T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### Ju n e5,2007 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, N o. 06- 4083 v. ( D . U t ah) R IC H A R D D E E T H O M A S , al so know n as Fat zz,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CR- 3 5 5 - J EC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O' BRI EN , 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. S e e 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.-2-

I . I nt roduct i on A ppel l antR i char d D ee Thom as w as convi ct ed of thr eat eni ng a fe der al offi ci al , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 115( a) ( 1) ( B ) and ( b) ( 4) , and mai l i ng t hr eat eni ng comm uni cat i ons , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 876( c) . T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) cal cul at ed a 100 t o 125- m onth advi s orygui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange. T hom as fi l ed a w r i t t en obj ect i on t o the PSR , r eques t i ng an adj us t m entt o hi s offe ns e l evel foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . H e al s o fi l ed a sen tenc ing m em o ran d u m an d a m o ti o n see k ing a d o w n w ard d ep arture. T h e c o u rt sen tenc ed T h o m as to 1 0 0 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t, the lo w en d o f th e a d v isory g u id e lin e s ra n g e . T h o m a s th e n filed th is a p p e a l, arg u in g h is s e n ten c e is pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o addr es s t he nonfr i vol ous ar gum ent s he made ats ent enci ng byr efe r ence t o the fa ct or s s etout in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez

- Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109, 1 1 1 7 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . E x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we con cl ud e t he d i stri ctcou rterr ed. W e nev ertheles s affi rm T hom as ’ s s ent ence becau se the d i stri ctcou rt ’s plai n err or does n ot s eri ou sl yaffect the fa i rness , in te g ri ty, o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . I I . Backg r ound T hom as w as char ged i n a tw o- counti ndi ctm entw i th thr eat eni ng a U ni t ed St at es j udge, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 115( a) ( 1) ( B ) and ( b) ( 4) , and mai l i ng a t hr eat eni ng comm uni cat i on, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 876( c) . H e w as convi ct ed-3-

of both count s aft era j ur yt r i al . T her eaf t er , a U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi cer p re p a re d a P S R w h ic h s e t T h o m a s ’s b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l a t tw e lv e . See U SSG § 2A 6. 1( a) ( 1) . T he PSR , how ever , concl uded Thom as w as a ca r eeroffe nderand itac co rdin g lyap p li ed a total offe n se lev el of tw en ty -fo u r an d a c ri m inal h ist o ry ca tego ryo f V I un d er U S S G § 4 B 1 . 1 (b)(E ). T h e P S R then ca lculated an ad v isory g u id e lin e s s e n te n c in g ra n g e o f 1 0 0 to 1 2 5 m o n th s . T h o m as fil ed a w ri tt en o bjecti o n to the P S R an d a “ M o ti o n fo r D o w n w ard D epartur e and Sent enci ng M emora ndum ” ( the “M ot i on”) . A l though he w as c o n v icte d b ya ju ry , T h o m a s’s w ritten o bjec tio n so u g h t a th re e -le v e l d e c re a se in h is o ffe n s e le v e l fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility. See id . § 3 E 1 . 1 cm t. n . 2 (“In r ar e s i tuat i ons a defendantm aycl ear l ydemonstr at e an a cce pt ance of r es pons i bi l i t yforhi s cr i m i nal conducteven though he exe r ci s es hi s cons t i tut i onal ri g h t t o a tri al. ”). I n the M o ti o n , T h o m as a rgu ed fo r a h ea lth -relat ed d ep arture pur s uantt o U SSG §§ 5H 1. 4 and 5K 2. 0; a di m i ni s hed- capa ci tydepartur e pur s uant to U S S G § 5 K 2 .1 3 ; an d a d e p a rtu re p u rsu a n t to U S S G § 5 K 2 .0 b a se d o n h is s us cept i bi l i t yt o abus e i n pr i s on. T hom as al s o ar gued fora var i ance fr om the a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s , re lyin g o n m a n yo f th e s a m e b a s e s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 0 -6 1 (2 0 0 5 ); 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). F u rth e r, h e a ss e rte d it wa s r e l e v a n tt o t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s a n a l y s i s o f th e fa c t o r s s e tfo r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) t hathe ( 1) comm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e outof frus tr at i on overthe di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai nthe had f i l ed i n fede r al cour t , ( 2) had no appa r entm eansT hom as as s ert s he di d notr eques ta r educt i on i n hi s s ent ence bas ed on 1 acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yand l abel s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s cus s i on of the i s s ue “cur i ous . ” A r evi ew of the r ecor d, how ever , r evea l s hi s w r i t t en obj ect i on t o t he PSR i s pr emi s ed s ol el yon a r eques tfora thr ee- l evel decr eas e bas ed on a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility. -4- of ca rry i ng ou tt he thr eat , and (3) belongs t o an age g roup w i th low reci divi sm r at es . H e ar gued a r eas onabl e s ent ence w oul d be cl os ert o the s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange c al cul at ed w i t houtthe appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nder p ro v is io n s . A t th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , the d istri ct co u rtd en ied T h o m as’s req u est fo r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re , reje c ted h is a rg u m e n t th a t h e w a s e n tit led to a re d u c tio n in hi s offe ns e l evel for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , and s ent ence d T hom as t o 100 1 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent . W hen i ti m pos ed the s ent ence , t he courtm ade no refer ence to t he § 35 53 (a) fact ors orT ho m as’ s ar gu m ents supp ort i ng his request fora var i ance fr om t he advi s or ygui del i nes r ange. I I I . D i s cus s i on T h is c o u rt re v ie w s T h o m a s ’ s e n te n c e fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . B ooker , 54 3 U. S. at260- 61. “R eas onabl enes s has bot h pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C age , 451 F. 3d 585, 591 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . I n thi s cas e, T hom as chal l enges t he pr ocedur al r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng the di s tr i ct cour tfai l ed t o adequa t el ys t at e on the r ecor d, w i th s peci fi c r efe r ence t o the § 3553( a) fac t or s , i t s r eas ons forr ej ect i ng hi s r eques tfora s ent ence out s i de the advi s or ygui del i nes r ange. B eca us e Thom as di d notbr i ng thi s al l eged pr ocedur alT hom as ’ s ar gum entt hathe pr es erved the i s s ue forappea l byques t i oni ng 2 th e d istric t co u rt o n th e sta tu s o f h is m o tio n fo r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re is u n a v a ilin g . -5- err ort o t he att ent i on of the di s t r i ctcourtatthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, w e r evi ew for p lai n erro r. Uni t ed Stat es v. R uiz - Ter r az as , 4 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 9 (10 th C ir .

2 2 0 0 7 ). “P lain e rro r o c c u rs w h e n th e re is (i) e rro r, (ii) tha t is p lain , w h ich (iii) a ffe c t s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s , a n d w h i c h ( i v ) s e r i o u s l y a ffe c t s t h e fa i rn e s s , i n t e g r i t y, orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . “[W ] her e a de fenda nthas r ai s ed a nonf r i vol ous ar gum entt hatt he § 3553( a) fac t or s w arr anta bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence and has expr es s l yr eques t ed s uch a se n ten c e , w e m u st b e a b le to d isc e rn f ro m th e re c o rd th a t th e se n ten c in g ju d g e d id notr es ton t he gui del i nes al one, butcons i der ed w hethert he gui del i nes s ent ence actual l yconform s , i n the ci r cumst ance s , t o the s t atut or yfac t or s . ” Sa nch ezJuar ez , 446 F. 3d at1117 ( quot at i on and al t er at i ons om i t t ed) . A dm i t t edl y , t he d istri ct co u rtis no t r eq u ir ed to ex p li cit lyrefere n ce ea ch o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors orr es pond t o everyar gum entm ade byt he defendanti n s uppor tof hi s r eques tfor a v arian ce . N ev erthe less, w h en the c o u rtim p o ses a sen tenc e w ith in the ad v isory gui del i nes r ange, i tm us tpr ovi de “a gener al s t at ementof the r eas ons fort he i m pos i t i on of the part i cul ars ent ence . ” R uiz - Ter r az as , 477 F. 3d at1199 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . A s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e i f “( i ) t her e [i s ] no i nd i cat i on byt he d i stri ctcou rtt hat i thad con si dered t he S ect i on 35 53 (a) fact ors,-6-

and ( i i ) w e [a r e] ot herw i s e unabl e our s el ves t o di s cern a cl earexpl anat i on of the s ent ence i n t he r ecor d. ” Id . at1202 ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . A ft err evi ew i ng the appel l at e r ecor d, w e conc l ude the fi r s ttw o pr ongs of the pl ai n err ort es thave been mether e. B efor e i m pos i ng T hom as ’ s s ent ence , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d notm ent i on any o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors o r ev en refere n ce § 3 5 5 3 (a). N eith er d id the co u rt re sp o n d o n th e re c o rd to a n yo f th e n o n f

riv o lo u s a rg u m e n ts m a d e b yT h o m a s in s uppor tof hi s r eques tfora s ent enci ng var i ance orpr ovi de anyexpl anat i on of how i tarr i ved att he s ent ence i m pos ed. A ccor di ngl y , ther e i s no bas i s upon w h ich w e c an d eterm ine w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rtac tuallyw eigh ed T h o m as’s ar gum ent s i n l i ghtof § 3553( a) . T he l ack of an ade quat e expl anat i on bythe d is tr ic t c o u rt is e rr o r b e c a u s e it h a s le f t u s in th e “ z o n e o f

a p p e lla te s p e c u la tio n .” Sanchez

- Juar ez , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 1 6 (q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). F u rth e r, th e e rro r is p lain beca us e i ti s “cl earorobvi ous undercurr entl aw . ” Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Br o wn , 316 F .3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). It is T h o m a s’s b u rd e n to p ro v e th e d istric t co u rt’s e rro r a ffe c ted h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . Id . at1158. H e mustal s o s how the err ors er i ous l yaffect s the fa ir n e s s , in te g ri ty, o r p u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . Id . a t 1 1 6 1 . T h o m a s a rg u e s th e d istric t co u rt’s fa ilu re to p ro v id e a n ye x p lan a tio n o f h o w it arrived at his sen tenc e a ffec ts his sub stan ti al ri g h ts be ca u se itp rev en ts th is co u rt f ro m c o n d u c tin g a m e a n in g f u l re v iew o f

th e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss o f h isA l t hough t he bas e offens e l evel fort he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on w as t w el ve, t he 3 PSR appl i ed a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw enty - fourand a c r i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I s o le ly b e c a u s e T h o m a s w a s a c a re e r o ffe n d e r. See U S S G § 4 B 1 .1 (b ). -7- s ent ence . W e do notaddr es s t hi s ques t i on beca us e eve n as s um i ng the err or a ffe c ted T h o m a s’ s u b sta n tial rig h ts, w e c o n c lu d e h e h a s fa iled to sh o w it s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al p ro c e e d in g s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. C ot t on , 5 3 5 U . S . 6 2 5 , 6 3 2 -33 (20 0 2 ). T hom as as s ert s the fa i l ur e t o pr ovi de r eas ons fori m pos i ng a part i cul ar sen tenc e “ co u ld b e re aso n ab lyco n stru ed as treating the G u idelines as m an d atory i n di r ectvi ol at i on of B ookerand the ri gh tt o a jurydeterm i nati on of the fact s” and ar gues t hi s underm i nes t he fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . W hatT hom as fai l s t o appr eci at e, how ever , i s thateven i f the di s t r i ctcourtcomm i t t ed B ookere rro r, th e c o u rt’s e rro r is n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l in n a tu re . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za les -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 1 -32 (10 th C ir . 2005) ( en banc ) ( expl ai ni ng t he di ffe r ence betw een c ons t i tut i onal and nonc o n stitu tio n a l B ookererr or ) . T he fa ct s us ed t o cal cul at e the advi s or ygui del i nes range w i t hin w hich T ho m as w as sent enced w ere ei ther adm i t t ed b yT ho m as, fo u n d b y th e ju ry , o r in v o lv e d th e fa c t o f a p rio r c o n v ictio n . T h u s, th e S ix th 3 A m e n d m e n t is n o t im p lic a te d . See ida t 7 3 2 ; see also United S tates v. Moo re , 4 0 1 F .3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 3 -2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).-8-

E v e n a ss u m in g th e d istric t co u rt a p p lied th e G u id e lin e s m a n d a to rily th e re b yc o m m itt in g n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererr or , w e w i l l notnot i ce s uch err or

“ u n les s it is b o th p a rticu lar lye g re g io u s a n d o u r fa ilu re to n o tice [ it] w o u ld re su lt i n a mi s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” Un itedS ta tes v . Ya zz ie , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 3 9 , 1 1 4 6 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (e n b a n c ); s e e a ls o Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Wi l l i a ms , 431 F. 3d 1234, 1240 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ I]n m o st c a se s in v o lv in g n o n -c o n stitu tio n a l B ookererr orthe defe ndantw i l l be unabl e t o s at i s fythe fi nal [pl ai n err or ] pr ong. ”) . T hom as has nots at i s fi ed hi s bur den of s how i ng a mi s carr i age of j us t i ce. H e ar gues the err or has effect i vel ydepr i ved hi m of the r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence butdoes not di r ectus t o anyr ecor d evi dence i ndi cat i ng the di s tr i ctcourtr el i ed on i m perm i s s i bl e fa ct or s ori m pos ed a s ent ence thatw as “anythi ng butfai rand r eas onabl e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Truj i l l o- Ter r az as , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 2 0 (10 th C ir . 2005) . T o t he contr ary , t he r ecor d s how s T hom as , l i ke a myr i ad of othercr i m i nal defe ndant s , r ece i ved a s ent ence atthe bott om of a gui del i nes r ange w hi ch w as pr oper l ycal cul at ed w i t houtanySi xth A m endmentvi ol at i on. T hom as has fai l ed to sh o w that a m iscarri ag e o f ju sti ce w o u ld resu ltif w e fail to n o ti ce the e rror, and t hu s has fai l ed to show t he inst ant errorser i ou sl yaffects the fa i rness , i ntegr i t y , or pub l i c reput at i on of judi ci al proceed i ng s.-9-

I V . C onc l us i on Be c a u s e T h o ma s c a n n o ts a t i s f yt h e fo u r th p r o n g o f

t h e p l a i n e rr o rt e s t , we decl i ne t o not i ce the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s err or . T he s ent ence i m pos ed byt he di s tr i ct cou rti s affi rm ed . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge