d in c a lcu latin g h is c rim in a l h isto ry . F irst, h e c laim s h is ju v e n ile fi r earm convi ct i on i s a “j uveni l e s t atus offe ns e” unde rU . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2( c) ( 2) b e c a u se th e sa m e c rim e c o u ld n o t b e c o m m itt e d b ya n a d u lt. In su p p o rt o f h is a rg u m e n t h e c laim s: 1 ) h is p o ss e ss io n o f th e fire a rm w a s u n law f u l “s o lely beca us e of hi s age” ; an adul tm ayl aw ful l ycarrya fi r earm ; and the cr i m e for w hi ch he w as convi ct ed onl yappl i es t o j uveni l es beca us e i tw as ent i t l ed

“ P o ss e ss io n o f

F ire a rm b yM in o r.” H e a lso re n e w s h is c o n ten tio n h is ju v e n ile rob b eryco n v ict ion m ayn o t be u sed to ca lculate h is cri m inal h ist o rysco re beca us e hi s r el eas e fr om confi nementended mor e than fi ve y ear s pr i ort o the comm ence m entof the i ns t antoffe ns e. I n s uppor tof thi s ar gum ent , M r . K nox c laim s h e w a s s e n ten c e d to z e ro to six tyd a y s c o n fin e m e n t, w h ich w a s im p o se d in 1 9 9 6 , a n d h is ju d g m e n t w a s n e v e r a m e n d e d b yju d ic ia l o rd e r.

W e re v ie w fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s th e u ltim a te s e n te n c e im p o s e d . Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U. S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 - 6 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . “ We r e q u i r e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s i n two r es pect s – t he l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as the m ethodbyw hi ch the s ent ence w as cal cul at ed. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , 4 4 4 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 0 (10 th C ir .-6-

2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ), pet i t i on f orcer t . f

i l ed( U . S. J ul y7, 2006) ( N o. 06- 5217) . I f the di s t r i ctcourt“pr oper l ycons i der s the r el evant G u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d se n ten c e s th e d e fe n d a n t w ith in th a t ra n g e , the se n ten c e is pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e, ” but“[t ] he defendantm ayr ebutthi s pr es um pt i on by demonstr at i ng t hatt he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the others ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) . I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tpr oper l ycons i der ed the a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w e re v iew its leg a l co n c lu sio n s d e n o v o a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id.

Wi t h r e s p e c tt o t h e a p p l i c a b l e Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e i n th i s a p p e a l , U. S . S . G. § 4A 1. 2( c) ( 2) s t at es s ent ence s for“j uveni l e s t atus offe ns es ” s houl d notbe c o u n ted in c a lcu latin g c rim in a l h isto rie s. O n th e o th e r h a n d , w e h a v e h e ld

“ [j]u v e n ile c o n v ictio n s, o th e r th a n fo r [ju v e n ile] s tatu s o ffe n se s, m a yb e u se d to add poi nt s t o a defendant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egorypur s uantt o § 4A 1. 2( d) ( 2) . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , 987 F. 2d 1462, 1465 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . U nder§ 4A 1. 2, tw o c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts a re a d d e d fo r a ju v e n ile c o n v ictio n w h ich is n o t a “j uv enil e st atus offense” i f i tres ult ed in a sent ence o f con fi nem ent of atl east s i xt yday s and the defendantw as r el eas ed fr om s uch conf i nementw i thi n fi ve y e a rs o f h is c o m m e n c e m e n t o f th e in s ta n t o ffe n s e . U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 (d )( 2 )( A ). H o w e v e r, th e G u id e lin e s d o n o t d e fin e “ju v e n ile s tatu s o ffe n se s” a s u se d in-7-

§ 4 A 1 .2 . Uni t ed Stat es v. Whi tney , 22 9 F . 3d 12 96 , 13 09 (10t h C i r. 20 00 ). A s a r es ul t , w e have fol l ow ed otherci r cui t s w hi ch conc l uded “‘ j uveni l e s t atus offe ns es ’ i ncl ude onl yt hos e s t atus offe ns es comm i t t ed byper s ons under ei ght een” w hi ch ar e “non- s er i ous offe ns es ” and w hi ch, “r egar dl es s of the t i t l e of t he offens e, ” i nvol ved “unde r l y i ng conduct[w hi ch] w oul d nothave be en cr i m i nal i f comm i t t ed byan adul t . ” Id. ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e have al s o hel d the pol i cy cons i der at i ons under l y i ng § 4A 1. 2 ar e appa r ent , gi ven the Sent enci ng C o m m iss io n c o n c lu d e d “ th e listed o ffe n se s u n d e r (c )(2 ) [ in c lu d in g ‘ju v e n ile s t atus offe ns es ’ ] ar e of s uch mi nors i gni fi canc e r el at i ve t o the goal s of s ent enci ng t hatt heyar e neve rcount ed, r egar dl es s of the degr ee of puni s hm enti m pos ed or t he s i m i l ar i t ybetw een the pr i orand curr entoffe ns es . ” Un i t e dS ta t e s v . P e r ezDe D i os , 2 3 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 2 , 1 1 9 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ).

A ppl y i ng t hes e l egal pr i nci pl es , ours t andar d of r evi ew , and the pol i cy c o n sid e ra tio n s u n d e rly in g § 4 A 1 .2 , w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in ap p ly ing M r. K n o x ’s j u v en il e c o n v ict ion s in c alcu lat ing h is cri m inal h ist o ry s cor e. Fi r s t , w i t h r es pectt o hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i ng a fi r earm atthe age of s ix te e n , M r. K n o x d o e s n o t c o n te s t th e fa c ts th e g u n w a s la te r fo u n d to b e s to le n , he admi t t ed t o know i ng i tw as s t ol en, and the gun w as l oaded a nd conce al ed underhi s cl ot hi ng w hen he w as arr es t ed. W hi l e he w as obvi ous l yunderei ght een y ear s of age w hen he c om m i t t ed the offens e, the offens e of c arry i ng a s t ol en gunS e e , e .g ., 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (I) (m a k in g it u n law f u l to tra n sp o rt in in ter sta te 1 c o m m e rc e a n ysto len fire a rm k n o w in g o r h a v in g re a so n a b le c a u se to b e liev e it w a s s t o l e n ) ; C a l . P e n a l C o d e § 1 2 0 2 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( m a k i n g i ta fe l o n y t o c a rry a conce al ed fi r earm w hi ch the per s on knew orhad r eas onabl e ca us e t o bel i eve w as s t ol en) ; C al . Penal C ode § 12031( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( m aki ng i ta fe l onyt o carrya l oaded fi rearm w here the fir earm i s st olen and t he p ers on kn ew or had reasona ble cause t o bel i eve i tw as s t ol en) ; C al . Penal C ode § 496 ( m aki ng i ti l l egal t o buyor re c e iv e p ro p e rt yw h ic h th e p e rs o n k n e w w a s s to le n ). -8- i s a s er i ous one, and the under l y i ng conductof know i ngl ypos s es s i ng a s t ol en fire a rm c o n stitu tes c rim in a l co n d u c t u n d e r e ith e r fe d e ra l o r sta te la w , ev e n if c o m m i t t e d b y a n a d u l t . W h i l e M r . K n o x c o n t e n d s a n a d u l tm a y l e g a l l y c a rry a 1 fi rearm , his argum ent conv enient l yom i t s the fa ctt he co nv i ct i on i n thi s case i nvol ved pos s es s i on of a s t ol en fi r earm . Si m i l ar l y , t he fa ctt he cr i m e forw hi ch he w as convi ct ed w as ent i t l ed “Pos s es s i on of Fi r earm byM i nor ” does notchange t he r es ul t , gi ven the under l y i ng conductw oul d have be en cr i m i nal i f comm i t t ed b ya n a d u lt “ regardless of the ti t l e of the o f f ense . ” Whi tney , 229 F. 3d at1309 (em p h asis ad d ed ). F o r th ese rea so n s, h is prior co n v ict ion fo r po sses sing a fir ea rm m e e ts th e c ri te ri a fo r b e in g a ju v e n ile c o n v ic tio n , n o t a “ju v e n ile s ta tu s o ffe n s e ,” a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p ro p e rl yin c lu d e d it in c a lc u la tin g h is c ri m in a l h is to ry sc o re . N ext , w i t h r es pectt o M r . K nox’ s j uveni l e convi ct i on forr obberyatt he age of fourt een, he does notcont end i tw as a “j uveni l e s t atus offe ns e” w hi ch ca nnot be us ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e. R ather , he ar gues i tm aynotbe count ed bec aus e he w as s ent ence d t o zer o t o s i xtyday s , hi s s ent ence w as i m pos edI ti s t he appe l l ant ’ s r es pons i bi l i tyt o pr ovi de us w i th a pr operr ecor d on 2 appea l , and i f the appe l l ant ’ s appendi x i s i ns uffi ci entt o perm i tas s es s m entof a c la im o f e rr o r, w e m u s t a ffir m . See S cottv. Hern , 2 1 6 F . 3 d 8 9 7 , 9 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2000) ; R i os v. B igl er , 67 F. 3d 15 43 , 15 53 ( 10 th Ci r . 19 95 ) ( c i t i ng Fe d. R. A pp . P. 10( b) ( 2) ) . I n t hi s cas e, even though M r . K nox fai l ed t o pr ovi de the ce r t i fi ed j udgm ent s cons i der ed byt he di s tr i ctcourt , ouraff i r m ance i s s uppor t ed by in fo rm a tio n p ro v id e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t, w h ich M r. K n o x h a s o th e rw ise fa iled to re b u t o n a p p e a l. -9- i n 1996, w i t h hi s confi nementendi ng m or e than fi ve y ear s pr i ort o the comm ence m entof the i ns t antoffe ns e, and hi s j udgm entw as neveramended by ju d ic ia l o rd e r.

I n t hi s cas e, t he governm enti ni t i al l yobt ai ned uns i gned oruncert i fi ed j udgm ent s on M r . K nox’ s j uveni l e convi ct i ons , butfol l ow i ng the cont i nuance of se n ten c in g , ito b tain e d c e rtifie d c o p ies o f th o se c o n v ictio n s f

ro m th e C a lifo rn ia Super i orC our t , J uveni l e D i vi s i on, w hi ch the r ecor d s how s di d notdevi at e fr om th e c o u rt re c o rd s o ri g in a lly o b ta in e d a n d u s e d in th e in itia l p re s e n te n c e re p o rt . W h il e M r. K n o x h as n o t p rov ided tho se jud g m en ts o n ap p ea l, the re co rd 2 s u b m itte d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t e s ta b lis h e s th a t o n o r a b o u t A u g u s t 2 9 , 1 9 9 6 , a C al i forni a j udge found the offens e comm i t t ed byM r . K nox t o be a fel onyw i th a m axi m um s ent ence of fi ve y ear s , butpl ace d M r . K nox on hom e pl ace m ent p ro b a tio n w ith a sta y e d se n ten c e o f z e ro to six tyd a y s in ju v e n ile c u sto d y . H is pr obat i on w as r evoked s ever al t i m es on var i ous gr ounds , and ul t i m at el y , he w as pl ace d i n a C al i forni a Y out h A uthor i tyfac i l i tyon A pr i l 14, 1999, r el eas ed fr om-10-

cus t odyand par ol ed on J ul y8, 2000, r etur ned t o the fa ci l i tyon Sept ember27, 2000, forvi ol at i on of hi s par ol e, and r el eas ed fr om confi nementand par ol ed on February3, 2001, w i t h hi s fi nal di s char ge fr om par ol e on the r obberyconvi ct i on o c c u rr in g o n M a rc h 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 . A s pr evi ous l ym ent i oned, tw o poi nt s m aybe adde d t o M r . K nox’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e i f hi s j uveni l e convi ct i on r es ul t ed i n a s ent ence of “ conf i nem entof atl eas ts ixt

y days ,” a n d h e w a s “ re lea se d f ro m su c h c o n fin e m e n t w i thin f i ve yea rs of his com m encem ent of the instan toff

ense . ” U. S . S . G. § 4 A1 . 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A) ( emphasi s added) . T he G ui del i nes fur theri ns truct“[r ] evoca t i on of pr obat i on, par ol e, s upervi s ed r el eas e, s peci al par ol e, orm andat or yr el eas e mayaffectthe tim e p e rio d u n d e r w h ich c e rta in se n ten c e s a re c o u n ted a s p ro v id e d in § 4 A1 . 2 ( d ) ( 2 ) , ” a n d t h a t“ [ f] o rt h e p u rp o s e s o f d e t e r mi n i n g th e a p p l i c a b l e t i me per i od” i n t he ca s e of a nyconfi nementforan offens e comm i t t ed pr i ort o a defe nd ant’ s ei gh t eenth bi rthd ay , on e shou l d u se “the d at e of the defend ant’ s l ast r el eas e fr om confi nementon s uch s ent ence . ” § 4A 1. 2( k) ( 2) ( A ) and ( B ) ( i i ) . O ne ci r cui tappl y i ng t hes e pr ovi s i ons has hel d a defendant ’ s j uveni l e conf i nement w h ich fo llo w e d a n o rig in a l se n ten c e o f stra ig h t p ro b a tio n m a yb e u se d to cal cul at e hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e under§ 4A 1. 2, w her e hi s pr obat i on w as repeat edlyrevoke d fo r vi olat i on s, he w as confi ned on three separat e occa si on s, and hi s fi nal r el eas e fr om confi nementon the convi ct i on occurr ed w i thi n fi ve-11-

y e a rs o f c o m m e n c in g h is in s ta n t o ffe n s e . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 354 F. 3d 1013, 1014- 15 ( 9t h C i r . 2004) . Si m i l ar l y , i n thi s cas e, M r . K nox vi ol at ed the t erm s of hi s hom e pr obat i on pr i ort o i t s compl et i on, r es ul t i ng i n hi s confi nement i n a C al i forni a Y ou t h A uthori t yfaci l i tyfor atl eastsi xtyday s and a fi nal r el ease f ro m c o n fin e m e n t o n h is ro b b e ryc o n v ictio n in F e b ru a ry2 0 0 1 , w h ich c lea rlyfa lls w i t hi n fi ve y ear s of hi s comm ence m entof the i ns t antoffe ns e on J anuary7, 2005.

F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in inclu d ing M r. K n o x ’s j u v en il e c o n v ict ion s in c alcu lat ing h is cri m inal h ist o ry s c o re . See Lopez - F l or es , 4 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 0 . B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly cons i der ed the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence d M r . K nox w i thi n that range, his sent ence is presum pti velyreas on able. M r. K no x h as not otherw i se r ebut t ed thi s pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ght o f th e s e n te n c in g fa c to rs in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1055, or ot herw i s e pr ovi ded anyt hi ng i n t he r ecor d w hi ch s ugges t s the di s tr i ctcour terr ed, e i t h e ri n i t s fi n d i n g s o f fa c to rd e t e r mi n a t i o n s o f l a w.-12-

Ac c o r d i n g l y , fo rt h e s e r e a s o n s , we AF F I RM M r . K nox’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge