NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0449n.06 No. 07-6500 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DONAL D GI L MORE, J R., De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

B EF OR E: CL AY , RO GE RS, a nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. ROGERS, Ci rcuit Judge. In this sentencing appea l, Def endant Donald Gilmore, Jr. alleg es that the district court improper ly based his sente nce on the drug quantity in the pre sentenc e re port

an d t h a t h i s c o u n s e l w a s i n e f

f e c t i v e f o r w i t h dr aw i n gG i l m o r e ’ s o b j e c t i o nt o t h e P S R ’ s dr

u g qu an t i t y. Gi lmo re ha s a lso mov e d to su pp le me nt the re c or d to inc lud e c on fl ic tin g a c c ounts of his dr ugqu anti ty admissions. Bec ause the rec ord alre ady contains the doc um en t s Gi lmore see ks to add, we de ny Gilmore’s motion to supplement the record. Be cause Gilmore wit hdrewhis objection to PS R’s drug qu an t i t y , qu an t i t y wa s n o td i s p u t edan d t h e d i s tri ct co u rt wa s n o tre qu i re d t o m ak e f ac tu al fi n d i n gs on drug quantity ; theref

ore, w e af firm his sentence . Be cause the re cord is not sufficie ntly develope d,

we de c lin e to r

ule on Gi lmo re ’s ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e c la im. During an August 30, 2006 traffic stop of Gilmore and his wife , a conse nsual sear ch of the couple’ s vehicle r evea led 3 pounds of coc aine. The stopping officer ’s not es i ndicate that Gilmore admitted buy ing thr ee to five kil og rams of coca ine for the past five y ear s. A forfeiture warr ant filedNo. 07-6500

Un ite d S tat es v . G ilm or e

- 2 - the n ex t day

by another office r indicate s that, contrar y to the stopping off

icer ’s notes, Gilmore admitted buy ing “ betwee n one and f ive ki los of cocaine per week for the last y ear .” Af ter Gilmore

wa s st op pe d a g a in o n Mar c h 21, 20 07 , whi le a tte mpt ing to tr ans po rt a pp ro xima te ly

thr e e kil og ra

ms of coc aine a cross state lines, a fede ral g rand jury

indicted Gilmore, his wife , and an o t h er codefe ndant for c onspiracy

to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kil og rams or more of coca ine hy drochloride from 2001 to Ma rch 2007, and possession of 500 g rams or more of coc aine

o n A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 0 6

. Bo t h Gi l m o re an d h i s wi fe p l edgu i l t y

t o t h e c o n s p i ra cy

ch ar ge, a c h ar ge

car rying a statutory mandatory

penalty of 10 y ear s to life i n prison if the defendant has no prior drug felony convictions. At the plea

hear ing, the Gover

nment confirme d that Gilmore and his wife had pled to “the same matter w ith the fa ct u al b as i s . . . being somewhat diff ere nt,” and Gilmore was advised of the statutory

penalties for

the cr ime. I n G ilm or e ’s ple a a g re e me nt, the Go ve rnme nt a g re e d n ot t o o pp os e a tw o- le ve l r e du c tio n in Gilmore’s Sentenc ing G uidelines offe nse leve l for ac cepta nce of responsibility , and ag ree d that the Gover nment might, i n i t s discretion, move for an additional one- level dec rea se for acc eptanc e of responsibility

if Gilmore’s ba se off

ense le vel was 16 or g reater. The Government re serve d the rig ht to withdraw or to de cline to make this m otion if Gilmore “eng ag e[d] in any conduct . . . inconsistent with acc epting responsibility .” The plea a g ree ment set forth fa cts to support Gilmore’s g uilty plea but note d that these fac ts w ere not ne cessa rily all the fac ts in the case , other fac ts might be re levant t o s en t en ci n g, an d

b o t h t h e G o v ern m en tan d Gi l m o re co u l d

p re s en tad d i t i o n al fa ct s at s en t en ci n g.No. 07-6500

Un ite d S tat es v . G ilm or e

- 3 - The PSR held Gilmore responsible for 52 kilos of coca ine based on the admission attributed to him in t he for feiture war rant, that he boug ht betwee n one and f ive kilos of coca ine per

wee k for the last y ear . Ba sed on that drugquantity , Gilmore’s ba se offe nse level was 36. After subtracting 3 levels for

acc eptanc e of responsibility , Gilmore’s tot al offense level was 33, and with his criminal history at categ ory

I I I , Gilmore’s Guide line rang e wa s 168 to 210 months’ im prisonment. Gilmore objec ted to the PSR ’s drug quantity and ar g ued in his sentencingmemorandum that t h e re co rd co n t ai n ed o th er s t at em en t s b y Gi l m o re ad m i t t i n g t o l es s er dru g qu an t i t i es . At s en t en ci n g, the Go ve rnme nt i nd ic a te d tha t its witn e sse s wou ld te sti fy that G ilm or e sh ou ld b e he ld r e sp on sib le fo r a dr ugqu anti ty

“ fa r i n e xce ss o f” 52 ki lo s; that th is q ua nti ty wo uld inc re a se his tot a l of

fe ns e le ve l; a nd that if he pe rs ist e d in

his ob je c tio n, the Go ve rnme nt w ou ld d e c lin e to mov e fo r an o ff e ns e level re duction for a cce ptance of re s p o n s ibilit y . The district cour t cautioned Gilmore that drug qu anti ty wa s th e ma in det erm ina nt i n d ru g c ri me se nte nc ing , th a t “ [o]nc e the g ov e rnme nt s tart s putting on evide nce [of drugquantity ], it become s an evidentiar y hear ing,” and that “more often than not the only witness that’s available [t o counter the Gover nment’s evidenc e of dr

ug quantity ] i s the defe ndant.” The district court continued, statingthat if the defe ndant’s testimony contra dicted the Gover nment’s evidenc e and the district court cr edited the Gove rnm en t ’s evidenc e rather than the de fe nd ant’ s te sti mony , th e n the de fe nd ant c ou ld fa c e a hig he r Se nte nc ing Gu ide lin e s ra ng e du e to l o s s o f an offense le vel re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty and an e nhance ment for obstruction of justice. The war nings, w hile d o u b t l es s acc urate and intended f or the de fenda

nt’s benef it, w e r e o nth e f

o r c e f u l s id e , an d

w e d o n o t e n d o r s e th e m a s id e a l. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt n oted,No. 07-6500

Un ite d S tat es v . G ilm or e

- 4 - howeve r, t hat i t did not know what evidenc e the Government would pre sent or whe ther that e vidence would be cr edible. The district cour

t then rec essed to per

mit Gilm ore to confe r with c ounsel. After sentenc ing resumed, G ilmore’s counse l withdrew the obje ction to the PSR ’s drugquantity . The district cour t fo un d th a t th e fa c ts a

nd Gu ide lin e s c a lc ulatio ns in G ilm or e ’s PSR w e re c or re c t. G ilm or e him se lf

c on tin ue d to dis a g re e wi th t

he PSR’ s d

ru g qu anti ty , a

nd the d ist ri c t c ourt a dv ise d G ilm or e that, i f he believe d he wa s innocent, he s h o u l d n o t plead guilty . Gilmore re sponded that he did “ acc ept respons ibilit y

for what [ he] pled to, but [ he] did not pl ead to that amount.” The district cour t sentenc ed Gilmore to 189 months’ imprisonment, a within-Guidelines sentenc e for the 52- kilo drug qu an t i t y. Gilmore filed this timely

appea l, and moved in the district co u rt t o supplement the re cord with the conflicting acc ounts of Gilmore’s drugquantity admissions fr o m t he stop on Aug ust 30, 2006. The district cour

t de nied the motion and stated that Fe dera l Rule of Appellate Proc edure 10(e) did not permit sup p le me nting the r ecor d beca use “the rec ord ac curately ref lects what occur

red be fore the [dis tr ic t c ourt ].” Gi lmo re the n mo ve d to su pp le me nt t

he re c or d in

thi s c ourt
. We deny Gilmore’s motion to supplement the rec ord because the rele vant documents a re pa rt of the district cour

t’s seale d rec ord. Rule 10(e) permits corr ection or modifica tion if “any

differ ence arises a bout whether

the re cord truly d i scloses what occur red in the district c ourt” or “ any thing materia l to either par

ty is omitted from or misstated in the record.” Be cause the documents Gilmore seeks to add a

re a lrea dy in the district court’s sea led re cord, ne ither circ umstance a pplies here

.No. 07-6500

Un ite d S tat es v . G ilm or e

- 5 - We also aff

irm Gilmore’s sente nce. T he district c ourt proper ly based G ilmore’s sentenc e on the PSR’ s d

ru g qu anti ty

be c a us e Gi lmo re wi thd

re w h is obj e c tio n to that qu anti ty , r e nd e ri ngqu anti ty undisputed and per

mitti ng the PSRto serve as the factual basis for the sentenc e. A se ntencingcourt

“ may a c c e pt a ny un dis pu te d p or

tio n of the pr e se nte nc e re po rt a s a fi nd ingof

fa c t.” F e d. R. C ri m P. 32(i)( 3 )( A) . “[A] defendant’s state ment of no objec tions to a presente nce r eport c onstitut es an express admission of the amount and ty pe of dr ug s attributed to [t he def

endant] in the PS R.” United Sta te s v . S taf for d , 258 F.3d 465, 476 (6th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (inser tion in o ri g ina l) (c itatio n o mit te d) ; see also United States v. Adk ins , 4 2 9 F. 3 d 6 31, 632-33 (6th Cir. 20 05 ); Un ite d S

tates v . Cl e me nts , 142 F. App’ x 223, 228-29 (6th Cir. 2005). A de fenda n t’s withdrawa l of an objec tion to the PS R’s drug quantity is also an express ad m i ssion of that drug quantity

. United States v. Rope r , 266 F.3d 526, 532 ( 6th Cir. 2001). There fore , when Gilmore withdrew his obje ction, the district c ourt could proper ly acc ept the PSR ’s drugquantity

as a f inding of fac t be cause that portion of the PSR was undisputed. Gilmore’ s statement that he did not plead to the 52 kilogr am quantity does not cha

ng e his attorney ’s withdraw al of that objec tion. See U

nited States v. Tarpley , 2 95 F. App ’x 11 , 1 5- 16 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) . B e c a us e the PSR ’s drugquantity

was undisputed, the district court properly declined to hold an e videntiary hear ing a nd find fac ts, and the PSR quantity was a sufficie nt fac tual basis to support the sentenc e. This result is consistent with Un ite d S tat es v . B ar o , 15 F.3d 563 ( 6th Cir. 1994). I n Ba ro , this court vacated def

endants’ se ntence s and re manded for re-sentenc ing be cause the district court ha d f a ile d to mak e fa c tua l fin din g s as to the dis pu te d f a c t of dr ugqu anti ty

a ttr ibuta ble to d e fe nd antsNo. 07-6500

Un ite d S tat es v . G ilm or e

- 6 - in a drugconspirac y . Id. at 569. Unlike the de fenda nts in Ba ro , G ilm or e wi thd re w h is d ru g qu anti ty ob je c tio n; the re fo re , the PSR se rv e d a s th e fa c tua l ba sis fo r t he se nte nc e , a

nd the dis tr ic t c ourt

did not need to make a sepa

rate fac tual finding as to the drugquantity attributable to Gilmore. Gi lmo re fa

ult s th e Go ve rnme nt f

or fa ili ngto n oti fy

him a t th e ple a

a g re e me nt s ta g e that, in draftinghis PS R, the Probation Office would have a cce ss to his August 2006 statements that “substantially

incre ase” the drugamount attributed to Gilmore. Gilmore is not entitled to vacatur of his sentenc e on this basis, howeve r, bec ause the Gover nment need not a dvise a de fenda nt of the exact sentenc e he f

ace s at the plea

ag ree ment stag e. See Fe d. R. Crim. P . 11(b)( 1)(H) & ( I ). The five -kilog ram amount was not binding on the district c ourt at sentenc ing be cause Gilmore’s ind ic tme nt a

nd g uil ty ple a are ba se d o n a

c ri me inv olv ingfi ve kil og ra ms or more of coc aine hy drochloride ; Gilmore ac knowledg ed in the plea ag ree ment that “the se ntencingdeter mination will be based upon the entire sc ope of [his] criminal conduc t,” and, a s Gilmore conc edes on appea l, the plea a g ree ment states that fa cts other than those in the plea a g ree ment may be re levant to sentencingand per

mits Gil more a

nd the Gover

nment to present a dditional facts at se ntencing

. See Un ite d S

tat es v . Co le , 5 69 F .3 d 7 74 , 7 77 -7 8 ( 7th Cir . 2 00 9) . In a dd iti on , a s n ote d in Gilmore’s plea

ag ree ment and at his plea hear ing, the crime w ith which Gilmore wa s char g ed and to which he pled guilty

car ried a statutory maxi mum sentence of life imprisonment, and the PSR ’s drugquantity

does not incre ase that statutory maxi mum. See U

nited States v. Cox , 565 F.3d 1013, 1016- 17 (6th Cir. 2009). Ther efor e, the district cour t properly sentenc ed Gilmore b a s e d o nt h e P S R ’ s dr

u g qu an t i t y.No. 07-6500

Un ite d S tat es v . G ilm or e

- 7 - The c ourt dec lines to rule on Gilmore’s ine ffe ctive assistanc e cla im on direct appe al be c a us e the e xistin g re c or d is no t a de qu a te to e va luate wh e the r G ilm or e ’s c ouns e l ha d a str a te g ic

rea son to withdraw his objection to the PSR’s drug qua ntity

. See United States v. Sullivan , 431 F .3 d 9 76 , 9 86 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; Ma ssa ro v . U nit e d S tat es, 538 U.S. 500, 504-05 (2003). F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , G ilm or e ’s mot ion to s up ple me nt t

he re c or d is de nie d a

nd his sentenc e is aff

irmed.