FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 28 , 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NOT P UB L I S H] I N TH E U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10995 N on - A r gu m e n t C al e n d ar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 2 - 0 0 1 4 7 - CR- O RL- 2 2 - K RS 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 T H A D R Y A N R O B E R T S , a .k .a . O rb R o b in s o n , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A p p eal fr om th e U n i te d S tate s D i st ri ct C ou rt f o r t he M i ddl e D i s t r i c t o f Fl o r i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 28, 2005) B efo re C A R N E S , P R Y O R a n d F A Y , C i rcu i t J u d g es. P E R C U R I A M:Rob e rt s p le d guilty, in Ca seNo . 6 :02 -cr- 14 7, to c on sp ira c y to s te al and

se ll 1 g overnment property

and to transpor

ting stolen g oods valued at $5,000 or more, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 3 71 (C ount 1 ); and transpo rt atio n o f s tol e n g oo ds value d at $5 ,0 00 or more , in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 23 14 (C ount 2 ). Rob e rt s alsople d guilty, in Ca seNo . 6 :03 -cr- 15 0, to possession of stolen U.S. property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, and this casewas co n s o l i d at edwi thC as e N o . 6 : 0 2 -c r- 1 4 7 , fo r p urp o s es o f s ent en ci n g. The United States Sentenc ing Guidelines (“f ederal guidelines”) a

uthorize a district 2 court to depa

rt from a defendant’s applica

ble guideline ra

ng e “[i]f the defenda

nt’s conduct resulted in a significant disruption of a g overnmental function.” SeeU.S.S.G. § 5K2.7. 2 T ha d R y a n R obe r t s appe a l s hi s t ot a l 90- m onth s e nt e nc e f ol l ow i ng re se nt enci ng for c on spi ra cy t o st ea l and sel l go vernm entprop erty a nd t o tra nspo rt s t ol e n goods va l ue d a t$5, 000 orm or e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371; tr a n s p o r t a t i o n o f

s t o l e n g o o d s v a l u e d a t$ 5 , 0 0 0 o rmo r e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 2314; a nd pos s e s s i on of s t ol e n U . S . pr ope r ty , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 641. 1 R ob ert s a rgues on app ea l thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s e i gh t -l evel up w ar d d epar ture, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 5 K 2. 7, base d o n a si gn i fi ca ntdi srup t i on of go vernm ent al f u n c t i o n , w a s u n r e a s o n a b l e . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. 2 A cc ordi ng t o the pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), R ob ert s had p a r tic ip a te d in a c r im in a l s c h e m e , w h e r e b y h e a n d s e v e r a l c o - c o n s p ir a to r s s to le l un arsa m pl es and M art i an m et eori t es fr om the N at i on al A er on aut i cs and S pace A dm i ni stra t i on ’ s ( “ N A S A ’ s” ) J oh nson S pace C ent eri n H ou st on and t ra nspo rt ed the s e i t e m s i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e f orthe purpos e of

s e l l i ng the m a nd us i ng the sal e p ro ceed s fo r th ei r o w n en ri ch m en t . D u ri n g th e co u rse o f th e co n sp i racy,3

R ob ert s a nd som e of hi s c o-conspi ra t ors s t ol e a60 0-po un d saf e c on t ai ni ng “ l un ar s a m pl e s f

r om e ve r y A pol l o m i s s i on tha tl a nde d on the m oon, doc um e nt a t i on a uthe nt i c a t i ng the l una rs a m pl e s , M a r t i a n m e t e or i t e s , a nd othe ri t e m s f r om N A S A /J S C .” A f

te rtr a n s p o r tin g th e lu n a rs a m p le s a n d m e te o r ite s to F lo r id a to s e ll them t o p urpo rt ed bu ye rs , R ob ert s w as arre st ed by un derc ov erF B I a gent s w ho had b e e n p o s in g a s th e b u y e r s . A d d itio n a lly , in a n u n r e la te d c a s e , R o b e r ts , w h ile w or ki ng a s a n i nt e r n f

orthe pa l e ont ol ogi s tde pa r tm e ntof the U t a h M us e um of N a tu r a l H i s t o r y , h a d p o s s e s s e d i n h i s r e s i d e n c e s e v e r a l i t e ms o f s t o l e n U . S. prop erty, i ncl ud i ng di no saur re m ai ns and o ther vert ebra t e s peci m ens thatbel on ged t o the U . S . B ur e a u of

L a nd M a na ge m e nt , the N a t i ona l F or e s tS e r vi c e , a nd the N a tio n a l P a r k S e r v ic e . T he prob at i on offi ce r pre pari ng the P S I r ec om m ended a base off ense l evel of 6, pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 B 1. 1(a) , and an 1 8-l evel enhancem entun der § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( J ) , ba s e d on the a m ountof l os s t o w hi c h both pa r t i e s ha d s t i pul a t e d, i . e. , $6 , 98 7, 00 2. T he prob at i on offi ce r a l so re com m ended a tw o-l evel e nha nc e m e ntunde rU . S . S . G . § 3B 1. 1( c ) , ba s e d on R obe r t s ’ s l e a de r s hi p r ol e i n the of f e ns e , a nd a thr e e - l e ve l r e duc t i on unde rU . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1, f ora c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty. W i th a t ot al offe nse l evel of 23 and cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory I , R o b ert s’ s resu l t i n g g u i d el i n e ran g e w as 4 6 t o 5 7 m o n th s’ i m p ri so n m en t . A l soSection 2B1.1(b)(1) (N) provides for a 26-leve l increa se if the amount of loss was 3 gre ater t ha n $ 10 0, 00 0, 00 0. Se eU. S.S. G. § 2 B 1. 1(b) (1 )( N) . A s discus se d a

bo ve , Robert s rec eived a

n 18-leve l enhanc ement under § 2B1.1(b)(1) (J), based on a stipulated loss amount of $6,987,002. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1) (J) (providing f or an 18- level increasefor of fense s involves more than $2,500,000, a nd less that $7,000,000 in loss). Dr. Everett Gibson is a senior sc ientist, astrobiologist, and g eochemist for NASA/J SA, 4 wh o s e dut i es i n cl u d e, am o n g o th er th i n gs , re s earc h i n g ex trat erre s tri al m at eri al s an d o p er at i n g a NASA laboratory . 4 pr i ort o s e nt e nc i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tc onduc t e d a he a r i ng, dur i ng w hi c h i tt ol d the p a r tie s th a t it w a s c o n s id e r in g a n u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 5 K 2 .7 . A ts e nt e nc i ng, the c our ta dopt e d the pr oba t i on of f i c e r ’ s f i ndi ngs a nd gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i ons . T he c our tthe n s t a t e d tha t , us i ng a s a gui de the l os s r a nge s e tf or th i n § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( N ) , i ti nt e nde d t o de pa r tupw a r ds e i ghtl e ve l s , pur s ua nt to § 5 K 2 .7 , b a s e d o n th e c o u r t’s f in d in g th a t R o b e r ts ’s o f f e n s e h a d s ig n if

ic a n tly di s rupt e d a gove r nm e ntf unc t i on. I n e xpl a i ni ng i t s r e a s oni ng, the c our ts t a t e d:

3 D oc t orG i bs on’ s t e s t i m ony a t[ s i c ] the tr i a l i n thi s c a s e [ of R ob ert ’ s c o-conspi ra t or] w as hear tw re nchi ng . A l l the w ork t hat h e h a d d o n e th a t w a s ju s t f o rn a u g h t b e c a u s e M r . R o b e r ts d e c id e d to s te a l n o t o n ly th e lu n a rs a m p le s , b u t a ll o f h is sci en t i fi c w o rk th ath ad b een w ri tt en i n n o t eb o o k s, an d th ese w e r e n a tio n a l tr e a s u r e s th a t a r e p r ic e le s s . A n d th e [ c ]o u r t f e e ls thati t ’ s app ropri at e t o g ra ntor t o i m po se an up w ar d d epar ture of ei gh tl evel s t o g ett o the t op of the l oss r ange because that s t i l l doe s notc om e a ny w he r e ne a rgi vi ng the publ i c the ki nd of puni s hm e nttha ts houl d be gi ve n f or[ ] s uc h a l os s . . . . D oc t or G i b so n can n ev er g o b ack an d g eth i s n o t es an d th ey can ’ tu se the rocks f

or the sa m e e du ca t i on al and sci ent i fi c use s they had b efo re b ecau se th ey’ re n o w w o rth l ess. 4 T h e co u rtfu rth er st at ed th atD r. G i b so n cu rren t l y h ad n o tl o cat ed h i s n o t eb o o k s,5

and t hat“ that ’ s avery si gn i fi ca ntdi srup t i on t o h i s w ork. ” A ft erR ob ert s obj ec t ed t o the court ’ s f i nd i ng thathi s off

ense s had s i gni f i c a nt l y di s rupt e d a gove r nm e nt a l f unc t i on, the c our tove r rul e d thi s obj e c t i on and u pw ar dl y depar t ed ei gh tl evel s, agai n st at i ng thatan ei gh t -l evel i ncre as e w as appr opr i a t e be c a us e “ the s e a r e pr i c e l e s s na t i ona l tr e a s ur e s a nd tha t ’ s the t op of the ra ng e. ” T he courtthen g ra nt ed R ob ert s aon e- l evel re du ct i on for s ub st ant i al assi st an ce, w h i ch resu l t ed i n a n ew g u i d el i n es ran g e o f 9 7 t o 1 2 1 m o n th s’ im p r is o n m e n t. T h e r e a f te r , th e c o u r t s e n te n c e d R o b e r ts in C a s e N o . 6 :0 2 - c r - 1 4 7 to 60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton C ountO ne a nd a c onc ur r e nt100- m onth s e nt e nc e on C o u n tT w o . In C ase N o . 6 : 0 3 -cr-1 5 0 , th e co u rtsen t en ced R o b ert s t o 4 6 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e ntt o run c onc ur r e ntt o the s e nt e nc e d i m pos e d i n C a s e N o. 6: 02- c r - 147. O n fi rs tappeal , R ob ert s had ar gu ed that(1) the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng that the of f e ns e s i gni f

i c a nt l y di s rupt e d a gove r nm e nt a l f unc t i on w a s uns uppor t e d by the r e c o r d , ( 2 ) th e c o u r t e r r e d in f a ilin g to a rtic u la te its r e a s o n s f o rth e d e p a r tu r e in its w ri tt en order of j ud gm ent , and (3) the ext entof the court ’ s depar ture w as unr e a s ona bl e . W e va c a t e d a nd r e m a nde d R obe r t s ’ s s e nt e nc e s , ba s e d on our det erm i nat i on thatthe re cord di d n otsupp ortthe di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng that R o b e r ts ’s c o n d u c t h a d c a u s e d a s ig n if ic a n t d is ru p tio n o f

a g o v e r n m e n ta l f

u n c tio n . W e e x p lain ed th at th e r ec o rd d id n o t ref lect th at (1 ) th e th ef

t o f D r. G ib so n ’s6

no t eboo ks re nd er ed hi s pas tw ork m ea ni ng l es s, and (2) the theftof the l un ar sa m pl es re sul t ed i n these sa m pl es bei ng w orthl es s. W e a l so det erm i ned t hat R o b e r ts ’s r e m a in in g c la im s w e r e m o o t. O n F e b ru a r y 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 , a t r e s e n te n c in g , th e c o u r t a g a in f o u n d th a t R o b e r ts pre- departure had a t ot al offe nse l evel of 23 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , re sul t i ng i n a gu i del i ne ra ng e of 46 t o 5 7 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent . D r. G i bson then o ffered th e fo l l o w i n g t est i m o n y. A l th o u g h D r. G i b so n h ad recei v ed h i s l ast f u n d in g f o rlu n a rs a m p le r e s e a r c h , a n d a lth o u g h h is te r m a s a lu n a r - s a m p le pri nci pl e i nv es t i gat or ended i n the l at e 198 0s, he had con t i nu ed t o p er form re se ar ch on l una rs a m pl e s , i nde pe nde nt l y a nd i n c ol l a bor a t i on w i th hi s c ol l e a gue s , a nd he h a d p u b lis h e d th e r e s u lts o f th a t r e s e a r c h , w ith h is la te s t p u b lic a tio n b e in g in 1 9 9 1 . M o r e o v e r , w ith s c ie n tif ic in te r e s t in th e M a r tia n m e te o r ite m a te r ia l in c r e a s in g in the e a r l y 1990s , D r . G i bs on ha d s tudi e d M a r t i a n m a t e r i a l s e xt e ns i ve l y , w i th the go al of un ders t andi ng the nature of the m at er i al s’ bi og eni c e l em ent s. In 19 96 , af t er D r. G i b so n h ad p u b l i sh ed th e research resu l t s fro m h i s stu d y o f M art i an sam p l es, w hi ch re veal ed po ss i bl e bi og eni c proces s on M ar s, hi s f un di ng for M art i an r e s e a r c h in c r e a s e d . D r . G i bs on a l s o c l a r i f

i e d tha tthe l una rs a m pl e s tha tR obe r t s ha d s t ol e n f r om the sa fe had b ee n separ at ed i nt o con t ai ners thathad b ee n cl ea ned t o “ cura t ori alDr. Gibson testified that a pproxi mately

800 pounds of lunar material had been returne d 5 to E art h, that th eNA SA lun ar curator had maint aine d a

pp ro ximate ly

75 to 8 0- per- c e nt o f t

his material in an atmospherically controlled environment, and that Dr . Gibson had been allocate d between 200 to 300 grams of lunar samples. Dr. Gibson explained that he had rec orded in notebooks the chain of custody for e ach 6 sample in his possession, including for each samples its weight, the rese arch he had c ompleted, the weight of the amount lost, consumed, or de grade d duringrese arch, and the we ight of the pristine amount remaining a fter resea rch. B eca use these notebooks had not been rec overe d after the theft, Dr . Gibson could not testify with cer tainty that all of the lunar

samples had be en rec overe d. 7 s ta n d a r d s ,” m e a n in g th a t, a lth o u g h a ll o f th e s a m p le s h a d b e e n c o n ta m in a te d to s o m e d e g r e e b y th e ire x p o s u r e to th e e a r th ’s a tm o s p h e r e , th e a m o u n t o f c a rb o n in the curat ori al sa m pl es w as l es s than o ne partper m i l l i on . D r. G i bson bel i eved that 5 a l l of the l una rs a m pl e s f

r om hi s s a f

e ha d be e n r e c ove r e d, buttha ts om e of the pri st i ne l un arsa m pl es had b ee n m i xed w i th tho se sa m pl es thatprevi ou sl y had been degraded or used du ri ng re se ar ch. In addi t i on , al tho ug h som e of the M art i an 6 m e t e or i t e s ha d be e n r e c ove r e d, the m a j or i ty of the s e s a m pl e s ha d be e n s t or e d i n a desi cc at or i nsi de the sa fe , and n ei ther these sa m pl es no r the desi cc at or had b ee n r e c o v e r e d a f

te rth e th e f

t. D r. G i bson t es t i fi ed, as w el l , thatthe theftof the l un arsa m pl es , the M art i an m e t e or i t e s , a nd hi s not e books ha d r e s ul t e d i n a br e a k i n the c ha i n of c us t ody f

or e a c h s a m p le , s u c h th a t e ith e rth e s a m p le s n o lo n g e rh a d th e s a m e v a lu e to s c ie n tis ts for r es ea rc h p urpo se s, or D r. G i bson and o ther N A S A pers on nel had t o spend “ an u n b e l i e v a b l e a mo u n to f t i me ” r e c o n s tru c t i n g th e i rr e c o r d s t o d o c u me n tth e N A SAAlthough D r. Gibs on re qu e ste d th at th eg ov e rnment re tur n th eMa rtian mete orite s to 7 him so that he could continue his re search, the g overnment responded that the samples could not be returned until after

Roberts and his co- conspirator s had been sentenc ed. Dr. Gibson, however, c oncede d that he did not manag e the inter nship program, a

nd that 8 he still had a par

t-time graduate student intern wor king in his laboratory . 8 c ur a t or i a l c ha i n orc us t ody . B e c a us e the s e not e books a l s o c ont a i ne d i nf or m a t i on a boutr e s e a r c h tha tD r . G i bs on ha d c onduc t e d on uni que l una rs a m pl e s , s om e of th e r e s e a r c h h a d n o t b e e n p u b lis h e d e ls e w h e r e a n d c o u ld n o t b e r e p lic a te d . M o r e o v e r , d u e to th e th e f t o f th e M a r tia n m e te o r ite s , N A S A h a d b e e n u n a b le to com pl et e afund ed stud y, N A S A sc i ent i st s a nd sc i ent i st s a tother i nst i tut i on s had no tcom pl et ed coop er at i ve re se ar ch proj ec t s thatre qu i re d the stud y of M art i an m et eori t es , and p ee r r evi ew grou ps w ho approv ed re se ar ch fund i ng had reduced fund i ng t o N A S A for f

uture r es ea rc h p roj ec t s. S i nce O ct ob er20 03 , hi s l aborat ory 7 h a d lo s t $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 in f

u n d in g . A d d itio n a lly , D r . G ib s o n s ta te d th a t, d u e to th is lo s s o f f u n d in g , h e h a d to de vot e s ubs t a nt i a l t i m e t o s e c ur i ng ne w r e s e a r c h s a m pl e s a nd f undi ng. D r . G i bs on a nd othe rN A S A pe r s onne l a l s o ha d t o de vot e appr oxi m a t e l y thr e e t o f ourm onths to th e in v e s tig a tio n o f

th e th e f t a n d p r e p a r in g f

o rR o b e r ts ’s c o - c o n s p ir a to r ’s tr ia l. M o r e o v e r , N A S A h a d c u r ta ile d its d is p la y o f s a m p le s f

o rp u b lic v ie w in g to a v o id fu tu re th eft s, al o n g w i th q u est i o n i n g th e v al u e o f fu tu re i n t ern sh i p s. 8In addition to Dr. Gibson’s testimony , Roberts testified that, amongother thing s, he 9 had attempted during thetheft not to damag e the e x trater restrial materials, and hehad not remove d the notebooks. 9 A tthe c onc l us i on of

the e vi de nc e , the c our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe gove r nm e nt

9 had est abl i shed thatthe thefthad caused a s i gn i fi ca ntdi srup t i on t o N A S A , and t hat thi s di s rupt i on w a r r a nt e d a n e i ght - l e ve l upw a r d de pa r tur e unde r§ 5K 2. 7. T he c our te xpl a i ne d dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, a nd i n a w r i tt e n s e nt e nc i ng m em orandu m , thatthe si gn i fi ca ntdi srup t i on had i ncl ud ed (1) the l oss of r es ea rc h t i me a n d f

u n d i n g ; ( 2 ) th e d a ma g e t o th e r e p u t a t i o n o f N A SA ’ s i n t e r n s h i p p r o g r a m; (3) the curt ai l m entof N A S A ’ s pub l i c out re ac h p rogram du e t o the fe arthat sam p l es w o u l d b e st o l en ; (4 ) th e d estru ct i o n o f th e sam p l es’ ch ai n o f cu st o d y; ( 5) the a m ountof

t i m e s c i e nt i s t s s pe ntr e i ns t a t i ng the N A S A c ur a t or i a l c ha i n; (6) the un avai l abi l i ty of s am pl es for r es ea rc h p roj ec t s f or w hi ch sa m pl es had b ee n al l ocat ed; (7) the l oss of D r. G i bson ’ s not eboo ks, w hi ch had i ncl ud ed un pu bl i shed h is to r ic a l d e ta ils o f

th e s a m p le s ; a n d ( 8 ) th e ta r n is h in g o f N A S A ’s r e p u ta tio n . T h e c o u r t a ls o s ta te d d u r in g s e n te n c in g th a t th e d e p a r tu r e w a s w a r r a n te d to de t e rs i m i l a rc r i m i na l c onduc t . M or e ove r , i n i t s s e nt e nc i ng m e m or a ndum , the c our tc l a r i f

i e d tha ti tha d i nc r e a s e d R obe r t s ’ s s e nt e nc e t o c orr e s pond w i th the t op o f th e lo s s r a n g e f

o rh is o f f e n s e s o f c o n v ic tio n b e c a u s e th e s tip u la te d lo s s r a n g e in § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( J ) , r e f

l e c t e d onl y the t a ngi bl e l os s a m ount . A f t e rde pa r t i ng upw a r dsB e c a us e , unlikein Rob e rt s’ s a pp e al of hisfirs t sentenc e , h eha s e xplic itly c on c e de d in 10 the instant appeal that the district court wa s justified in departingto some ext ent under § 5K2.7, he has a bandoned our

review of a

ny arguments as to the applica bility of this guide line enhanc ement. See United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262- 63 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that “issues and c ontentions not ti mely raised in the briefs are deemed aba ndoned”) . 10 e ig h t le v e ls f

r o m R o b e r ts ’s g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 4 6 to 5 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, pur s ua ntt o § 5K 2. 7, a nd dow nw a r ds tw o l e ve l s , pur s ua ntt o § 5K 1. 1, ba s e d on R ob ert s’ s t es t i m on y i n h i s c o-conspi ra t or’ s c as e, the courtdet erm i ned t hat R obe r t s ’ s r e s ul t i ng gui de l i ne r a nge w a s 87 t o 108 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he c our t , the r e a f

t e r , r e s e nt e nc e d R obe r t s , i n C a s e N o. 6: 02- c r - 147, t o c onc ur r e nt s e nt e nc e s of

60 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nton C ountO ne a nd 90 m onths i m pr i s onm e nt on C ou ntT w o. M oreover, i n C as e N o. 6: 03 -c r- 15 0, the courtagai n sent ence d R o b e r ts to 4 6 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t to ru n c o n c u r r e n t to th e s e n te n c e d im p o s e d in C a s e N o . 6 :0 2 - c r - 1 4 7 . O n app ea l , R ob ert s c on ce des that“ the courtw as j ust i fi ed i n con si deri ng an u p w ar d d ep ar tu re o f s o m e e x ten t. ” R o b er ts, h o w ev er , arg u es th at th e c o u rt’s 10 e i ght - l e ve l upw a r d de pa r tur e unde r§ 5K 2. 7, w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n R obe r t s r e c e i vi ng a se nt ence thatw as “ near l y dou bl e” hi s pre sum pt i ve gu i del i ne ra ng e, w as unr e a s ona bl e . R obe r t s c ont e nds i n s uppor ttha tthe r e c or d di d notde m ons tr a t e a ny s i gni f i c a nti m pa c tof

the the f ton ( 1) D r . G i bs on’ s r e s e a r c h of l una rs a m pl e s , or (2) N A S A ’ s ( i ) i nt ernshi p p rogram , (i i ) pub l i c di spl ay of l un aror M art i anThe factors enumerate d in § 3553(a) inc lude: “(1) the natureand circumstance s of the 11 offense and thehistory

and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d for the sentence imp os e d–(A) to re fl e c t th eseri ou sn e ss o f t heof fens e , topromo tere sp e c t f or thelaw, and

to prov idejus t pu

nis hment f

or theof fens e ; ( B ) to a ff

ord ade qu atede terre nc eto crimin al c on du c t; (C) to protec t the public from fur ther c rimes of the de fenda nt; and (D) to provide the def endant wi th n e e de d e du c atio nal or vo c atio nal training , me dic al c are , o r o ther c or re c tio nal tre atment in the most effe ctive manner; (3) thekinds of sentenc es available; (4) the kinds of sentenceand the sentenc ing rang e esta

blished for . . . (A) the a

pplicable c ateg ory

of off ense c ommitt ed by

the applicablecate g ory

of def endant a s set forth in the guidelines . . .; (5) a ny pertinent policy 11 m at er i al s, or (i i i ) pub l i c r eput at i on . R ob ert s a l so cont ends that , al tho ug h the theft arg u ab l y d i d i m p actsi g n i fi can t l y D r. G i b so n ’ s research o n th e M art i an m et eo ri t es, th e c o u r t f

a ile d to c o n s id e rth a t th is r e s e a r c h s till c o u ld b e c o n d u c te d in th e f u tu r e . R obe r t s a r gue s tha t , t o the e xt e ntthe c our ta na l ogi z e d the a m ountof di s rupt i on t o a m one t a r y l os s unde r§ 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( N ) , the c our tove r s t a t e d the “ va l ue ” of the com bi ned i m pactof the di srup t i on s f rom the theft . F i nal l y, R ob ert s c on t ends that the court ’ s r at i on al e, thatthe ext entof departure w as nece ss ary t o d et erfuture i l l e ga l c onduc t , w a s i l l ogi c a l be c a us e a pe r s on i n R obe r t ’ s pos i t i on w oul d not lik e ly b e in f

lu e n c e d s u b s ta n tia lly b y th e a d d itio n a l p r is o n te r m . Pr i o rt o th e Su p r e me Co u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S.

___, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 16 0 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), w e r evi ew ed the ext entof departures f r om the m a nda t or y f

e de r a l gui de l i ne s f

orr e a s ona bl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erthatre vi ew , w e w er e re qu i re d “ t o d et erm i ne w hether the se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtw as re as on abl e i n the cont extof the fa ct ors out l i ned i n [18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) ] . ” Id. at 11state ment []; ( 6) thene e d toavo id u nw arrante d s e ntenc edispa ritie s amongde fendantswi th simil ar records who havebeen f ound guilty

of similar conduc t; and (7) the ne ed to provide restitution to any

victims of the offense.” See18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) -(7) . 12 1246; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B l a s , 360 F . 3d 1268, 1274 ( 11th C i r . 2004) (e xp l ai ni ng thatthe re vi ew i ng courtm ustdet erm i ne the re as on abl enes s of a departure i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a nd the re as on s the di stri ctcourt pr ovi de d f

orde pa r t i ng) . P os t - B ooke r , “ the s e f a c t or s c ont i nue t o gui de our r e v ie w .” W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 6 . A dd i t i on al l y, po st -B oo ker, di stri ctcourt s, w hi l e notbo un d b y the fe dera l gui de l i ne s , m us tc ont i nue t o c ons ul tthe pr ovi s i ons of the f e de r a l gui de l i ne s a nd c ons i de rthe m i n s e nt e nc i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . “ T hi s c ons ul t a t i on r e qui r e m e nt , a ta m i ni m um , obl i ge s the di stri ctcourtt o cal cul at e c orre ct l y the se nt enci ng ra ng e pre sc ri bed b y the [f eder al gu i del i nes] . ” I d. (e m ph as i s i n o ri gi nal ). “ A m i si nt erpret at i on of the [f eder al gui de l i ne s ] by a di s tr i c tc our te f f e c t i ve l y m e a ns tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tha s not p ro p erl y co n su l t ed th e [fed eral g u i d el i n es] . ” Id . at1 1 7 9 (q u o t at i o n m ark s, c ita tio n s , a n d p u n c tu a tio n o m itte d ) . F u r th e r m o r e , “ap p lic a tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s is n o t c o m p le te u n til th e d e p a r tu r e s , if a n y , th a t a r e w a r r a n te d a r e ap p r o p r ia te ly consi dere d. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. Jordi , 41 8 F . 3d 12 12 , 12 15 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). I n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e l vi n, 187 F . 3d 1316 ( 11th C i r . 1999) , w e r e vi e w e d a13

c h a lle n g e to th e r e a s o n a b le n e s s o f a 1 5 - le v e l u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e , p u r s u a n t to U . S . S . G . § 5K 2. 0, w hi c h w a s ba s e d on the num be r , a nd vul ne r a bi l i ty , of hos pi t a l i z e d c hi l dr e n w ho w e r e i ndi r e c tvi c t i m s of the de f e nda nt ’ s f

r a udul e nt c r e di t - c a r d s c he m e . S e e i d. a t1321- 24. W e c a ut i one d tha t“ i ti s the pr e r oga t i ve of the di s tr i c tc our t , notthe c our tof appe a l s , t o de t e r m i ne , i n the f i r s ti ns t a nc e , the se nt ence thatshou l d b e i m po se d i n l i gh tof ce rt ai n fac t ors properl y c on si dere d u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s ,” a n d th a t “[ i]t is n o t th e r o le o f a n ap p e lla te c o u r t to s ubs t i tut e i t s j udgm e ntf ortha tof the s e nt e nc i ng c our ta s t o the appr opr i a t e ne s s of a p a r tic u la rs e n te n c e .” S e e id . a t 1 3 2 3 ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s a n d m a r k s o m itte d ) . W e the n c onc l ude d tha t , i n l i ghtof the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng the r e p r e h e n s ib le n a tu r e o f

th e o f f e n s e , a n d th e f

a c t th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t’s u ltim a te se nt ence of 12 0 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entw as bel ow hi s s t atut ory m axi m um se nt ence o f 3 0 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, h is s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n a b le . S e e id . a t 1 3 2 3 - 2 4 . In the i nst antca se , D r. G i bson conceded thathi s s tud i es of l un arsa m pl es ha d de c l i ne d by the e a r l y 1990s , a nd tha the onl y ha d be e n a l l oc a t e d 200 t o 300 g r a m s o f th e ap p r o x im a te ly 8 0 0 p o u n d s o f lu n a rm a te r ia l th a t h a d b e e n r e tu r n e d to E a r th. H ow e ve r , D r . G i bs on a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the c oul d notbe c e r t a i n tha ta l l of the s a m pl e s ha d be e n r e tur ne d, a nd tha tr e s e a r c h out l i ne d i n l os tnot e books i nvol vi ng uni que l una rs a m pl e s ha d notbe e n publ i s he d e l s e w he r e a nd c oul d notbe14

re pl i ca t ed i n the future. M oreover, re gardl es s of w hether the l un arsa m pl es w er e d e g r a d e d , th e b r e a k in th e irc h a in o f c u s to d y r e n d e r e d th e m le s s v a lu a b le . In addi t i on t o d i sc ussi ng the i m pactof the offens es on the l un arsa m pl es , D r. G i bson t es t i fi ed that , du e t o the theftof the M art i an m et eori t es , w hi ch he st i l l w as s tu d y in g , h e a n d o th e rs c ie n tis ts h a d b e e n u n a b le to c o m p le te f u n d e d s tu d ie s . S in c e O c to b e r2 0 0 3 , D r . G ib s o n ’s lab o r a to r y h a d lo s t $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 in f u n d in g . M art i an m et eori t e s am pl es ei ther had di m i ni shed i n v al ue, or D r. G i bson and o ther N A SA p e r s o n n e l h a d b e e n f o r c e d t o s p e n d a s i g n i f

i c a n ta mo u n to f

t i me r e c o n s tru c tin g th e irr e c o r d s to d o c u m e n t th e N A S A c u r a to r ia l c h a in o f c u s to d y . F u r th e r m o r e , D r . G ib s o n a n d o th e rN A S A p e r s o n n e l h a d b e e n f o r c e d to d e v o te se v er al m o n th s to (1 ) th e in v es ti g atio n o f th e th ef t, an d (2 ) p re p ar in g fo r R o b er ts’s co -c o n sp irato r’s trial. R o b er ts also o ff er ed n o ev id en ce ch allen g in g D r. G ib so n ’s t e s t i m ony tha tN A S A ha d c ur t a i l e d i t s di s pl a y of s a m pl e s f

orpubl i c vi e w i ng a nd h a d a t le a s t q u e s tio n e d th e v a lu e o f f u tu r e in te r n s h ip s . T he court ’ s s t at em ent , thatthe departure w as w arra nt ed t o d et ersi m i l ar c r im in a l c o n d u c t, w a s s u p p o r te d b y th e f a c t th a t R o b e r ts ’s c o n c u r r e n t s e n te n c e s in th e in s ta n t c a s e h a d r e s u lte d f r o m h is r e p e a te d a c ts o f s te a lin g n a tio n a l tr e a s u r e s . A dd i t i on al l y, t o the ext entR ob ert s’ s app ea l al so ca n b e c on strued as ar gu i ng that th e co u rti m p ro p erl y an al o g i zed t o § 2 B 1 . 1 (b )(1 )(N ), b ecau se th e co u rtt o o k l o ssWe rec ently conclude d that “nothingin Booker or e lsewhere re quires the district cour t 12 to state on the re cord that it has explicitly considere d each of the § 3553(a) factors.” SeeUnited States v. Scott, No. 05-11843, manuscript op. at 11- 12 (11th Cir. Sept. 27, 2005). 15 a m ounti nt o a c c ountw he n c a l c ul a t i ng R obe r t s ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l , the c our t ’ s a na l ogy re st ed on i t s det erm i nat i on thata s i gn i fi ca ntdegree of l oss t o the N A S A prog ra m c o u ld n o t b e q u a n tif

ie d , a n d th is d e te r m in a tio n o f lo s s , a b s e n t a la c k o f

s u p p o r t in th e reco rd , sh o u l d n o tb e recalculat ed b y u s, see M el v i n , 1 8 7 F . 3 d 1 3 1 6 ; see al so U ni t ed S t at es v. R eguei ro, 24 0 F . 3d 13 21 , 13 25 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ) ( concl ud i ng that th e c o u r t’s r e p e a te d r e f

e r e n c e to th e a m o u n t o f m o n e y th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t lo s t to the de f e nda nt ’ s s c he m e w a s onl y i nt e nde d t o s tr e s s the s c ope a nd na tur e of the d e f e n d a n t’s f

r a u d a n d th e s u b s ta n tia l a f f e c t th a t it h a d o n th e M e d ic a r e p r o g r a m ) . T hus , the c our t ’ s s t a t e d r e a s ons f orde pa r t i ng upw a r ds e i ghtl e ve l s f r om R ob ert s’ s t ot al offe nse l evel of 23 w er e s up po rt ed by the re cord, and t hey r ef l ec t ed tha tthe c our tc ons i de r e d the f a c t or s e num e r a t e d i n § 3553( a ) . S e e W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d at12 46 . F i nal l y, si m i l art o the defendanti n M el vi n, R ob ert s’ s t ot al se nt ence

12 of 90 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , di d note xc e e d hi s m a xi m um s t a tut or y s e nt e nc e s of 10 y e a r s ’ i m pr i s onm e ntf orboth C ount2 of

C a s e N o. 6: 02- c r - 147 a nd C ount1 of C as e N o. 6: 03 -c r- 15 0. S ee 18 U . S . C . §§ 23 14 & 64 1 (se tt i ng m axi m um st atut ory s e n te n c e s a s 1 0 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t) . A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s e i gh t -l evel up w ar d16

d e p a r tu r e u n d e r§ 5 K 2 . 7 w a s r e a s o n a b l e . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.