NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4481 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S T ANF OR D S M I T H, A p p e llan t. O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 4- 08- cr - 00198- 001) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . Jam es F . M cC lure Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

on O ct ober2, 2009 B efor e: A M B R O , G A R T H and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( fi l ed: M ay6, 2010 )

O P I N I O N R O T H , C i r cui tJ udge: S tan f o rd S m ith a p p e a ls tw o iss u e s a risin g f ro m h is s e n ten c in g in th e M id d le Di s tr i c to f

P e n n s y l v a n i a f

o ri l l e g a l l yr e e n t e r i n g th e Un i t e d S t a t e s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 8 U. S . C.2

§ 1326( a) , 6 U . S. C . § 202( 3) and ( 4) , and 6 U . S. C . § 557. T he fi r s ti s s ue i s w hethert he D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o t ake i nt o acc ountal l of the s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). T h e se c o n d iss u e is w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt v io late d S m ith ’s S ix th A m endmentr i ght s byi m pos i ng an i nappr opr i at el yhi gh enhanc ementt o the s ent ence r ecomm ended unde rthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under 18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. Forthe r eas ons d is c u s s e d b e lo w , w e w ill a f f ir m . B e c a u s e th e f

a c ts a re w e ll k n o w n to th e p a rt ie s , w e w ill d is c u s s th e m o n ly b ri e f ly. St anfor d Sm i th pl eade d gui l tyt o a cha r ge of i l l egal l yr eent er i ng the country . H e had pr evi ous l ybeen r emoved fordrug- r el at ed off ens es . T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound the se n ten c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e to b e b e tw e e n 4 6 - 5 7 m o n th s, a n d it i m p o se d a 5 7 m o n th s ent ence . W e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on w hen cons i der i ng the re le v a n t f

a c to rs u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 454 F. 3d 187, 194 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 329 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “A ft er B ooker , this C o u rt m u st e v a lu a te th e re a so n a b len e ss o f a se n ten c e in lig h t o f

th e f a c to rs in 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . . . . ‘ T o det erm i ne i f the courtact ed r eas onabl yi n i m pos i ng the r es ul t i ng s ent ence , w e mustfi r s tbe s at i s fi ed the courtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on by cons i der i ng the r el evantfac t or s . ’ ”) “W hi l e a s ent enci ng courtm us tcons i deral l of the § 3553( a) fac t or s , i tdoes nothave t o di s cus s and make fi ndi ngs as t o eac h fac t ors o l ong as3

the r ecor d otherw i s e makes cl earthati tt ook the fa ct or s i nt o acc ount . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Star nes , 5 8 3 F .3 d 1 9 6 , 2 1 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n sid e re d S m ith ’s f a m ily t i es and the har s h cons equenc es he w oul d s uffe ras an i l l egal al i en w ho w oul d be dep ort ed u po n co m plet i ng his sent ence, and i tult i m at el ycon cl ud ed thatdespit e t hese fac t or s , a l ongers ent ence w as j us t i fi ed. R evi ew i ng de novo the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s app l i cat i on of the S entenci ng G uidel i nes, s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. D i az , 592 F. 3d 467, 470 ( 3d C i r . 2010) , w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tpr oper l yt ook i nt o cons i der at i on Sm i th’ s pr i orconvi ct i ons w hen det erm i ni ng the app ropri at e sent ence e nh ancem ent. T he D i stri ctC ou rtenh anced S m i th’s base offen se leve l bysixteen p o ints du e to h is prior tw o co n v ict ion s fo r dru g tr af fick ing an d firearm pos s es s i on. U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) . Sm i th al l eges thi s w as i n err orbeca us e the i ndi ctm entonl ys t at ed thathe had be en found gui l tyof aggr avat ed as s aul t , w hi ch ca rr i es an enha ncementof ei ghtpoi nt s . U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( C ) . Sm i th does notdi s put e that hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons w oul d j us t i fythe s i xt een poi nti ncr eas e; r ather , hi s ar gum enti s t hat the governm ent ’ s deci s i on t o onl yi ncl ude “a ggr avat ed fe l ony ” i n the pl ea a gr eement pr ecl udes the D i s tr i ctC our tfr om appl y i ng anythi ng butthe aggr avat ed fe l ony enhanc ement . W e di s agr ee. D i s tr i ctC our t s m ayr el yupon pas tconvi ct i ons w hen maki ng s e n te n c in g d e c is io n s , re g a rd le s s o f w h e th e r t h o s e c o n v ic tio n s w e re in th e in d ic tm e n t. See U n ite d S ta te s v . G r ie r, 4 7 5 F . 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( en banc ) ( “J udi ci al fac t fi ndi ng i n the cour s e of s el ect i ng a s ent ence w i thi n the perm i s s i bl e r ange doe s notoffe nd the4

Fi fth and Si xth A m endmentr i ght s t o a j urytr i al and pr oof bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ”) F o r th e re a so n s s e t f

o rth a b o v e , w e w ill a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.