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 

### F e b r u ary27,2007 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- 1124 v. ( D . C ol or ado) GE RO NI M O C AS T E L L ON,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR - 0 0 0 6 2 - E WN)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T A C H A , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , P O R F IL IO and AN DE RS ON , C irc u it Judg 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 ti n the det erm i nat i on o f 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. D efe ndantand appe l l antG er oni m o C as t el l on appea l s hi s convi ct i on and se n ten c e , fo llo w in g a ju rytrial, o n o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to-2-

di s t r i but e a qua nt i t yof m ar ij uana, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( D ) , and one c ountof cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a quant i t yof m ar ij uana, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846. C as t el l on w as s ent ence d to fo rt y -s ix m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, fo llo w e d b yth re e y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . H e t i m el yappea l ed, and w e affi r m hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence . BA CKGROUND C as t el l on beca m e ac quai nt ed w i th N athan C ot s for d i n 2003. C ot s for d l i ved w i t h hi s comm on- l aw w i fe, J ami e Schnei der , and thei rt w o- y ear - ol d s on at1374 Ful t on W ayi n A ur or a, C ol or ado. C as t el l on as ked C ot s for d i f he ( C ot s for d) wa n t e d t o ma k e s o me mo n e yb yg o i n g t o Ca l i fo rn i a a n d b r i n g i n g b a c k s o me drugs . W hi l e ther e w as s om e conf l i ct i ng t es t i m onyas t o how m uch money C as t el l on offe r ed t o C ot s for d t o t ake the tr i p, i tw as pos s i bl yas m uch as $10, 000. C ot s for d’ s father - i n- l aw acc or di ngl ydr opped C as t el l on and C ot s for d att he D enverai rpor t , w her e theyboughtone- w ayt i cket s t o L os A ngel es on Fr ont i er A i r l i nes . C ot s for d t es t i fi ed thatC as t el l on boughtt he t i cket s , and thathe us ed an i dent i fi cat i on car d i n t he name of R i char do R egl a- C ampos. A tt r i al , a Fr ont i er A ir li n es e m p loy ee co rrob o rated this i n fo rm ati o n , test ify ing that F ron ti er’s bus i nes s r ecor ds i ndi cat ed thata N athan C ot s for d and a Ri char do R egl a- C ampos pu rchased on e-w ayt i ckets from D env er t o L os A ng el es.C o tsfo rd ’s te stim o n yo n v a rio u s p o in ts w a s n o t alw a y s c o n sis ten t, as b o th 1 defe ns e couns el and the governm enthave poi nt ed out . W her e the moneyw as cou nted i s an exa m ple of his t est i m on ycon fl i ct i ng on vari ou s sm al l po i nts . -3- C o tsfo rd f

u rth e r te stified th a t h e w a s c a rry in g lar g e a m o u n ts o f c a sh in h is p o c k e ts o n th e trip , an d th a t, w h e n q u e stio n e d a b o u t itb ya irp o rt se c u rity e m p lo y e e s, h e to ld th e m a sto ryC a ste llo n h a d c re a ted

— th a t th e yw e re g o in g to C ali fo rnia to b u ya c ar. U pon arr i val i n L os A ngel es , C as t el l on and C ot s for d boughta J eep G r and C h ero k ee . T h e tw o m en also co u n ted th e m o n ey , at a m o tel o r at som eo n e’s hous e, and then gave i tt o an H i s pani c mal e. C as t el l on and C ot s for d then pi cked

1 u p tw o re d a n d b la c k d u ffe l b a g s a t th e h o u s e o f s o m e o n e C a s te llo n k n e w . C ot s for d t es t i fi ed he kne w t he bags cont ai ned mar ij uana. C ot s for d and C as t el l on t hen dr ove bac k t o C ol or ado w i th the duffel bags of m a riju a n a in to w . C o ts fo rd d ro v e th e J e e p a n d C a s te llo n d ro v e a d iffe re n t c a r, a gol d M er cede s . W hen theyarr i ved bac k i n C ol or ado, t heyunl oaded the duffel bags atC as t el l on’ s hous e i n A ur or a. C ot s for d t es t i fi ed att r i al t hatC as t el l on gave hi m $500 att hatpoi nt . C ot s for d then keptt he J eep a nd dr ove t o hi s hous e. C o tsfo rd tes tifie d th a t, a fe w d a y s la ter , C a ste llo n c a lled h im a n d a sk e d if he ( C as t el l on) coul d s t ayatC ot s for d’ s apart m ental ong w i th the duffel bags of m ar ij uana, beca us e C as t el l on w as havi ng m ar i t al pr obl ems. C as t el l on then moved i nto the C ots ford ap artm ent. H e placed t he d uffel bag s i n a closet . C ast el l on al so appar ent l ybr oughtw i t h hi m a s cal e and a fi r earm . J ami e Schnei dert es t i fi ed thatFul t on i s par al l el t o G al ena, w i th the apa r t m entcompl ex i n w hi ch the 2 C ots ford ap artm ent w as l ocated go i ng betw een the t w o st reet s. -4- sh e w a s a w a re o f

th e m a riju a n a , b u t w a s u n a w a re th a t C a ste llo n h a d b ro u g h t w ith h im a sc ale o r a fir ea rm . T h e fir ea rm w as su b seq u en tl yfo u n d b yp o li ce o fficers w r apped i n a s heetbehi nd t he w as hi ng m achi ne. Schnei derfurthert es t i fi ed that s he had pl ace d dr y ers heet s i n t he duffel bags t o m i ni m i ze the odorcomi ng fr om t he mar ij uana. Ats o me p o i n t , l o c a l a n d fe d e r a l l a w e n fo r c e me n ta u th o r i t i e s b e c a me s us pi ci ous . O n Sept ember16, 2004, an A ur or a pol i ce de part m entl i eut enant di r ect ed i nves t i gat orPatY oungqui s tt o i nves t i gat e A part m entG - 108 at1355 G a len a S tre e t in A u ro ra a n d to lo o k o u t fo r so m e o n e n a m e d G e ro n im o . A s it tur ned out , A par t m entG - 108 i s C ot s for d’ s apart m entl ocat ed at1374 Ful t on St r eet . Y oungqui s tw as al s o di r ect ed t o l ook outfora gol d aut om obi l e, perhaps

2 a C adi l l ac ora M er cede s B enz. Y oungqui s tdet erm i ned thatt he “G er oni m o” he w as l ooki ng forw as t he defendant , G er oni m o C as t el l on. O ffice rs th e n c o m m e n c e d su rv e ill a n c e o f th e a p a rtm e n t. T h e ysa w a g o ld cari n t he parki ng l ot , and r ecogni zed, bas ed on a phot ogr aph theyhad obt ai ned, t he dr i veras C as t el l on. T heyeventual l ym ade a t r aff i c s t op of the gol d car , aft er det erm i ni ng t hatC as t el l on di d nothave a val i d dr i ver ’ s l i cenc e. C as t el l on w as arr es t ed af

t eradmi t t i ng t hathi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e had be en r evoked.-5-

T h e o ffice rs th e n b ro u g h t a d ru g -d e tec tio n d o g to th e c a r, w h o a ler ted to t he bac k of the ca r . T he off i cer s found a r ed and bl ack duffel bag i n the trunk of t he ca r , cont ai ni ng fi ve pac kages of m ar ij uana a nd a dry ers heet . T he pac kages w ei ghed a t ot al of j us tunders i x ki l ogr ams. T he ca ral s o cont ai ned a br ow n or t an j acke t , i n t he pocke tof w hi ch w as a C ol or ado i dent i fi cat i on car d bear i ng the name R i char do R egl a- C ampos. T her e w as al s o a conc eal ed w eapon ba dge betw een the frontseat s. M ea n w h il e, th e o fficers co n ti n u ing to co n d u ct su rve il lanc e o f th e C o tsfo rd apart m ents aw a coupl e w i t h a s m al l chi l d l eave apart m entG - 108 and geti nt o a car . A chec k of the l i cens e pl at e r evea l ed i tw as r egi s t er ed t o J ami e Lynn S ch n eide r. A t som e p o int, o fficers stop p ed the c ar c o n tai n ing S ch n eide r, C o tsfo rd a n d th e ir c h ild . C o tsfo rd w a s ta k e n to jail, S c h n e id e r w a s d e tain e d u n til h er fathe r co u ld p ick h er u p , an d the c h il d w as g iven to h is m atern al gra n d fa ther. W h ile a t th e jail, C o tsfo rd a p p a re n tlyim m e d iate lyb e g a n c o o p e ra tin g w ith the p o li ce , tel li n g them ab o u t th e tri p w ith C astell o n to C ali fo rnia. P o li ce o fficers obt ai ned a w arr antt o s ear ch C ot s for d’ s apart m ent , w her e br i cks of m ar ij uana, w ei ghi ng a t ot al of m or e than fortyki l ogr ams, w er e found i n the r ed and bl ack d u ffe l b a g s. A s in d ica ted , the p o lice fo u n d th e fire a rm , a N o rin c o se m i-a u to m a tic as s aul tr i fl e, w r apped i n a s heetbehi nd the w as hi ng m achi ne. T he r i fl e w as oper abl e butl acke d a cl i p forr epea tfi r i ng.-6-

C as t el l on w as or i gi nal l ychar ged w i th fi ve count s : the tw o count s of convi ct i on, al t hough w i t h a s peci fi c amountof m ar ij uana ( fi ftyki l ogr ams) , as w el l as one countal l egi ng i nt er s t at e tr avel t o fac i l i t at e the pos s es s i on for d istri b u ti o n o f a co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 5 2 (a)(3)(A ); o n e c o u n t alle g in g th a t C a ste llo n w a s a fe lo n in p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm , in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) ; and one c ountal l egi ng thatC as t el l on p o s s e s s e d a fi r e a r m d u r i n g a d ru g c r i me , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A )(I). A t trial, the in d ictm e n t w a s re d a c ted to e lim in a te a n ysp e c ific amount of m ar ij uana f r om t he tw o count s of convi ct i on, and countfourw as s ever ed and, i n conform i t yw i t h the us ual pr act i ce i n s uch ca s es , pr es ent ed i n a s epar at e documentaft ert he j ur yr etur ned i t s ver di cton the r emai ni ng count s . T he dis t ri ctcou rtacqu i t t ed C ast el l on of the fel on -i n-possessi on charge afterthe close of evi dence . T he j ur yacqui t t ed C as t el l on of the i nt er s t at e tr avel countand the p o s s e s s i o n o f

a fi r e a r m c o u n t , b u tfo u n d h i m g u i l tyo f th e r e ma i n i n g two count s — pos s es s i on and cons pi r acyt o pos s es w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a qua nt i t yof m ar ij uana. I n pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng, the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch ca l cul at ed an a dvi s or ys ent ence underthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, G ui del i nes M anual ( “U SSG ”) . A ts ever al pl ace s , t he PSR s t at ed thatC as t el l on had bee n convi ct ed of pos s es s i on and cons pi r acyt o pos s es s w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e atl eas tfi ftyki l ogr ams of-7-

m ar ij uana. I n fac t , as t he r edac t ed i ndi ctm enti ndi cat ed, C as t el l on w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on and cons pi r acyt o pos s es s “a qua nt i ty ” of mar ij uana, beca us e the d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n c l u d e d d u r i n g t h e tr i a l th a tth e e v i d e n c e d i d n o ts u p p o r tth e fi f t yki l ogr am quant i t y . T he evi dence attr i al s how ed thatthe t ot al quant i tyof m a riju a n a in v o lv e d

— fo u n d in th e c a r C a ste llo n w a s d riv in g a n d th e d u ffe l b a g s in t he ap artm ent— w as approx i m at el yforty -s even kil og ram s. T h e P S R c a lcu late d C a ste llo n ’s b a se o ffe n se lev e l as tw e n ty , p u rsu a n t to U SSG §2D 1. 1( c) ( 10) , w hi ch appl i es t o drug cr i m es i nvol vi ng atl eas tfor tybutnot m or e than s i xt yki l ogr ams of mar ij uana. T he PSR r ecomm ended a tw o- l evel i ncr eas e forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug tr aff i cki ng c r i m e , u n d e rU S S G § 2 D 1 . 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) . W i th a t o t a l a dj u s t e d o ffe n s e l e v e l o f tw e n tytw o an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryIII , the P S R d eterm ined that the a d v isory G ui del i ne r ange w as fi fty - one t o s i xty - thr ee mont hs . T he governm entfi l ed a s ent enci ng s t at ement , w hi ch s peci fi cal l ynot ed thatthe evi dence attr i al i ndi cat ed “i nves t i gat or s r ecove r ed more t han 40 K G of m ar ij uana” and r ecomm endi ng that a bas e offens e l evel of tw entyw as appr opr i at e underU SSG §2D 1. 1( c) ( 10) , the s ame bas e offens e l evel and U SSG pr ovi s i on ut i l i zed bythe PSR . T he governm ental s o s oughta tw o- l evel i ncr eas e forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o a drug t r aff i cki ng cr i m e. D efe ns e couns el obj ect ed t o the tw o- l evel i ncr eas e forpos s es s i on of a fi r earm beca us e C as t el l on “w as acqui t t ed of a l l char ges r el at i ng t o fi r earm s . ”C a ste llo n ’s h a n d -w ritten list o f o bjec tio n s in d ica tes th a t h e w a s e v id e n tly 3 s om ew hatconfus ed byvar i ous courtpr ocee di ngs and mi s hear d m uch of w hatw as sta ted b yc o u n se l an d th e c o u rt. -8- A ddendum t o PSR atA - 1, Supp. V ol . I I I . C as t el l on hi m s el f s ubm i t t ed a l engthy l i s tof obj ect i ons as w el l , i n w hi ch he a r gued, att i m es notverycoher ent l y , thathe w as onl yconvi ct ed of pos s es s i on of s i x ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana. 3 A tt he sentenci ng heari ng , t he co urtst at ed that , w i th respectt o d efen se couns el ’ s obj ect i on t o t he pos s es s i on of a f i r earm enhanc ement , i tw as “pr epar ed to d eterm ine th at bya p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce , that the fir ea rm w asn ’t p o s s e s s e d , c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h e j u ryv e r d i c t . ” Tr . o f S e n t e n c i n g Hr ’ g a t2 , S u p p . R. V ol . I V . T he courtfur t heri ndi cat ed i tw as “noti ncl i ned t o cons i deranyof [C as t el l on’ s ow n obj ect i ons ] , ” not i ng that“[h] e’ s r epr es ent ed” a nd fur ther inq u ir ing w h ethe r his d efen se c o u n sel w an ted to join a n yo f C astell o n ’s obj ect i ons , t o w hi ch defens e couns el r es ponded “[ n] o. ” I d. at3. T he courtt hen cal cul at ed an a dvi s or yr ange of for ty - one t o fi fty - one mont hs , bas ed on a t ot al offe ns e l evel of tw entyand a c r i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryI I I . A ft ers um m ar i zi ng t he s ent enci ng fac t or s s etouti n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , t he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d C as t el l on t o for t y - s i x m ont hs , i n the mi ddl e of the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange. C as t el l on appea l s , ar gui ng: ( 1) t he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the fa ctual s t at ement s i n t he PSR , i ncl udi ng the err oneous s t at ementt hatC as t el l on w as convi ct ed of c r i m es i nvol vi ng atl eas tfi ftyki l ogr ams of mar ij uana, w hi ch r ender ed the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent ence an abus e of di s cr et i on; and ( 2) t he di s tr i ct-9-

cour tcomm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err or“byfai l i ng t o addr es s M r . C as t el l on’ s obj ect i ons t o t he mar ij uana a m ount s forw hi ch he w as t o be s ent ence d and the under l y i ng e v i d e n c e , a s r e q u i r e d b yF e d e r a l Ru l e o f Cr i mi n a l P r o c e d u r e 3 2 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( c) . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at18- 19.

DI S CU S S I ON W e n o w re v ie w s e n te n c e s im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K r i s t l , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( p e rc u r i a m ) . “ We r equi r e r eas onabl enes s i n t w o r es pect s — ‘ the l ength of the s ent ence as w el l as t he m ethodbyw hich the sentence w as cal culat ed. ’” U nit ed S t at es v. L op ez-Fl ores, 44 4 F . 3d 12 18 , 12 20 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( qu oti ng K ri st l , 43 7 F . 3d at10 55 ); see al so U ni t ed St at es v. H al l , 473 F. 3d 1295, 1310 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . “I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he met hod byw hi ch a s ent ence i s cal cul at ed i s r eas onabl e, w e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand i t s l egal det erm i nat i ons de novo. ” H al l , 473 F. 3d at1311. T h e P S R i n t h i s c a s e i n c o rr e c t l ys t a t e d t h a tCa s t e l l o n wa s c o n v i c t e d o f t wo count s i nvol vi ng m or e than fi ftyki l ogr ams of mar ij uana. I n fac t , as i ndi cat ed above, t he j ur yfound C as t el l on gui l tyof pos s es s i ng and cons pi r i ng t o pos s es s “a q u an ti ty ” o f m arij u an a. H o w ev er, th e P S R also q u o ted th e g o v ern m en t’ s s ent enci ng s t at ement , w hi ch expl i ci t l ys t at ed that“‘ as s how n byevi dence ad m itted a t tri al, the in v esti g ators re co v ere d m o re tha n 4 0 K G o f m arij u an a.’”T hi s addr es s es C as t el l on’ s ar gum entt hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n fai l i ng 4 to a d d re ss C a ste llo n ’s p ro se o bjec tio n s to th e P S R . T h e d istric t co u rt sp e c ifica lly a s k e d C a s te llo n ’s c o u n s e l if h e w is h e d to a d o p t a n yo f C a s te llo n ’s o bje c tio n s . B e c a u se h e d id n o t, an d b e c a u se C a ste llo n w a s n o t en tit led to h yb rid repr esent at i on , t he d i stri ctcou rtcorr ect l ycon cl ud ed thati tneed on l yadd res s o bjec tio n s m a d e b yC a ste llo n ’s c o u n se l. -10- PSR at3, R . Supp. V . I I I . T he di s tr i ctcour tadopt ed the fa ctual fi ndi ngs of the P S R. C as t el l on’ s couns el di d notobj ectt o the err orr egar di ng the amountof m ar ij uana i n t he count s of convi ct i on. C as t el l on hi m s el f r ai s ed obj ect i ons t o the a m o u n t o f

m a riju a n a fo r w h ich h e w a s c o n v icte d , alth o u g h h e d id n o t ex p licitly obj ectt o t he err ori n t he PSR . G ener al l y , w hen a de fenda ntfai l s t o obj ectt o a fa ctua l fi n d ing in the P S R , w e re v iew ito n lyfo r plain e rror. “P lai n erro r oc cu rs w hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i rnes s , i nt egr i tyorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al p roc ee d ing s. ” U n it ed S tat es v . G o n za lez-H u erta, 4 0 3 F . 3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e n b a n c ) . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , wh e r e a d e fe n d a n ti s r e p r e s e n t e d b yc o u n s e l , we do notacc eptpr o s e fi l i ngs oral l egat i ons . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pear l , 324 F. 3d 1210, 1216 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( not i ng thatbeca us e defendant“i s r epr es ent ed by co u n sel, w e d en yh is m o ti o n to fil e a n ad d it ion al pro se su p p lem en tal b ri ef”). 4 A p p ly in g p lain e rro r, itis o b v io u s th a t th e P S R c o n tain e d a n e rro r w h e n it s t at ed thatt he i ndi ctm enton w hi ch C as t el l on w as convi ct ed al l eged thatt he quant i t yof drugs w as m or e than fi ftyki l ogr ams. W hen adopt ed byt he di s tr i ctW e not e thatw e have r ece nt l yhel d i n U ni t ed St at es v. A t enci o, N o. 5 0 5 -22 7 9 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 0 2 9 7 7 , at *1 1 (10 th C ir . Jan . 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 ) th at th e d istri ct co u rt pl ai nl yerr ed w hen i tadopt ed contr adi ct oryfac tual s t at ement s i n a PSR , w i thout r es ol vi ng t he conf

l i ctpur s uantt o Fed. R . C r i m . P. 32. U nl i ke A t enci o, w e do not have c ont r adi ct or yfac tual s t at ement s her e; r ather , w e have an err oneous des cr i pt i on of an i ndi ctm ent , and a c l ear l ycorr ectfac tual fi ndi ng as t o drug quant i t y , coupl ed w i t h t he abs ol ut e ce r t ai ntyt hatt he di s tr i ctcourtknew of and s e n t e n c e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e c o rr e c tfa c tu a l fi n d i n g a s t o d ru g q u a n t i ty.

-11- cour t , t hatbeca m e an e r r oneous fi ndi ng. T he PSR r epea t ed thaterr or , as di d the di s t r i ctcourt , i n s t at i ng t hatC as t el l on’ s bas e offens e l evel w as 20 “bec aus e the o ffe n s e i n v o l v e d 5 0 k i l o g r a ms o rmo r e o f ma r ij u a n a , p u r s u a n tt o [ US S G] §2D 1. 1( c) ( 10) . ” I d. at5. H o w e v e r, t h a t is n o t a ll th a t th e P S R s ta te d w ith re s p e c t to d ru g q u a n tity. T he PSR al s o not ed the governm ents ent enci ng s t at ementthatauthor i t i es re c o v e re d “ m o re th a n 4 0 K G o f m a riju a n a .” P S R a t 3 , R . S u p p . V o l. I II . F u rth erm o re, th e P S R stat ed that “[ t] h e M erc ed es a n d the a p artm en t w ere s ear ched. 5. 92 ki l ogr ams of mar ij uana w er e found i n the M er cede s and 40. 75 k ilo g ra m s o f

m a riju a n a w e re fo u n d in th e a p a rtm e n t.” Id . at 4 . T h o se sp e c ific fa c tu a l sta tem e n ts b e c a m e th e d istric t co u rt’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s a s to d ru g q u a n tity w hen adopt ed byt he court . I ti s ther efor e qui t e cl earthatthe di s tr i ctcour tm ade a n e rro n e o u s fa c tu a l re c itatio n a s to w h a t th e in d ictm e n t s tat ed , b u t co rre c tly fo u n d t h e a c tu a l q u a n t i t y o f m a r ij u a n a r e c o v e r e d a s s o m e th i n g c l o s e t o fo r tys even ki l ogr ams. T he di s tr i ctcourtw as ent i t l ed t o fi nd the quant i tyof drugs by 5 a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . H a ll, 4 7 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 2 (“ B e c a u se th e p o st-Fur t herm or e, t her e ca n be no doubtt hatt he di s tr i ctcourtknew t hatt he 6 quant i t yof drugs w as underfi ftyki l ogr ams. A ft eral l , t he courtperm i t t ed the in d ictm e n t to b e re d a c ted b e fo re th e c a se w a s s u b m itt e d to th e ju ryto sp e c ifica lly el i m i nat e the “f

i ftyki l ogr ams orm or e” r equi r ement . T he courts peci fi cal l ys t at ed att he cl os e of the governm ent ’ s cas e thati t“[di dn’ t ] t hi nk thatt her e has been su fficie n t p ro o f

th a t [ C a ste llo n ] p o ss e ss e d w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m o re th a n fif ty k i l o s . . . o f

ma r ij u a n a . ” T r . o f

T r i a l a t2 6 3 , R. Vo l . I V. A s i ndi cat ed, t he PSR actual l yr ecomm ended a n advi s or yr ange of fr om 7 fifty -on e to s ixty -th ree m o n ths, be ca u se itrec o m m en d ed a tw o -l ev el up w ard adj us t m entt o C as t el l on’ s bas e offens e l evel on the gr ound t hathe pos s es s ed a firearm in relati o n to a d rug -traffick ing crim e. B ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt concl uded thatt he evi dence di d nots uppor tt hatenhanc ement , i tdi d notacc ept t he P S R ’s recom m end ed tw o-l evel upw ard adj ust m ent t o C ast el l on ’s base offense (c o n tin u e d ...) -12- [ U n ite d S ta te s v . ]B o o k e r[ , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ] G u id e lin e s a re d is c re tio n a ry, a d i s t r i c tc o u r tm a y c o n t i n u e t o fi n d fa c t s , i n c l u d i n g d ru g q u a n t i ty, b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e . ” ) . T h e r e w a s e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h i n g b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e th a t th e q u a n tityo f m a riju a n a w a s, a s fo u n d b yth e c o u rt, so m e th in g c lo se to fo rty -se v e n k ilo g ra m s. T h u s, th e c o u rt d id n o t p lain lye rr in i t s c a l c u l a t i o n o f

d ru g q u a n t i t y. 6 F u rth e rm o re , ev e n w e re w e to c o n c lu d e th a t th e c o u rt d id e rr, w e w o u ld fi nd t hatC as t el l on fai l ed t o s how t hathi s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s w er e affec t ed. T he advi s or yG ui del i ne r ange a ppl i ed t o C as t el l on, U SSG §2D 1. 1( c) ( 10) , cover ed drug quant i t i es betw een for t yand s i xtyki l ogr ams. T hus , w hethert he courtw as con si deri ng a drug q uan t i t yof forty -s even kil og ram s or m ore than fi ft y , t he b ase offe ns e l evel w oul d be the s ame. W hen combi ned w i th hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , t he a d v iso ryG u id e lin e ra n g e w o u ld b e f ro m fo rty -o n e to fif

ty -o n e m o n th s. W h ile 7( . . . cont i nued) 7 lev e l. -13- C as t el l on s ugges t s t hatt he r efe r ence t o m or e than fi ftyki l ogr ams i nfl uence d the c o u rt to s e n te n c e h im h ig h e r w ith in th e ra n g e , w e h a v e n o in d ic a tio n th a t is s o . I ndeed, t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d C as t el l on t o for ty - s i x m onths , r i ghti n the m id d le o f

th e a d v iso ryra n g e . It th u s h a d ro o m to se n ten c e h im h ig h e r, b u t d id notdo s o. C as t el l on al s o ar gues t hatthe PSR cont ai ns anothererr oneous fac tual stat em en t i n that n o ev iden ce at tri al su p p o rt ed the fo ll o w ing av erm en t: “O fficers se t u p su rv e ill a n c e o n th e a p a rtm e n t an d o b se rv e d th e d e fe n d a n t ca rry in g a d u ffle b a g o u to f

t h e a p a r t me n ta n d p u ti ti n th e g o l d - c o l o r e d M e r c e d e s . ” P S R a t4 , R. Supp. V . I I I . C as t el l on’ s couns el di d notobj ectt o thi s fi ndi ng. C as t el l on obj ect ed t o i ti n hi s pr o s e fi l i ng, w hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdi s r egar ded. B eca us e no pr operobj ect i on w as m ade t o t hi s fi ndi ng, i nas m uch as C as t el l on w as r epr es ent ed bycouns el and ther e w as no hybr i d r epr es ent at i on her e, w e aga i n r evi ew i tfor p lain e rro r. W h ile th e e v id e n c e a t trial d o e s n o t su p p o rt th is fin d in g , an d it i s t her efor e pl ai nl yerr oneous , C as t el l on’ s ar gum entfai l s atthe thi r d s t age of our p lain e rro r a n a ly sis . T h e re w a s a m p le e v id e n c e a t trial c o n n e c tin g C a ste llo n to th e m a riju a n a in th e d u ffe l b a g s in th e C o tsfo rd a p a rtm e n t an d th e m a riju a n a in t he ca rhe w as dr i vi ng w hen he w as appr ehende d. I ti s di ffi cul tt o concl ude that the s ing le erron eo u s statem en t m ad e a n yd iffe ren ce to the d istri ct co u rt ’sWe n o t e t h a tt h e S u p r e me Co u r th a s r e c e n t l yh e a r d o r a l a r g u me n ti n t wo 8 cas es w hi ch mayaffectt he w ayi n w hi ch w e and othercourt s r evi ew s ent ence s for re a so n a b len e ss . S e e U n ited S tate s v . R ita, 1 7 7 F . A p p x . 3 5 7 (4 th C ir.), c e rt. gr ant ed, 127 S. C t . 551 ( 2006) ( N o. 06- 5754) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C l ai borne, 439 F . 3 d 4 7 9 (8th C ir . ), ce rt . g ran ted, 12 7 S . C t. 5 5 1 (20 0 6 ) (N o . 0 6 -56 1 8 ). -14- c a lc u la tio n o f

d ru g q u a n tity a ttr ib u ta b le to C a s te llo n , g iv e n th a t a m p le e v id e n c e . Itt herefore di d n ot affectC ast el l on ’s subst anti al ri gh t s. F in a lly , C a ste llo n a rg u e s c u rso rilyth a t h is s e n ten c e w a s s u b sta n tiv e ly unr eas onabl e. “[W ] hen a s ent ence fal l s w i thi n the pr oper l y - cal cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange, i ti s ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. S anch ez-J uarez, 44 6 F . 3d 11 09 , 11 14 (10t h C i r. 20 06 ). “R easona bleness r evi ew i s gui ded byt he fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , w hi ch i ncl ude the natur e of the offens e and c har act er i s t i cs of the defendant , as w el l as the nee d for th e se n ten c e to re flec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e c rim e , to p ro v id e a d e q u a te det err ence , t o pr ot ectt he publ i c, and t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d t r ai ni ng and tr eatm ent s . ” K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d at1053. C as t el l on does notdevel op a n ya rg u m e n t th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n re a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . W e acco rdi ng l yho l d thathe h as not r ebu t t ed the presum pti on of reasonab l eness r egar di ng hi s s ent ence . E ven w i thoutanypr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s , w e ca n dis cern no t hing i n the § 35 53 (a) fact ors as app l i ed to this case w hich w ou l d cast doubtupon t he pr opr i etyof the s ent ence i m pos ed on C as t el l on. 8-15- CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM C as t el l on’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge