### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50346
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. A LA N WH I T E LA W D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B e fo r e D AV IS , O W E N , a n dH AY N E S , C ir c u it J u d g e s . W
. E U G E N E D AV IS, C i rcui tJu dg e: D efen da n tA l an W h i t el aw app eal s h i s sentence i m posedup on revocat i on o f hi s t e r m of

sup e rvi s e d r e l e as e on s e ve r algr o unds t hathe fail e d t o b r i ng t o t he
a tt e n tio n o f th e s e n te n c in gco u r t. F in d in gn o p la in e r r o r , w e a ffir m . I. Al an W h i t e l aw w as c o nvic t e d o f t he f to f m o ne y i n a n a m o unte xc e e di ng $ 2 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n state cou rt an dw a s sen ten ced t o 6 0 y ea rs of i m p ri son m en t. W hi t e l a w s u b s e q u e n t l yp l e a d e dg u i l t yt o fe d e r a lb a n kf r a u dc h a r g e s i n t he So ut he r n Di s t r i c to f

Te xa s . W hi l e t he s am e t yp e o f f r aud ul e nt c o nduc t w as t he ba s i s f o rb o t h o f

W hi t e l aw’ s c o nvic t i o ns , t he fe de r ala nd s t at e c o nvic t i o ns in v o lv e dd iffe r e n t s p e c ific co n d u c t, d a te s , a n dv ic tim s . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust19, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50346

2 A l t h ou gh W h i t el aw pl ead ed gu i l t y t o th e federal cha rge w i t h ou ta w rit t en pl ea agr ee m ent , the Go v e r nm entm ade a n or alagr ee m entatr ear r ai gnm entt hat i t w ou l dreco m m en dtha t W h i tel a w ’ s sen ten ce ru n con cu rren tly w ith h i s state c o ur ts e nt e nc e . The di s t r i c tco ur tac c e pt e d t he agr e e m e ntas apl e a ag r e e m e nt
u n der F ED . R. C RIM . P. 1 1 (c) (1)( C ), ru l i n g th a t W h ite l a w w ou l dbe all ow edto
w i th d r a w h is g u iltyp le aif it d idn o t o r d e rth a t h is s e n te n c e ru n co n c u r r e n tly
w i t h hi s st at e c our ts ent enc e. The di st r i c tc our ts ent enc ed W hi t el aw t o 4 6
m on t h s of

i m pri sonm en t , t h e sentence t o run concu rrently w i t h hi s s t ate c ou rt
s e n te n c e , a n dfiv e y e a r s o f s u p e rv is e dre le a s e . W h i t el aw servedonl y f ive years on h i s stat e cou rtsentence, w as rel eased f rom pri son, an d beg an servi n g h i s t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease as requi red un der h i s f ederalsentence on Ju n e 10, 2 004
. Ju ri sdi ct i on ov er W h i t el aw ’ s s u pervi sed
r e le a s e w a s tr a n s fe r r e dto th e W e s te r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s . In O ct ober 200 7, W h i t el aw ’ s probati on of f i cer f i l ed a p et i t i on f

or an arrest
w arran tt o arres tW h i t el aw f or vi ol ati n g t h e con di t i on s of hi s s u pervi sed rel ease. Af t e rt he d i st ri ctc o ur ti s s ue d the w ar r anta nd W hi t e l aw w as a r r e s t e d, t he G ove r nm entf

i l ed a m ot i on t o revo k e W hi t el aw ’ s supervi se d r el eas e a nd an
am en ded m o t i o n t o r e vo ke W hi t e l aw’ s s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e (“M TR ” )
. I n t he
am e nde d M TR , t he G o ve r nm e nta l l e ge d thatW hi t e l aw had vi ol at e d the
co n d iti o n s o f h is su p e rv ise dre lea se b y : (1 ) co m m ittin gth e felo n yoffe n se of th e ft of copper w i re val u ed i n excess of $1 ,00 0 o r p osses si on of st ol en copper w i re valued i n ex cess of $1 , 000 ; (2) m ak i n g fal se s t atem en t s t o hi s probati on of f i cer by de nyi ng t hathe had c om m i t t ed the o ffen se ; ( 3) ob st r uct i ng j ust i c e b y su b m i tti n g t o his p rob a ti on off i cer fa l se or forge ddo cu m en ts pu rp ortingto rel a te t o hi s acquis i t i on of

copper w i re; ( 4) not t i m el y report i n g t o hi s probati on of f i cer h is a r r e s t s o n J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 , a n dO c to b e r1 2 , 2 0 0 7 ; a n d(5 ) fa ilin gto tim e ly rep ort to h i s p rob a ti on off i cer ch a n ge s i n h i s em p l oy m en t.N o. 08- 50346

3 W hi t el a w pl eade d nott r ue t o the r evo c at i on c harge s. Fol l ow i ng an evi dent i ar y hear i ng , t he di st r i c tc our tdec l i ned t o r ul e o n t he c harget hat W h i t el aw di d n otti m el y reporth i s Ju n e 1 7, 2 007 a rres tt o hi s probati on of f i cer, b u tfo u n dth a tt h e r e m a in in gc h a r g e s w e r e tr u e , a n dr e v o k e dW h it e la w ’s supervi se d r el eas e. The di st r i c tc our tdet er m i ned t hatW hi t el aw ’ s c r i m i nal h i st ory cat egory w as I an d th at h i s hi gh estgrade of sup ervi sed rel ease vi ol ati on w as B, m ak i ng hi s s t at ut o r y m ax i m um s e nt e nc e 3 6mo nt hs o f i m pr i s o nm e nta nd hi s gui deli nes s ent enc e r ang e 4 -1 0 m ont hs o f i m pri so nm ent
. W hi t el aw requ est ed a sentence at th e l ow end of t h e gu i del i n es r an ge. Th e di st ri ctcourt sentenced W h i t el aw t o 36 m on t h s of i m pri sonm en t , an d or dered tha tsentence
r u n c o n s e c u tiv e lyt o a n yo th e rs ta te o rfe d e r a l s e n te n c e . W h ite la w file datim e ly
n o tic e o f a p p e a l. F ol l ow i n g t h e revocat i on of hi s s u pervi sed rel ease, W h i t el aw f i l ed a p ro s e m oti on th a t i n cl u d ed a cl a i m th a t h e sho u l d b e al l ow ed to w i th d ra w h is g u il ty pl ea becau se hi s s en t en ce upon t h e revocat i on of sup ervi sed re lea se w as not o r de r e d t o r un c o nc ur r e nt l y w i t h a ny s t at e c o ur ts e nt e nc e he r e c e ive d. The di st ri ctcourtstr u ck t h e m ot i on b ecau se W h i t el aw w as represented by coun sel
an d, t h eref

ore, not entit l ed to m ak e pro se f i l i n gs. In t h e al t erna t ive, t h e di st ri ct c o u r t d e n ie dth e m o tio n o n its m e r its
. II
. W hi t el aw di d notr ai seany o f the s pec i f

i ccl ai m s of

proc edur alerr ort hat he ar gu es i n t hi s appealw hen he w as be f or e the di st r i c tc our tf ors ent enc i ng. A c c o r d in g ly , a s W h ite la w co n c e d e s , t h is co u r t r e v ie w s th o s e cla im s fo rp la in
e r r o ro n ly
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez , 48 5 F
. 3 d27 0 , 27 2 -73 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 3 2 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ). W h ite la w a ls o a c k n o w le d g e s th a t h is argu m en tt h at hi s ch al l en ge t o the su f f i ci en cy of

t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s expl an ati on o f th e re a s o n s fo rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e dd o e s n o t n e e dto b e p r e s e rv e disN o. 08- 50346

4 fo r e c lo s e d
. S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Lo pez - Velas quez , 5 2 6 F .3d8 0 4 , 8 0 6 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S
. C t. 6 2 5 (20 0 8 ). W hit e l aw c hall e nge d thedi st ri ctcourt ’ s r u l i n g t h at hi s s en t en ce woul d run c o ns e c ut ive l y t o any o t he rse nt e nc e only i n t he pr o sem o t i o n he f i l e d f o l l o w i ng h i s revocati on h eari n g. Th at m ot i on , how ever, w as st ri cken by the di st ri ctcourt becau se W h i t el aw w as represented by coun sel
. A ccor di n gl y, W h i t el aw di d n ot p r o p e r lyra is e th is cla im o f s p e c i f i cle g a l e r r o rb e lo w , a n dth is co u r t r e v ie w s it fo rp la in e r r o ro n ly
. S ee Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez , 485 F. 3d at272- 73. W hi t e l aw al s o di d no to bj e c tt o t he s ubs t ant iver e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he sentence bel ow . W h i t el aw ’ s c on t estof t h e revocat i on ch arges a n d requ estfora s e nt e nc e a t t he l o w e nd o f t he gui de l i ne s r ang e a r e i ns uf f i c i e ntt o pr e s e rvet he
s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f th e s e n te n c e fo rr e v ie w . S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Pel t i er , 5 0 5 F .3 d3 8 9 , 3 9 0 -9 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S
. C t. 2 9 5 9 (20 0 8 ). W h i tel a w m a i n tain s th a t Pel t i erc o nf l i c t s w i t h Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez , and t hat Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez c o n t r o l s u n d e r t h e r u l e o f o r d e r l i n e s s b e c a u s e i t i s t he
e ar l i e ro pi ni o n. Thi s a r gum e nti s w i t ho utm e r i t
. I n Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez , 485 F
. 3dat 272 n . 1, H erna n dez-M art i n ez rai sed a cl ai m of specif i c l egal errorrat h er t h an an obj ect i on t o t h e substantive reasona bl en ess of hi s s en t en ce. Th i s c ou rt
m ade itc l eart hati tw as notadopt i ng t he hol di ng f r om otherci rcu i ts th a tan ob j ectioni s n ot n ece ssa ry to p rese rv e a su b stan tive rea son a b l en ess ch a l l en ge to
as e n te n c e . S ee i d. A ccor di n gl y, w h en t h i s c ou rt h e ldt h at a defen da n tm u st obj ectt o a se n t en ce as u n reasona bl e t o preserve a s u bstantive reasona bl en ess c hall e ngei n Pel t i er , 50 5 F
. 3 dat 39 1 -92 , the h o ld in g d i dn ot con fli ct w i th Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez . T h e r e fo r e , Pel t i eri s t he c o nt r o l l i ng pr e c e de nt , a nd W h it e l a w’ s s u b s t a n tiv er e a s o n ab l e n e s s c h a ll e n g e i s s ubj e c tt o p l a i n- e r r o rr e v i e w. B eca u se a l lof

t h e i ssues rai sed by W h i t el aw are s u bj ectt o pl ai n - error revi ew , w e n eed n otdeter m i n e w h et h er t o app l y t h e reasonab l en ess st an da rd of revi ew or t h e pl ai n l y u n reasona bl e st an da rd of revi ew to ch al l en ges to sentencesN o. 08- 50346

5 i m posedup on th e r e v o cat i on of sup ervi sed rel ease. U n der t h e pl ai n err or s ta n d a r d , W h ite la w m u s t s h o w a n e r r o rt h a t is c le a ro ro b v io u s a n da ffe c ts h is
su b stan ti a lrig h ts
. S ee Hernan d ez- Mart i n ez , 485 F. 3d at273. I f W hi t el aw m a k e s s u c h as h o w in g , th is c o u r t h a s th e d is c r e tio n to co r r e c t t h e e r r o rb u t o n ly i f i ts er i ous l y af

fec t s t he fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, orpubl i cr eput at i on o f j ud i c i al p r o c e e d in g s . Se ei d. III. W hi t e l aw ar gue s f

i r s tt hatt he sen t enc e w as unr e as o nab l e b e c aus e t he d i s t r i c tc o u r to r d e r e di tt o r u n c o n s e c u t iv e l yt o a n yo t h e rs e n t e n c e . H e m ai n t ai n s t h at th i s aspectof t h e sentence w as un reasona bl e becau se t h e di st ri ct c o ur tdi d no ti ndi c at e t hati tkne w t hat i tcoul d o r de rt he s e nt e nc e t o r un concu rrently w i t h ot h er s en t en ces. H e add i t i on al ly assert s th a t this aspectof th e s e n te n c e v io la te dh is p l e aa g r e e m e n t w h ic h a llo w e dh im to w ith d r a w h is gu i l t y pl ea i f

hi s s en t en ce w as ordered t o run conse cu tiv el y t o hi s s t ate c ou rt
s e n te n c e . T h e d i st ri ctcou rth as the di scr et i on to or der t h at a s en t en ce i m posedup on th e rev oca ti on of su p erv i sed releas e ru n con cu rren tly w i th o rco n secu tive l y to o th e rs e n te n c e s . Un i t ed Stat es v. G on zalez , 2 5 0 F .3d9 2 3 , 9 2 7 -2 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otspecif i cal l y st ate th at itk n ew t h at itcoul d order W hi t e l aw’ s s e nt e nc e t o r un c o nc ur r e nt l y w i t h o th e rs e n t e n c e s . Ne v e r th e l e s s , t he G overnm en tspecif

i cal l y requ est ed that t h e sentence run consecutivel y t o ot h er sentences, cor rect l y i m pl yi n g t h at th e di st ri ctcourtha d the di scr et i on t o i m pose a conc urr entor a cons ec ut ive se nt enc e. Th e di st r i c tcour tdi d noti ndi c at e that i tt ho ugh tt hati tw as w i t ho utdi s c r e t i o n t o i m po s e a co nc ur r e ntse nt e nc e . I n t he absen ce of

evi den ce t o t h e contr ary, t h i s c ou rta ssu m es t h at th e di st ri ctcourt k n o w s t h e la w a n da p p lie s it c o r r e c tly
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. I zagu i rre - L osoya , 219 F
. 3d437 , 440 ( 5th C i r. 200 0)
. W h i t el aw ha s not sh o w n t h at th e di st ri ctN o. 08- 50346

6 court com m i t t ed e rr o r, p l ai n or ot h erw i se, by i m posi n g a consecutive sentence
w i t h ou tkn ow l edg e t h at itcoul d i m pose a concu rrent sentence. W hi t e l aw’ s o r i gi nals e nt e nc e w as s ubj e c t t o a ve rba lpl e a ag r e e m e ntm ad e at W h i t el aw ’ s r earrai gn m en t
. Th e t ran scr i pt of t h e rearr ai gn m en tdoes not appeari n t h e reco rd
. The PS R , how eve r , des c r ibes t he pl ea agr ee m entas requ i ri n g t h at W h i t el aw ’ s sentence run concu rrently w i t h t h e sta te cou rt sen te n ce W h i t el aw w as t h en servi n g. W e see n o i n di cat i on t h at th e pl ea agr ee m entappl i ed t o any se nt enc e o t hert han f ort he c r i m e upon w hi c h he w as cha rged. Th e j u dg m en t of convic t i on provi des on l y t h at W h i t el aw ’ s s en t en ce of i m pri so nm entw oul d r un co ncur r ent l y w i t h t he s t at e c our ts en ten ce that W h ite la w w a s th e n s e rv in g ; it d idn o tim p o s e a n yre s tr ic tio n s u p o n p o s s ib le sentences t h at c ou l d be i m posed i f W h i t el aw ’ s l ater t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease w a s r e v o k e d
. A cc o rd in g ly , W h it e la w h a s n o t sh o w n th a t th e im p o sition of a
c o n s e c u t iv e s e n t e n c e u p o n t h e v i o l a t i o n o f s u p e rv i s e dr e l e a s e v i o l a t e s t h e t e r ms of hi s pl ea agreem en tor t h at th e di st rict co u rt com m i t t ed error , pl ai n or ot h erw i se, by orderi n g t h at hi s s en t en ce be s erved consecu t ivel y t o an yot h er sentence. IV
. W h ite la w a r g u e s n e x t t h a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itt e dp r o c e d u r a l p la in
errorby sentenci n g h i m w i t h ou tconsi deri n g t h e pol i cy st atem e n ts in C h ap t er 7 of t h e Sen t en ci n g G u i del i n es, an d w i t h ou t ad equ ately st ati n g t h e reasons f or h is s e n te n c e a s re q u ir e db y§ 3 5 5 3 (c ). O u r r evi ew of

t h e rec ord i n di cat es t h atth e di st ri ctcourtcl earl y consi dered t he p oli c y s t at em ent s i n C hapt er7 o f t he G ui del i nes . W hi t el aw ’ s c r i m i nal h i st ory cat egory w as I
. Th e grade of W h i t el aw ’ s m ostser i ou s s u pervi sed rel ease vi ol ati on w as B
. A ccor di n gl y, hi s advis ory guidel i n es s en t en ce r an ge u n der C h a p te r7 w a s 4 -1 0 m o n t h s o f im p r is o n m e n t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o r r e c tly
c al c ul at e d the a dv i s o r y gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e r ang e a nd i de nt i f i e d ita s t heN o. 08- 50346

7 gu i del i n es se n t en ce r an ge pri or t o pronou n ci n g sentence. D efen se c ou n sel ref erred t o t h at r an ge i n i t s argu m en tan d the sam e rang e w as cit ed to t h e court byt he g o ve rnm en tin it s M TR a nd a m e nde d M TR
. I n t he M TR s , t he govern m en tm ad e a rg u m en t s f or an ab ove ran ge sentence rel ated t o t h e § 355 3( a) fact ors, i n cl u di n g t h e n ature a n d circum st an ces of W h i t el aw ’ s of

fen se, hi s c r i m i nal hi s t o r y, t he ne e d f o rpun i s hm e ntt o de t e rc r i m i nalc o nduc ta nd the
ne e d to prot e c tt he pub l i c . Ac c o r di ngly, W hi t e l aw has no ts ho w n t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tfail e d t o c o ns i de rt he po l i c y s t at e m e nt s i n Chapt e r7 o f t he G u id e lin e s o rs e n te n c in gfa c to r s in1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W h ite la w a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t c o m m itt e dp r o c e d u r a l p la in
e r r o r fo rfa ilin gto g iv e re a s o n s fo rh is a b o v e g u id e lin e ra n g e s e n te n c e . R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s set s f

ort h t h e requ i rem en t s f or th e st atem en tof

reasons requi red to s u p p o r t a s e n te n c e u n d e rv a r io u s cir c u m s ta n c e s . The s e nt enc i ng j udg e s ho ul d s e tf o r t h e no ught o s at i s f y t he ap pe l l at e c o ur tt hathe ha s c o ns i de r e d the pa r t i e s ' a r gum e nt s a nd has a r e as o ne d ba s i s f o r e xe r c i s i ng hi s o w n l e ga ldeci s i o nm ak i ng a u th o r ity
. See, e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. T aylor , 487 U
. S. 326, 336- 337, 108 S. C t
. 2413, 101 L
. E d. 2d 297 ( 1988)
. N onet hel es s, w hen a j udge deci des si m pl y t o app l y t h e G u i del i n es t o a parti cul ar case, doi n g so w i l lnot necessaril y requ i re l en gthy exp l an ati on . C i rcum st an ces m ayw e l lm ak e c l e art hatt h e j u dg e r e s t s hi s de c i s i o n up o n t he C om m i ssi on ' s ow n r eason i n g t h at th e G u i del i n es s en t en ce i s a pro pers ent enc e (i n t er m s of § 3553( a) and otherc ongr es si onal m and at e s ) i n t he t yp i c alc as e , a nd thatt he j udg e has fo und t hatt he case b ef ore hi m i s t yp i cal
. U n l ess a pa rt y contest s t h e G u i del i n es s e nt e nc e g e ne r all y u n der § 3 55 3( a) - - t hati s , a r gue s t hatt he G u i del i n es r ef

l ectan un soun d j u dg m en t , or, forex am pl e, t h at th ey do no tg e ne r all y t r e atc e r t ai n d efe nda ntc har ac t e r i s t i c s i n t he pr o pe rw ay - - o rar gue s fo rdep ar t ur e , t he j udg e nor m all y ne e d s ayno m ore. R i t a v. Un itedS t ate s , 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 5 6 -3 5 7 (2 0 0 7 ). R itago es on t o s ay t hat t her e a r e t w o c i r c um st ance s i n w hi c h t he se nt enc i ng c our ts houl d s ay m or e - ( 1)

“ [w ] he r e t he de fe nda nto r pr o s e c ut o r pr e s e nt s no nf r ivo l o us r e as o ns f

o ri m po s i ngN o. 08- 50346

8 a dif fe r e nts e nt e nc e , ” a nd ( 2) “ [w ] he r e t he j udg e i m po s e s as e nt e nc e o ut s i de t he G u i d eli n es.” I

d. I n t hi s c as e the di st r i c tc our ti m pos ed a se nt enc e o f 36 m ont hs, m or e than t h ree t i m es t h e hi gh en d of t h e gu i del i n es ran ge of 4 t o 10 m on t h s. Th u s, un der th e g u id a n ce of R ita , s o m e e xp l ana t i o n was r e quir ed. T he r e c o r d c o nt ai ns no e x p li cit sta te m e n t se ttin gfor th “th e sp e cific re a so n forth e im p o s it io n of a
s e n te n c e d iffe r e n t fr o m th a t d e s c r ib e d” in th e g u id e lin e r a n g e . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553(c )
. U nderpl ai n er r orr evi ew t hatappl i es t o thi s i ss ue, w e e as i l y f i nd t hat t h e fai l u re t o st ate r eason s f or a s en t en ce outs i de the gu i del i n es r an ge i s er ror t h at i s c l e aro ro bv i o us . W e m us tne xtc o ns i de rw he t he rt he e r r o ra f fect ed W h i t el aw ’ s s u bstanti alri ght s a nd, if s o , de c i dew h et h er t o exerci se our di scr et i on t o cor rectt h e err or if w e al so f

i n d that t h e err or s e rio u slyaf fect s t h e fai rness, in te g r ity , o rp u b licre p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s . T h i s cou rth as n oty eta pp l i ed pl ai n error revi ew t o a di st ri ctcourt ’ s fai l u re t o st at e re as o ns fo ran abo vegui de l i ne se nt e nc e . I n Uni t e d St at e s v . Mo ndrago nSa nt i ago , 5 6 4 F .3 d3 5 7 (5 t h C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) , t h is c o u r ta ff ir m e dth e d e fe n d a n t ’s
w i t hi n gui de l i ne se nt e nc e fo runl awf ulre e nt r y. The de fe nda nta r gue d thatt he d i stri ct cou rt com m itt e dpr oce d u ra lerro r byfa i l i n g to a d eq u a tel y e xp l a i n its
r e as o ns f

o rt he se nt e nc e a s r e quir e d b y § 3 55 3(c )
. I n Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , even t h ou g h the d i st ri ctcourti m poseda sentence w i t h i n t h e gu i del i n e rang e, m ore e xp l ana t i o n was re quir e d unde rt he f i r s tc i r c um s t anc e de s c r ibe d i n R itabecau se t he de fe nda nt r ai s e d no n- f r ivo l o us ar gum e nt s f o r a do w nw ar d de pa r t ur e on s e ve r alb as e s . Bec aus e t he de fe nda ntha d notrais e d the o bj e c t i o n t o t he
s e nt e nc i ng c o ur t , pl ai n e r r o rr e vi e w w as a ppli e d. Thi s c o ur te as i l y f

o und e r r o r thatw as pl ai n, a nd e xa m i ne d whet he rt he
e r r o ra ffe c te dth e d e fe n d a n t’s s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts
. T o sh ow t hata n e r r o ra f fe c t s ade fe nda nt ' s s ubs t ant i alr i ght s , t he defenda n tm u stshow t h at itaf fect ed the ou t com e i n th e di st ri ctN o. 08- 50346

9 court: " T o m eett h i s s t an da rd t h e propon e n t o f the errorm u st de m o ns t r at e apr o babil i t y ' s uf f i c i e ntt o und e r m i ne c o nf i de nc e i n t he o u t c o m e .'" Id
. ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v. D o m ing u ez B enitez , 5 42 U
. S. 7 4 , 8 3 , 1 2 4 S . C t. 2 3 3 3 , 1 5 9 L . E d . 2 d1 5 7 (2 0 0 4 )); seealso Un i t ed St at e s v . O lano , 507 U
. S. 725, 734- 35, 113 S. C t
. 1770, 123 L. E d. 2d 5 0 8 (19 9 3 ).
Id
. at 364
. Th i s c ou rt rej ect ed th e rel axed ap proach t o pl ai n err or r evi ew t ak en byt he Se c o nd C i r c uiti n In reS ealed Case , 527 F. 3d 188, 193 (D
. C
. C i r . 2008) ( “A n d the requ i red show i n g of prej u di ce s h ou ldb e sli gh t l y l ess exacti n g f or s e nt e nc i ng t hati ti s i n t he c o nt e xto f t r i ale r r o r s . ” (i nt e r nalq uo t at i o n m ar ks a nd
c i t at i o n o m i t t e d) ) ; andb y t he Se c o nd Ci r c ui ti n Un itedS ta tes v. L ew is , 424 F. 3d 239, 248 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( “ [ I ] n t he sent enc i ng c ont extther e a r e c i r c um st ance s t hat p erm i t us to rel a x th e oth erw i se rigor ou s stan d a rd s of plain e r r o rre view to co rr e ct s e n te n cin ger ro rs .” (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n d c ita tion om itted )). Inst ead , consi st en tw i t h F i f t h C i rcui tpreceden t , w e ap pl i ed ou r t radi t i on alst an da rd s w h en revi ew i n g sentences, em ph asi zi n g t h at " t h e defenda n t ' s burd en of est abli shi n g prej u di ce ' sh ou l dn ot be too ea sy . ' " Mares , 402 F. 3d at521 ( quot i ng D om i ngu ez B enit ez , 542 U
. S. at8 2)
. I n Mares , t h i s c ou rt
. . . app rovi n gl y cit ed th e E l ev en th C i rcu i t' s su m m a ry of S u p rem e C ou rt p r ece d en t, st ati n g t h e bu rden of proof requi res t he de fe nda ntt o sho w t hatt he e r r o ra c t uall y di d m ak e a dif ference: if

i ti s equa l l y pl au sible tha tt h e err or w o r k e d i n fa v o ro f th e d e fe n s e , th e d e fe n d a n t lo s e s ; if t h e ef fectof t h e erro r i s un cert ai n so t h at w e do n ot kno w w hi c h, if

e i t h e r , s i de ithe l pe d the de fe nda nt lo s e s . I d. ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 3 9 8 F
. 3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th Cir . 2 0 0 5 ) )
. . . . W e a r e c o mp e l l e dt o f o l l o w Mares : to show sub st an t i alprej u di ce, t h e defen d a n t m u stprove t h at th e err or af fect ed the sentenci n g ou t com e. Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago , 5 64 F. 3da t364
. A pplyi ng t hi s st and ar d, t hi s co ur tf o und
no a ffect on t he def endant ’ s subs t ant i alr i ght s f ort w o r eas ons : ( 1) t he gr eatN o. 08- 50346

10 d eferen ce ow eda se n ten ce w i th i n the gu i d eli n e ra n ge an dthe i n feren ce th a t a j udge se nt enc i ng w i t hi n t hatr ange has c ons i der ed allr equi r ed fac t or s, and ( 2) M o n d r a g o n -S a n tia g o fa ile dto s h o w th a t a n e x p la n a tio n w o u ld h a v e ch a n g e dh is
s e n te n c e . I

d. at 365
. B ecau se W h i t el aw w as sentenced ab ove t h e gu i del i n es r a n g e i n t h i s c a s e , t h e f i r s tr a t i o n a l e f

r o m Mondrago n- Sa nt i ago d o e s n o t a p p ly
a n dw e m u s t c o n s id e rw h e th e ro u rtr a d itio n a l p la in e r r o rs ta n d a r dis
a p p r o p r ia te lya p p lie dinth is co n te x t. I n c as e s i nvo lvi ng ab o veg ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e s , t he D
. C. Ci r c ui ta nd the S eco n dC i rcu i t ha ve relax edthe s how i ng r equiredbya d efen d a n t t o d em on strate t h at th e err or af

fect ed the defenda n t ’ s s u bstanti alri gh t s. T h ese c ou rt s r eason th a t th e a b sen ce of astatem en t of rea son s affects th e a p p ell a te cou rt’ s ab i l i ty to p e r fo r m a m e a n in g fu l r e v ie w o f th e s e n te n c e . In reS ealed Case , 527 F. 3d at193; L ew is , 4 2 4 F
. 3 d a t 2 4 8 -49
. B oth ci rcu i ts a l so con cl u d e th a t th e fa i l u re to state
r e as o ns unde r m i ne s “ t he pub l i cr e put at i o n o f j udi c i alpr o c e e di ngs ” b e c aus e t he st at em entof

reas ons i ndi c at es t o the publ i ct hatt he s ent enc i ng j udge has t ho ugh t f

ullyd i s c h a r g e dh i s r e s p o n s ib iliti e s a nd d e m o ns t r at e s t hatt he j udg m e nt i s n ot a rb i trar y . Id
. S eea lso Un itedS ta tes v. B la ck ie , 548 F
. 3d395 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 0 8 )(s a m e ). O th e rc i r c u its h a v e d e c lin e dto fo llo w th a t le a d
. T h e T e n th C ir c u it
a ffirm ed a below gu i del i n es s en t en ce i n w h i ch the govern m en targu ed procedu ralerr or f

or fai l u re of

th e s e n t en ci n g court t o cit e reasons f or a dow n w ard d epa rt u re. See Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mend oza , 543 F
. 3d118 6 ( 10th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ). T h e T e n t h C ir c u itr e fu s e dto fi n d t h a t t h e e r r o r a ffe c t e dth e g o v e r n m e n t ’s
s ubs t ant i alr i ght s b e cau se, a pplyi ng t r ad i t i o nalpl ai n e r r o ra nalys i s , t he gov er nm ent c oul d not expl ai n how a m or e det ai l ed r eas oni ng pr oc es s m i ghthave le dth e co u r t t o s e l e c ta h ig h e rs e n te n c e . Id
. at1 19 4. I n o t he rw o r ds , t heN o. 08- 50346

11 go ve r nm e ntc o ul d no ts ho w t hatt he err o rm ad e adif fe r e nc e i n t he s e nt e nc i ng o u tc o m e . T h e co u r t r e fu s e dto p r e s u m e p r eju d ic e . E ve n if w e w ere to acce p t th e c o n c lu sionof th e S eco n dC i rcu i t th a t a se nt enc i ng c our t ’ s fai l ure t o s t at e r eas ons af fec t s th e d ef

endant ’ s subs t ant i al
r i ght s b y i m pa i r i ng hi s a bil i t y t o a ppe ala nd thi s c o ur t ’ s a bi l i t y t o r e vi e w t he
r e as o ns f

o rhi s se nt e nc e , t he fac t s of t hi s ca s e do no ts upp o r ts uc h ac o nc l us i o n. R ather our revi ew of t h e rec ord reveal s t h e reasons f or W h i t el aw ’ s s en t en ce, even if not expl i cit l y st ated b y t h e d i st ri ctcou rt
. W h i t el aw ’ s s en t en ce f ol l ow ed
a n ex ten sive h ea ri n g d u ri n g w h i ch the cou rt he a rdev i d en ce to su p p or t its d eci si on t h at W h i t el aw ha d vi ol ated t h e t erm s of hi s s u pervi sed rel ease on s e ve r alb as e s . W he n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt he n t ur ne d t o t he i s s ue o f s e nt e nc i ng, t he de fe nda nta nd h i s c o uns e la r gue d f o ras e nt e nc e a tt he l o w e nd o f t he g ui de l i ne r a n g e . C o u n s e l a r g u e d th a t t h e p r io rs ta te a n dfe d e r a l ch a r g e s w e r e fa c tu a lly
r el at ed and be c ause of t he pr i ors en ten ci n g c our t s’fai l ure t o r ec ogni ze t hat i nt e r re l at i o ns hi p, W hi t e l aw had s e rve d 1 8 m o nt hs l o nge ri n pr i s o n t han he shou l d h ave. Th e governm en tcoun t ered t h at th e defe n d a n t h adbeen t reat ed l e ni e nt l y be f

o r e . H e s e rve d o nl y 5 ye ar s o f t he 6 0 ye ars e nt e nc e i m po s e d o n t he st at e thef

tc harge s and t he f ede r als ent en ce w h i ch ran c onc urr ent l y w as sub sum ed w i t h i n t h at ter m . T h e governm en tal so argued t h at th e charges ag ai ns tW hi t e l aw r e f l e c t e d a verya gg r av at e d a nd s o phi s t i c at e d the f tt hathe tri edto con cea lf

rom h i s p rob a ti on off i cer, th e sta te p a role sys tem an dthe cou rt. T h e g o v e r n m e n t t h e n u r g e dth e c o u r tt o s e n te n c e W h ite la w to 3 6 m o n th s in p ri son (th e s tatu torym a xim u m ) for t h e five rea son s set f orth i n its m oti on to revoke an d that t h e sen t en ce be consecutive t o an y ot h er s en t en ce. T h e di st ri ctN o. 08- 50346

T h e M T R lis te dth e fo llo w in gre a s o n s w h ic h ju s tifyth a t s e n te n c e : 1 1
. Pr i o rle ni e nc i e s sho w n t heD ef e ndant
. F o r th re e felo n yth e ft o ffe n ses , th e D efen d a n t w a s a sse sse d a total of 6 0 ye a r s in pri so n, o f w h i ch he s erved about5. I n hi s i nst antfede r al of fen se, despi t e hi s l ead ershi p rol e i n inf l i ct i n g f rau d l osses of al m o s t$ 20 0, 00 0, t he D e fe nda nt w as no t r e quir e d t o pa y any r e s tit u tio n . 2
. D efe n d a n t’

s retu rn to th eft. Dur i ng hi s s upe rvi s e d r e l e as e , t he D efen d en t pe rp etra tedh i s cri m e trac kreco rdbyretu rn i n g to t he f t
. Appr o vi ng an upwar d de pa r t ur e i n a cr i m i nalca s e , o ur C our t of A ppeal s had t he D ef endant i n m i nd w hen r eas oni ng: “ T h e r e ci divi st ’ s r el ap se i n t o t h e sam e cr i m i n albeh avior d e m o n s tr a te s h is la c ko f r e c o g n itio n o f th e g r a v ityo f h is ori gi n alw rong, entai l s great er c u l pa bi l i t y f or th e of

fen se f or w h i ch h e i s c u rr e n tly charged , an d su ggests an i n creased l i k elih oo dtha t th e offen se w i l l b e rep ea ted ye t a ga i n . ” Un i t ed S ta tes v. D eL u n a -Tru jil lo , 868 F
. 2d122 , 124

- 25 (5t h C i r. 1 9 8 9 ). 3
. D ef

e ndant ’ s pat t e r n of c r i m i nalde c e pt i o n. D u ri n g t h e course of t h e D efen d a n t’ s su p erv i sed releas e, th e D efen d a n t li edto as ta te ju d g e th r o u g h fa ls if i e d d o c u m e n ts a n dlie dto h is p rob a ti on off

i cer a n doth er of

fici a l s th rou gh bo gu s d ocu m en ts re la t i n g t o hi s acquis i t i on of copper w i re. Su ch cond u ct c o ns t i t ut e s m ul t i pl e fe l o ny o f fe ns e s f o r w hi c h t he D e fe nda nt c o u ldb e p r o s e c u te d
. 4
. Ne e dto p ro v id e m ax im u m p ro te c it o n fr o m D efe n d a n t’s c r im in a lity
. B y b l a tan tly, au d a ci ou sly, an drep ea ted ly d i sreg a rd i n g h i s p r ob a ti on off i cer’ s i n stru cti on s relati n g to e m p lo y m e n t, th e D e fe n d a n t c a u s e dth o u s a n d s o f d o lla r s in l osse s t o of

f

- du t y pol i cy of

f i cers . W i t h a w el l

- docu m en t ed pro pensit y to c om m i tt hef tand f r aud of fens es , unabat ed by cond i t i on s of sup ervi sed rel ease, t h e D efen da n t represents a de m o ns t r ab l e da nge rt o t he pub l i c , j ust i f yi ng m ax i m um i n ca rcer a tio n . S ee, e. g. Un i t ed S t ate s v. R oberson , 872 F. 2d 5 9 7 , 6 0 6 n .8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Fi sher , 868 F. 2d 1 2 8 , 1 3 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). 12 c o ur tt he n g r ant e d the g o ve r nm en t ’ s m o t i o n a nd s e nt e nc e d W hi t e l aw t o t he go ve rn m en t’ s reco m m en d ed36 m on thterm of i m p ri son m en t. 1N o. 08- 50346

5
. Co m b in a tion s of rea so n s, p rop o rtio n a lity
. T h e 3 6 m o n th s in pr i s o n we p r o p o s e : ( 1 ) a c c o r d s d u e r e s p e c tf o rt h e l a w and c ondi t i ons of

s upervi se d rel eas e; ( 2) af f or ds t he D ef

endantan o ppo r t uni t y f

o rv o c at i o nal and o t he r pr o gr am m i ng w i t hi n t he B u r e a u o f P r is o n s ; a n d( 3 ) m o s t im p o r ta n t, e x te n d s th e p u b lic t he m ax i m um pr o t e c t i o n itde s e rve s f r o m t hi s t he f

ta nd f r aud r e c i divi s tw i t ho utf

ur t he re nc um be r i ng l i m i t e d p r o ba t i o no ffic e re s o u r c e s .
13 W e ha ve n o t roub l e concl u di n g t h at by granti n g t h e govern m en t ’ s M ot i on t o R evok e an d sen t en ci n g W h i t el aw t o t h e term of i m pri sonm en trec om m en ded ands upp ort e d i n t hatm o t i o n, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti m pli c i t l y ad o pt e d the govern m en t ’ s r ati on al e f or th at se n te n ce as setf ort h i n t h e m ot i on . Th ese r e as o ns t ho r o ugh ly e xp l ai n W hi t e l aw’ s s e nt e nc e . The fac t ualb as i s s upp o r t i ng t h em i s i m pl i citi n t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s f i n di n gs t h at m osto f th e revocat i on c h a r g e s w e r e t r u e . B yre v ie w in gth e re c o r do f th e s e n te n c in gp r o c e e d in g s inth is
c as e , w e a r e a bl e t o c o nduc tam e ani ngf ula ppe l l at e r e vi e w . A cc o r di ngly, t he di st r i c tc o ur t ’ s fail ur e t o s t at e t he s e r e as o ns o n t he r e c o r d ha s no tpr ej u di ced W h ite la w . N ei t h er does th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s erro r “ seri ou sly af fectt h e fai rness, i nt e gr i t y, o rpubl i cre put at i o n o f j udi c i alpr o c e e di ngs . ” W e s e e no i ndi c at i o n t he d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r e da n yi mp e r mi s s ib l e fa c t o rwh e n s e n t e n c i n gW h i t e l a w. Th e g ove r nm ent ’ s ar gum ent s f oran a b ove r ange s ent enc e r el at ed t o s eve r al fa c t o r s lis t e di n § 3 5 5 3 (a ), i n c lu d in gth e n a t u r e a n dc ir c u m s t a n c e s o f W h it e la w ’s of fen se, hi s cri m i n al h i st ory, t h e n eed f or pu n i shm en t t o detercr i m i n alcondu ct an d the n eed t o p rot ectthe pu bl i c. A l so, t h ere i s no i n di cat i on t h at th e di st ri ct c our tw oul d i m pos e al i ght ers ent enc e o n re m and and t he r ec or d w as m or e than
s u ff ic ie n tfo ru s to a s s e s s t h e r e a s o n s a n dr e a s o n a b le n e s s o f W h it e la w ’sN o. 08- 50346

14 s e n te n c e . S ee Un itedS ta tes v. V ig il , 200 9 U
. S
. A pp . L E X IS 143 85 (10t h C i r. J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 )(ap p lyin g th is re co rd re v iew a p p ro a ch to ag u id e li n e s s e n te n ce ). A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ctcourtpl ai n l y erred by fai l i n g t o st ate th e reasons f or i m pos in ga n above gu i del i n e sentence, W h i t el aw ha s not m ethi s burd en of est abli shi n g t h at t h e error af fect ed hi s sub st an t i al ri gh t s or th a t th e error af fe c t e d the pub l i cr e put at i o n o f j udi c i alpr o c e e di ngs , e i t he rhe r e o ri n t he d is tr ic t c o u r t. V
. W h ite l a w a r g u e s f

i n a l l yt h a tt h e s e n t e n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le bec ause i t w as far gr eat ert han t he advi so r y gui del i nes s ent enc e r ange and w as o ut s i de of

t he r ang e o f

r e as o nab l e s e nt e nc e s . W hi t e l aw’ s c o nvic t i o n was f o rb ank f rau d, w h i ch carri es a m axim u m sentence of 30 yea rs of

i m pri sonm en tan d i s a C la s s B fe lo n y . S ee R
. 1, 3; 18 U
. S
. C
. §§ 1344 , 355 9( a) ( 2)
. B ased on t h ese fact s, t he st at ut o r y m ax i m um se nt e nc e on r e vo c at i o n w as 36 m o nt hs o f i m pr i s o nm e nt a n dh is g u id e li n e r a n g e w a s 4 to 1 0 m o n t h s o f i m p r i s o n m e n t . W h it e la w ’s
s e n te n c e o f 3 6 m o n th s d idn o t e x c e e dth e s ta tu to r ym a x im u m . S ee1 8 U
. S
. C. § 358 3( e) ( 3)
. A ccor di n gl y, th e sen t en ce i m posedby the di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot c o n s tit u te p la in e r r o r . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 484 F
. 3d783 , 792 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (h ol di n g st atutor y m axim u m revocat i on sentence not t o be pl ai n err or); Un itedS tate s v. Jon es , 18 2 F
. A p p ’ x 3 4 3 , 34 4 ( 5 thC i r. 20 0 6 ) (no ti n g th a t th is court h as “routin ely u p h e ldre lea se re v o ca tion se n te n ce s in ex ce ss of th e a d v isory
r a n g e b u t w ith in th e s ta tu to r ym a x im u m .”); Un itedS ta tes v. S m ith , 2 5 3 F . A p p ’x 3 4 6 , 34 8 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 7 ) (ho l d i n g sta tu tory m a xim u m rev oca ti on sen ten ce n ot to b e p la iner ro r). V I. F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , W h ite la w ’ s s e n te n c e is a ffir m e d
.N o. 08- 50346

15 A F F IR M E D
.