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

### Jan u ary24,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E 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, v. J A SO N TO D D D A V I S,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. M IC H A E L L A V O N T E G A IT H E R ,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. DONT E OR M OND WAR D,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 6312 ( D . C . N o . C R - 0 1 - 1 8 1 - 0 2 - M) (W .D . O k la .)

N o. 05- 6363 ( D . C . N o . C R - 0 1 - 1 8 1 - 0 1 - M) (W .D . O k la .)

N o. 06- 6002 ( D . C . N o . C R - 0 1 - 1 8 1 - 0 5 - M) (W .D . O k la .)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 o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

- 2- ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , KELLY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

D efen d an ts Jaso n T o d d D av is, M icha el G aith er, an d D o n te O rm o n d W ard c h a llen g e th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f th e ir se n ten c e s im p o se d o n re m a n d . In th is cons ol i dat ed or derand j udgm ent , w e t ake j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 a n d a ffi r m. I. A ft era l engthyt r i al conduct ed i n A pr i l and M ay2002, a j uryfound defe ndant s gui l t yof num er ous drug- r el at ed cr i m es i n connec t i on w i th a cons pi r acyt o di s t r i but e phenc y cl i di ne ( PC P) i n O kl ahoma C i ty . T he di s tr i ct cour tm ade factual fi ndi ngs r el at ed t o defe ndant s ’ s ent ence s under a pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d, m andat or i l yappl i ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , and s ent ence d defe ndant s t o m ul t i pl e conc urr entt erm s of l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t a n d le s s e r t e rm s o f im p ri s o n m e n t.- 3-

I n t hei ri ni t i al appea l s , defe ndant s chal l enged thei rconvi ct i ons and s e n te n c e s . United S tates v. Ward , 9 6 F . A p p ’x 6 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W ith reg ard t o s ent enci ng, defe ndant s as s ert ed thatthe di s tr i ctcourti m pr oper l ycal cul at ed d rug q u an ti ti es fo r releva n t- co n d u ct pu rpo ses; w ron g lyd ec ided that theyw ere l eade r s oror gani zer s of the drug cons pi r acy , r es ul t i ng i n a four - l evel e n h a n c e m e n t o f

th e ir se n ten c e s u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 B 1 .1 (a ); a n d in c o rre c tly det erm i ned thatt heyw i l l ful l yobs truct ed j us t i ce bythr eat eni ng and i nt i m i dat i ng w itn e s s e s , re s u ltin g in a tw o -l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n t u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 (a ). Id. at 6 2 3 -26 . A d d it ion all y , D av is an d G aith er c lai m ed insu ffici en t evid en ce to su p p o rt a t wo - l e v e l e n h a n c e me n tu n d e rU. S . S . G. § 2 D1 . 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) fo rp o s s e s s i o n o f fi r e a r ms i n connec t i on w i t h a drug- t r aff i cki ng offe ns e, and G ai thercont ended thathe s houl d nothave r ece i ved a tw o- l evel enhanc ementforr eckl es s endange r m ent d u ri n g flig h t f

ro m p o lic e u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .2 . Id . at627- 28. A ft err evi ew i ng the fac tual b asis o f th e d rug -qu an ti tyfin d ing s an d en h an ce m en ts fo r clear e rror, an d also co n side ri n g the c o n sti tuti o n ali tyo f th e se n tenc ing p roc ess, th is co u rt a ffir m e d th e ju d g m e n ts o f th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . Id . at631. D e fe n d a n ts filed p e tit io n s fo r w rits o f c e rtio ra ri w ith th e S u p re m e C o u rt. T he C our ts ubs equent l ydeci ded Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ), w hi ch hel d t hatt he Si xt h A m endmentr equi r es “[a ] nyfac t( otherthan a pr i or convi ct i on) w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng the maxi m um authori zed b yt he fa ct s est abli shed b ya plea of gu i l tyor a j uryverdi ctm ust- 4-

be admi t t ed byt he defendantorpr oved t o a j urybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Id. at 24 4 . T o rec ti fythe c o n sti tuti o n al i n firm ityp rese n ted b ythe m an d atory G ui del i ne s y s t em, t he C our tfas hi oned a br oad r emedy , m aki ng the G ui del i nes a d v is o ry ra th e r t h a n m a n d a to ry in a ll c a s e s . Id. at24 5. In the w ake o f i t s B ooker decis i on , t he S up rem e C ou rtgrant ed d efen dan t s’ peti t i on s, vacated t he judgm ents , a n d re m a n d e d th e c a s e s to th is c o u rt fo r f u rt h e r c o n s id e ra tio n . G ai therv. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 1 0 2 (2 0 0 5 ); War d v. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 1 0 3 (2 0 0 5 ); D a v is v. Uni t ed Stat es , 543 U . S. 1107 ( 2005) . T hi s courtr emanded t he ca s es , di r ect i ng t he di s t r i ctcour tt o vaca t e the s ent ence s and r es ent ence defe ndant s i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker . United S tates v. Ward , 1 4 3 F . A p p ’x 8 8 , 9 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed defendant s ’ r eques t s forde novo s ent enci ng hear i ngs and dec l i ned t o r evi s i ti t s i ni t i al fac tual fi ndi ngs , w hi ch had been r evi ew ed and a ffi r m ed byt hi s court . U s i ng the s ame drug quant i t i es and appl y i ng t he s ame enhance m ent s thats erved as the bas i s of the r ever s ed s ent ence s , t he courtagai n cal cul at ed defendant s ’ G ui del i ne r anges underthe s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s a n d re a c h e d th e s a m e g u id e lin e ra n g e s – life s e n te n c e s . T he courtr ecogni zed the advi s or ynatur e of the G ui del i nes fol l ow i ng B ooker . A tdefe ndant s ’ r es ent enci ng hear i ngs , the di s tr i ctcourts peci fi cal l ycons i der ed th e p u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g a s e x p re s s e d in th e s ta tu to ry se n te n c in g fa c to rs . See 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . Par t i cul ar i zi ng i t s di s cus s i on t o eac h defe ndant , the cour tl ooked t o t he defendant ’ s age a nd cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the s i gni fi cantdrug- 5-

quant i t i es at t r i but abl e t o the defendant , the fi r earm s i nvol ved, and the r ol e pl ay ed b yth e d e fe n d a n t. See i d. §§ 3553( a) ( 1) , ( 2) ( A ) . A nd, foreac h defe ndant , the di s t r i ctcourtdet erm i ned thata s ent ence bel ow the G ui del i ne r ange of l i fe w as “s uffi ci ent , butnotgr eat ert han nec es s ary , ” t o det ercr i m i nal conduct , “pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the defendant , ” and a l s o “t o pr ovi de the defendant w i t h educa t i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng. ” Id. § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2)(B ), (C ), (D ). T h e c o u rt s ent ence d W ar d t o a t erm of 460 m onths , t o run concurr ent l yw i th a l es s er s ent ence ; D avi s t o a t erm of 480 m onths , t o run concurr ent l yw i th l es s er s ent ence s ; and G ai t hert o a t erm of 540 m onths , t o run concurr ent l yw i th l es s er sent ences. II. D efe ndant s now appea l t he s ent ence s i m pos ed on r emand. I n r evi ew i ng t hei rs ent ence s , “w e fi r s tdet erm i ne w hetherthe courtcal cul at ed the corr ect G ui del i nes r ange; i f s o, w e exa m i ne the s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s , us i ng a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s forw i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence s . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. A gu ayo -G on zal ez, N o . 0 5 -23 4 9 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 0 7 5 8 , at *2 (10 th C ir . Jan . 3 , 2 0 0 7 ). C oncerni ng t he G ui del i nes cal cul at i on, defe ndantG ai therfi r s tar gues that he w as ent i t l ed t o a de novo de t erm i nat i on on r es ent enci ng. T her e i s no l egal a u th o rityfo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t a d istric t co u rt m ust“expa nd the s cope of the r es ent enci ng bey ond t he i s s ue thatr es ul t ed i n the r ever s al and vac at i on of s ent ence . ” United S tates v. Moo re , 8 3 F . 3 d 1 2 3 1 , 1 2 3 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). R athe r,- 6-

t he ca s e l aw i ns t ruct s t hatt he courthas the “i nher entdi s cr et i on t o det erm i ne the appr opr i at e s cope of

t he r es ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs . ” Id. M or eover , the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s exer ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on t o ut i l i ze the fa ct s found i n the i ni t i al s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng w as part i cul ar l yappr opr i at e i n thi s i ns t ance . E ar l i er , thi s courthad affirm ed the cal culat i on of the G uidel i ne rang e, based o n the di stri ctcou rt ’s c a lcu latio n s o f

d ru g a m o u n ts a n d a p p lica tio n s o f th e e n h a n c e m e n ts fo r le a d e rsh ip ro le s , o b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e , p o s s e s s io n o f fir e a rm s , a n d re c k le s s e n d a n g e rm e n t. N ext , al l t hr ee de fenda nt s cl ai m thatthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s us e of i t s ear l i er c a lcu latio n s a n d im p o sitio n o f e n h a n c e m e n ts v io late d th e ir rig h ts u n d e r th e S ix th A m endmentand D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. T heyas s er tthatthes e types of fa ctual det erm i nat i ons m us tbe found bya j urybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . U nder B o o ke r’s advi s or yr egi m e, how ever , a di s tr i ctcour tm aym ake G ui del i ne c a lc u la tio n s u s in g fa c ts fo u n d b yth e ju d g e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal lanez , 4 0 8 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 4 -8 5 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 468 ( 2005) . “[S] uch fa ct-find ing is un co n sti tuti o n al on lyw h en ito p era tes t o incre ase a d efen d an t’ s s ent ence m a n da to rily . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D al t on , 4 0 9 F . 3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); see also Magal l anez , 40 8 F . 3d at68 5 (“[W ]hen a d i stri ctcou rtm akes a d eterm ination o f se n tenc ing fa cts b ya p rep o n d era n ce testu n d er the n o w -ad v isory G ui del i nes , i ti s notbound byj ur ydet erm i nat i ons r eac hed thr ough appl i cat i on of t he more oner ous r eas onabl e doubts t andar d. ”) . W e di s cern no err ori n ei thert he- 7-

di s t r i ctcourt ’ s cons i der at i on of i t s ow n drug- quant i tyfi ndi ngs ori t s appl i cat i on of the enh ancem ents . A d d it ion all y , D efen d an t W ard asse rt s tha t, u n d er C r aw f or d v. Was hi ngt on , 541 U . S. 36 ( 2004) , t he us e of he ar s ayevi dence i n connec t i on w i th the obs t ruct i on enhanc ementvi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ont w i t nes s es agai ns thi m . W e have pr evi ous l yr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent . “[N ] othi ng i n C raw f ord. . . r equi r es us t o departfr om ourpr ece dentthatcons t i tut i onal pr ovi s i ons r egar di ng t he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e ar e notr equi r ed t o be appl i ed dur i ng s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs . ” Un itedS ta tes v . B u sta m a n te , 454 F. 3d 1200, 1202 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he court ’ s r el i ance on hear s ay s t at ement s i n t he s ent enci ng pr oces s di d noti m pl i cat e W ar d’ s C onfr ont at i on C l ause ri gh t s. Fi nal l y , w i t h r egar d t o t he r eas onabl enes s of thei rs ent ence s , al l the defe ndant s ar gue thatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed byagai n appl y i ng the G ui del i nes i n a m andat or ym anner . A di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o cons i derthe gui del i nes as advi s or yi n acc or dance w i t h B ookerpr es ent s w hatthi s courthas t erm ed a n o n -c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al ez - Huer ta, 403 F. 3d 727, 731- 32 (1 0 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 495 ( 2005) . T he r ecor d on r es ent enci ng, h o w e v e r, p lain lyre f

u tes d e fe n d a n ts’ c o n ten tio n . T h e d istric t co u rt c lea rly compl i ed w i t h B ookerbyappl y i ng the G ui del i nes i n an advi s oryfas hi on, as B ookerre q u ire s. In d e e d , the d istric t co u rt e x e rc ise d its a ffo rd e d d isc re tio n to- 8-

d e p a rt d o w n w a rd f

ro m th e G u id e lin e in d ica tio n o f life se n ten c e s to re lativ e ly le s s e r s e n te n c e s ra n g in g f ro m 4 6 0 to 5 4 0 m o n th s .

III . W e c o n c lu d e th a t d e fe n d a n ts’ s e n ten c e s a re c o n stitu tio n a l, pr o c e d u ra lly co rrect, an d su b stan ti v elyrea so n ab le. T h e jud g m en ts of the d istri ct co u rtare AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge