FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13384 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 6 0 0 1 0 - CR - J EM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J O H N R O B I N S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 5, 2007) B efo re W IL S O N , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J o h n B a s il R o b in s o n ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s c o u n te r f

e it s e c u r itie s , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 7 1 a n d 5 1 3 ( a ) . R o b in s o n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, a t th e h e a r in g o n h is c o u n s e l’s m o tio n to w i thdr a w , vi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o c ouns e l of hi s c hoos i ng by de ny i ng hi s c ouns e l ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w a nd hi s m ot i on f orac ont i nua nc e of

the i m pe ndi ng s e nt e nc i ng t o s e e k s ubs t i tut e c ouns e l . S e c ond, he a r gue s tha tthe di stri ctcourtatse nt enci ng abused i t s di sc re t i on by denyi ng hi s m ot i on for a cont i nu ance t o d evel op addi t i on al char ac t erevi dence. T hi rd, the di stri ctcourt erre d b y r el yi ng on the pre-s ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt ’ s ( “ P S I” ) c ri m i nal hi st ory c a l c ul a t i on, w he r e the r e portdi d notde s c r i be the unde r l y i ng c i r c um s t a nc e s of the pri or conv i ct i on s. F ou rth, hi s s ent ence w as un re as on abl e bec ause the di stri ctcourt fa i l ed t o con si der the 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) se nt enci ng fa ct ors. F i nal l y, he ar gu es th a th i s c o u n s e l wa s i n e f f e c t i v e . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o rth m o r e f

u l l y b e l o w, we a f f i rm. A f t e rR obi ns on pl e d gui l ty t o the c ons pi r a c y c ha r ge , butbe f or e s e nt e nc i ng, hi s c ou nsel m ov ed t o w i thd raw fr om re pres ent at i on , ci t i ng i n ess ence com m un i ca t i on and trustprob l em s. T he courtdeni ed the m ot i on ata hea ri ng that t ook pl a c e one w e e k be f or e s e nt e nc i ng, t e l l i ng R obi ns on tha the c oul d hi r e a ny att orney he w ant ed, bu tthatcurr entcoun se l w ou l d n otbe re l ea se d u nt i l new3

c ouns e l w a s obt a i ne d. R obi ns on the n or a l l y m ove d f orac ont i nua nc e a f

t e rt e l l i ng the courthe w as i n the process of re t ai ni ng a new att orney. T he court , no t i ng that R obi ns on’ s c ouns e l ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w ha d be e n pe ndi ng f orthr e e w e e ks a nd he coul d h ave f

ou nd a new att orney duri ng thatt i m e, deni ed the m ot i on for a c o n tin u a n c e a s w e ll. A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , R ob i nson ’ s c ou nsel m ov ed for a60 -day cont i nu ance , expl ai ni ng on l y thathi s c l i entw ant ed t i m e t o p re pare char ac t er w i tness es and b ec ause a pot ent i al m ent alheal th i ss ue exi st ed. T he court s um m a r i l y de ni e d the or a l m ot i on. T he r e a f t e r , the c ourts e nt e nc e d R obi ns on a tthe bo tt om of the gu i del i ne ra ng e t o 5 1 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , 3 years ’ supervi se d r e le a s e , af

in e o f $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d $ 3 4 2 ,1 6 5 in r e s titu tio n . I . W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng c ouns e l ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D i ni t z , 538 F . 2d 1214, 1219 n. 7 ( 5th C i r . 1976) . S i m i l a r l y , w e r e vi e w am ot i on t o c ont i nue s e nt e nc i ng f or abuse of di sc re t i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. E do uard, 48 5 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 50 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) .

“ T he S i xth A m e ndm e ntpr ovi de s tha t[ i ] n a l l c r i m i na l pr os e c ut i ons , the a c c u s e d s h a ll e n

jo y th e r ig h t . . . to h a v e th e A s s is ta n c e o f C o u n s e l f

o rh is4

[ d e f e n s e ]. [ T h e S u p r e m e C o u rt h a s ] p r e v io u s ly h e ld th a t a n e le m e n t o f th is r ig h t is th e r ig h t o f

ad e f e n d a n t w h o d o e s n o t r e q u ir e ap p o in te d c o u n s e l to c h o o s e w h o w ill r e pr e s e nthi m . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G onz a l e z - L ope z , 548 U . S . ___, 126 S . C t . 2557, 2 5 6 1 , 1 6 5 L .E d .2 d 4 0 9 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . T h a t s a id , “th e r ig h t to coun se l of choi ce i s notas absol ut e a s the ri gh tt o the as si st ance of coun se l . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d 1189, 1248 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , c e rt . de ni e d, 547 U . S . 1085 ( 2006) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a m pbe l l , N o. 006- 13548, s l i p op. a t2833 ( 11th C i r . J ul y 13, 2007) ( s a m e ) . “ T he r e a r e no m e c ha ni c a l t e s t s f or d e c id in g w h e n ad e n ia l o f ac o n tin u a n c e is s o a rb itr a ry a s to v io la te d u e p r o c e s s . T h e a n s w e rm u s t b e f

o u n d in th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s p r e s e n t in e v e ry c a s e , p a rtic u la r ly i n the re as on s pre se nt ed t o the tri al j ud ge atthe t i m e the re qu es ti s deni ed. ” U ng ar v . S a r a f ite , 3 7 6 U .S . 5 7 5 , 5 8 9 - 9 0 , 8 4 S .C t. 8 4 1 , 8 5 0 , 1 1 L .E d .2 d 9 2 1 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . N o tab ly , w e h a v e h e ld th a t: W he n de c i di ng w he the rade ni a l of ac ont i nua nc e i m pi nge d on the d e f e n d a n t’s f

a ira n d r e a s o n ab le o p p o rtu n ity to c h o o s e c o u n s e l, r e vi e w i ng c ourt s s houl d c ons i de ranum be rof f a c t or s , i nc l udi ng: (1) the l ength o f the del ay ; (2) w hether the coun se l w ho becom es un avai l abl e f

or tri al has a ss oci at es prepare d t o trythe ca se ; ( 3) w he the rothe rc ont i nua nc e s ha ve be e n r e que s t e d a nd gr a nt e d; ( 4) the i nc onve ni e nc e t o a l l i nvol ve d i n the tr i a l ; ( 5) w he the rthe r e que s t e d c ont i nua nc e i s f oral e gi t i m a t e r e a s on; a nd ( 6) a ny uni que fact o rs. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d a t1248.5

A s an i ni t i al m att er , un l i ke i n the ca se s R ob i nson ci t es on appeal , there w as no i nd ependentvi ol at i on of hi s r i gh tt o cho ose c ou nsel here . R ather, the court p r o p e r ly in f

o rm e d R o b in s o n th a t h e c o u ld r e ta in a n y n e w a tto rn e y th a t h e w a n te d . W hi l e R obi ns on a r gue s tha the w a s bound by l oc a l rul e t o w a i tf orthe c ourt ’ s l e a ve to a c q u ir e n e w c o u n s e l, th a t ru le o n ly r e q u ir e s le a v e o f c o u rt to w ith d r a w . S . D . F l a . L oc a l R . 11. 1. D . 3. T he rul e di d notpr e ve ntR obi ns on f r om f i ndi ng a nd r e ta in in g n e w c o u n s e l –s o m e th in g h e n e v e rd id . A s t o w hether the di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed R ob i nson ’ s r i gh tt o cho ose c ou nsel by denyi ng the w ri tt en m ot i on t o w i thd raw and h i s f i rs toral m ot i on t o con t i nu e, w ei gh i ng i n R ob i nson ’ s f avor i s the fa ctthat : (1) the l ength o f the del ayhe w as s e e ki ng w a s notobvi ous l y unr e a s onabl e ; ( 2) he ha d notr e que s t e d a ny c ont i nua nc e s pr e vi ous l y ; a nd ( 3) hi s c ouns e l appe a r e d t o be l i e ve the y w e r e ha vi ng pr obl e m s c om m uni c a t i ng. B a ke r , 432 F . 3d a t1248. O n the othe rha nd, i n the m ot i on t o w i thdr a w , c ouns e l di d nota l l e ge tha the w a s notbe i ng pa i d, tha ta n a c tua l c onf l i c tha d a r i s e n, ortha the ha d be e n f i r e d. R a the r , he onl yr e pr e s e nt e d tha tthe r e w e r e c om m uni c a t i on a nd trus tpr obl e m s , a nd to ld th e c o u rt th a t h e w a n te d to a v o id g o in g th r o u g h litig a tio n o n c o lla te r a l r e v ie w . H e a l s o s t a t e d tha the w a s pr e pa r e d f ors e nt e nc i ng. T hus , ne i the rR obi ns on norhi s a tt orne y pr e s e nt e d ac om pe l l i ng e xpl a na t i on6

f orthe w i thdr a w a l . T hi s i s e s pe c i a l l y r e l e va nt , gi ve n tha tR obi ns on ha d not a rr a n g e d f

o ran e w a tto rn e y , s o m e th in g th a t th e c o u rt c o rr e c tly o b s e rv e d h e c o u ld do a ta ny t i m e a nd s pe c i f i c a l l y c oul d ha ve done dur i ng the 20 da y s be tw e e n the fi l i n g o f th e m o t i o n t o w i th d raw an d th e h eari n g o n th atm o t i o n . F o r al l th ese r e a s ons , the c ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng the m ot i on t o w i thdr a w or th e m o tio n f

o rac o n tin u a n c e , a n d c o n s e q u e n tly d id n o t v io la te R o b in s o n ’s r ig h t to c h o o s e c o u n s e l. II. A s a l r e a dy not e d, w e r e vi e w am ot i on t o c ont i nue s e nt e nc i ng f orabus e of di sc re t i on . E do uard, 48 5 F . 3d at13 50 . W here no const i tut i on al consi dera t i on s are i m pl i c a t e d, the de f

e nda nt“ ha s the bur de n t o de m ons tr a t e tha tthe de ni a l [ of the c ont i nua nc e ] pr oduc e d s pe c i f i c s ubs t a nt i a l pr e

j udi c e , ” a nd w e w i l l a na l y z e the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on “ i n l i ghtof the c i r c um s t a nc e s pr e s e nt e d, f oc us i ng upon the re as on s f or the cont i nu ance offe re d t o the tri alcourtw hen the re qu es tw as deni ed. ” I d. C ou nsel base d h i s r equestfor the 60 -daycont i nu ance on the need t o p re pare c ha r a c t e rw i tne s s e s a nd i nve s t i ga t e R obi ns on’ s m e nt a l he a l th. H ow e ve r , he di d not e xpl a i n w hy thi s pr e pa r a t i on c oul d notha ve be e n c om pl e t e d be f or e the he a r i ng, w hi c h ha d be e n s c he dul e d f ora l m os t30 da y s , a nd di d note xpl a i n w hy s uc h al ong7

c o n tin u a n c e w o u ld b e n e c e s s a ry . A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng thi s m ot i on. F u rth e r , e v e n if

th e c o u rt’s d e n ia l w a s e rr o r , it is n o t c le a rth a t it r e s u lte d in subst ant i al harm . S peci fi ca l l y, there w as ext ensi ve chara ct erevi dence i n the P S I, and the gu i del i ne ca l cul at i on w as si m pl e and di d n otexpres sl y i nv ol ve chara ct er is s u e s . A s to h is c la im o f am e n ta l d is o r d e r , th e P S I n o te d th a t R o b in s o n h im s e lf had st at ed thathe w as tre at i ng the di sorderw i th exerci se and thathe di d n otneed tr e a tm e n t. F u rth e r , th e r e h a d n e v e rb e e n ac la im th a t h e w a s n o t c o m p e te n t. III. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s de no vo and i t s f

ac tual fi nd i ng s und erthe gu i del i nes f or cl ear e rr or. U ni t ed S t at es v. P op e, 46 1 F . 3d 13 31 , 13 33 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A cc ordi ng t o the rul es i n U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1, a def endant ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory sc ore, and there fore hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory, i s det erm i ned b y, am on g o ther thi ngs : ( 1) a ddi ng 3 poi nt s f or“ e a c h pr i ors e nt e nc e of i m pr i s onm e nte xc e e di ng one y e a ra nd one m onth” ; ( 2) a ddi ng 2 poi nt s f or“ e a c h pr i ors e nt e nc e of i m pr i s onm e nte xc e e di ng a tl e a s ts i xty da y s ” nota l r e a dy c ount e d; a nd ( 3) a ddi ng one poi nt– butnotm or e tha n 4 poi nt s t ot a l – f ora ny pr i ors e nt e nc e s nota l r e a dy c ount e d. U . S . S . G . § 4A 1. 1( a ) - ( c ) . T hi s s e c t i on a dds f ur the rpoi nt s : ( 1) i f

the8

offe nse of c on vi ct i on w as com m i tt ed w hi l e on p robat i on or parol e, et c. , or l es s than tw o y e a r s a f

t e rr e l e a s e f

r om i m pr i s onm e nt ; or( 2) f orpr i orc onvi c t i ons of

c r i m e s of vi ol ence re l at ed t o cri m es al re ady s core d. Id. § 4 A 1. 1(d)-( f) . T h e g u id e lin e s d e f

in e a“p r io rs e n te n c e ” a s “a n y s e n te n c e p r e v io u s ly im p o s e d u p o n a d

ju d ic a tio n o f

g u ilt, w h e th e rb y g u ilty p le a , tr ia l, o rp le ao f n o lo c ont e nde r e , f

orc onduc tnotpa rtof

the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e . ” I d. § 4A 1. 2( a ) ( 1) . T he b a c k g r o u n d c o m m e n ta ry to th is s e c tio n s ta te s , in r e le v a n t p a rt: Pr i o rc o n v i c t i o n s ma y r e p r e s e n tc o n v i c t i o n s i n th e f e d e r a l s y s t e m, f i f ty s t a t e s y s t e m s , the D i s tr i c tof C ol um bi a , t e rr i t or i e s , a nd f or e i gn, tr ib a l, a n d m ilita ry c o u rts . T h e r e a r e ju r is d ic tio n a l v a r ia tio n s in offe nse def

i ni t i on s, se nt enci ng structures , and m anner of s ent ence pr onounc e m e nt . T o m i ni m i z e pr obl e m s w i th i m pe r f e c tm e a s ur e s of pa s tc r i m e s e r i ous ne s s , c r i m i na l hi s t ory c a t e gor i e s a r e ba s e d on the m axi m um t erm i m po se d i n p re vi ou s s ent ence s r ather than o n o ther m e a s ur e s , s uc h a s w he the rthe c onvi c t i on w a s de s i gna t e d af e l ony or m is d e m e an o r . I d. § 4A 1. 1, c om m e nt . ( ba c kg’ d. ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . I n c ontr a s t , the appl i c a t i on of cri m i n al h i st o ry en h an cem en t s fo r career o ffen d ers an d arm ed career crim i n al s, a m ong othe r s , de pe nd on i nf orm a t i on r e ga r di ng the e l e m e nt s orna tur e of the o f f e n s e , i n c l u d i n g wh e th e rd ru g s o rv i o l e n c e wa s i n v o l v e d . S e e U. S . S . G. §§ 4B 1. 1, 4B 1. 2, 4B 1. 4. H er e, R ob i nson w as no tsc ored as ei ther acare eroffe nd eror an arm ed ca re er c r i m i na l . T he r e f

or e , a s the gove rnm e ntnot e s , a nd the c om m e nt a ry t o the9

gu i del i nes s ug gest s, the on l y f ac t s nec es saryi n the ca l cul at i on of hi s c ri m i nal hi s t ory he r e w a s the e xi s t e nc e a nd da t e of the c onvi c t i on a nd the l e ngth of the s e nt e nc e . M or e ove r , a l though R obi ns on a r gue d tha tthe P S I ’ s l a c k of de s c r i pt i on a nd the s our c e s the pr oba t i on of f i c e rr e l i e d upon di d notpr ovi de e nough i nf orm a t i on t o pr ove hi s c r i m i na l hi s t ory s c or e , he di d nota r gue tha ta ny of the in f o rm a tio n p r o v id e d w a s in c o rr e c t. T h u s , th e c o u rt h a d n o r e a s o n to th in kth a t it c oul d notr e l y on the P S I t o e s t abl i s h the f a c ta nd da t e of

the c onvi c t i ons a nd the se nt ence s i m po se d, and there fore hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory s core . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. Jones, 28 9 F . 3d 12 60 , 12 66 (11th C i r. 20 02 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe di stri ctcourt prop er l y r el i ed on the un chal l enged P S I f i nd i ng s r egar di ng defe nd ant ’ s f i nanci al s ta tu s ) . F i na l l y , R obi ns on on appe a l s t i l l doe s nota tt a c k the f a c t s c ont a i ne d i n the P S I abouthi s pr i orc onvi c t i ons , butonl y a l l e ge s tha tm or e i nf orm a t i on r e ga r di ng th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th o s e c o n v ic tio n s w a s n e c e s s a ry . I n s u p p o rt o f h is a r g u m e n t, R obi ns on c i t e s S he pa r d v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 544 U . S . 13, 125 S . C t . 1254, 161 L . E d. 2d 205 ( 2005) , a nd T a y l orv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 495 U . S . 575, 110 S . C t . 2143, 109 L . E d. 2d 60 7 (19 90 ). H ow ever , tho se ca se s c on ce rn se nt enci ng ca l cul at i on s that re qu i re d a det erm i nat i on re gardi ng the nature of the pri or conv i ct i on s. S ee S hepard, 54 4 U . S . at15 , 12 5 S . C t . at12 57 (r evi ew i ng 15 -y ear m andat oryUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L .Ed.2d 621 (2005). 1 10 e n h a n c e m e n tu n d e rArm e d C a r e e rC r i m i n a l Ac t , 1 8 U. S . C . § 9 2 4 ( e ) , wh i c h a l l o ws enhancem entfor a“ vi ol entfe l on y, ” and cl ar i fy i ng w hi ch do cum ent s c ou rtcan r e vi e w t o a s c e rt a i n the c ha r a c t e rof apr i orbur gl a ry ) ; T a y l or , 495 U . S . a t578- 81, 110 S . C t . a t2147- 50 ( r e vi e w i ng w he the rpr i orbur gl a ry c onvi c t i on j us t i f i e d a15- y e a rmi n i mu m e n h a n c e me n tf o rc o mmi tt i n g a“ v i o l e n tf e l o n y ” u n d e r1 8 U . S. C. § 9 2 4 ( e ) ) . I n R o b in s o n ’s c a s e , n o s u c h d e te rm in a tio n w a s n e c e s s a ry to c a lc u la te hi s s e nt e nc e . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rri n thi s r e ga r d. I V. F ol l ow i ng B ooke r , w e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s e nt e nc e f or 1 re as on abl enes s. U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 5 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). S uch r e vi e w i s de f

e r e nt i a l , r e qui r i ng us t o “ e va l ua t e w he the rthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f

a ils to a c h ie v e th e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g a s s ta te d in [ 1 8 U .S .C .] s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” I d. a t788. T he § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i nc l ude : ( 1) “ the na tur e and c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the de f e nda nt ” ; ( 2) w he the rthe se nt ence i s “ suff

i ci ent , bu tno tgrea t erthan n ec es sary , t o com pl y w i th . . . the need f o rth e s e n te n c e im p o s e d

–( A ) to r e f le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , to p r o m o te re spec tfor the l aw , and t o p rovi de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e; (B ) t o aff ord11

adequat e det erre nce t o cri m i nal cond uct ; (C ) t o p rot ec tthe pu bl i c f rom further cr i m es of the defendant ; and (D ) t o p rovi de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al o rv o c a t i o n a l tr a i n i n g , me d i c a l c a r e , o ro th e rc o rr e c t i o n a l tr e a tme n t . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) (1)- (2). W e have s ever al t i m es hel d that“ no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di s tr i c tc ourtt o s t a t e on the r e c or d tha ti tha s e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the [§ 35 53 (a )] fa ct ors or t o d i sc uss e ac h o f the [§ 35 53 (a )] fa ct ors. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D orm a n, 488 F . 3d 936, 944 ( 11th C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng tha ta l though the di s tr i c tc ourtha d not e xpl i c i t l y s t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , i tw a s c l e a rf

r om the court ’ s c on si dera t i on of obj ec t i on s t o the P S I and a m ot i on for ado w nw ar d de pa rtur e tha ti tha d i nde e d c ons i de r e d thos e f a c t or s ) . T hi s rul e , e s pe c i a l l y i n the c a s e o f as e n t e n c e w i th i n th e g u i d e l i n e s , w a s r e c e n t l y s u p p o rt e d b y th e Su p r e me C ourt . S e e R i t av. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 551 U . S . ___, 127 S . C t . 2456, 2468- 69, 168 L .E d .2 d 2 0 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . S p e c if ic a lly , R itah e ld th a t th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e is o n ly re qu i re d t o “ se tforth eno ug h t o sat i sf y the appel l at e c ou rtthathe ha[d] consi dere d the part i es ’ ar gu m ent s and ha[d] a r ea soned b as i s f or exerc i si ng hi s ow n l egal d e c is io n m a k in g au th o r ity .” I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 7 S .C t. a t 2 4 6 8 . F i na l l y , “ as e nt e nc e m a y be r e vi e w e d f orpr oc e dur a l ors ubs t a nt i ve12

un re as on abl enes s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. H un t , 45 9 F . 3d 11 80 , 11 82 n. 3 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). A se nt ence i s proce du ra l l y unrea sonabl e “ i f i ti s the prod uctof a procedure th a t d o e s n o t f

o llo w B o o k e r ’s r e q u ir e m e n ts , r e g a r d le s s o f th e a c tu a l s e n te n c e .” I d . In thi s c as e, R ob i nson es se nt i al l y onl y c hal l enges the procedure the court u s e d in im p o s in g s e n te n c e , b u t d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e “th e a c tu a l s e n te n c e .” I d . S pe c i f i c a l l y , he a r gue s tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s by i t s na tur e unr e a s onabl e be c aus e the courtfa i l ed t o con si der the § 3 55 3(a) se nt enci ng fa ct ors, general l y, and h i s bi po l ar di s or de rpa rt i c ul a r l y . T hus , he ha s notr a i s e d ac ha l l e nge t o the s ubs t a nt i ve re as on abl enes s of hi s s ent ence , and thati ss ue i s there fore abando ned. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. F or d, 270 F . 3d 1346, 1347 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( “ i s s ue s a nd c ont e nt i ons not t i m el y r ai se d i n the bri ef s are deem ed abando ned”). T he c ourthe r e e xpr e s s l y s t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the s t a t e m e nt s of the part i es and the P S I, i ncl ud i ng the advi sorygu i del i nes, and “ the st atut ory f ac t ors. ” F urthe r , dur i ng the he a r i ng the c ourtdi s c us s e d the l e ngth of the c ons pi r a c y , the am ou ntst ol en, R ob i nson ’ s e xp l anat i on of the offens e, and h i s c ri m i nal re cord. S ee 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 1) - ( 2) . B oth pa rt i e s the n a s ke d the c ourtt o s e nt e nc e R obi ns on w ith in th e g u id e lin e s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e rrb y f a ilin g to prov i de further a nal ys i s of the se nt enci ng fa ct ors, as i ti s c l ear f rom the subst ance of the heari ng – and fr om the court ’ s ow n st at em ent– thati tdi d i nd ee d con si der13

them . D orm an, 48 8 F . 3d at94 4. A s t o the sugg es t i on thatR ob i nson had a m ent al h e a lth is s u e , R o b in s o n ’s c o u n s e l o n ly n o te d th is a s a“p o te n tia l m itig a tin g f a c to r ,” a nd di d notpr e s s the i s s ue a ny f ur the r . I n a ddi t i on, the i s s ue w a s a ddr e s s e d i n the P S I , w hi c h the c ourts t a t e d i tha d r e a d. T he r e , R obi ns on r e port e d tha the di d not bel i eve he needed tre atm ent . T hu s, no thi ng abou tthi s s peci fi c i ss ue sugg es t s that th e d i stri ctco u rtfai l ed t o co n si d er th e sen t en ci n g fact o rs. T h u s , th e c o u rt d id n o t e rr , a n d R o b in s o n ’s s e n te n c e w a s p r o c e d u r a lly re as on abl e. V. I ti s w e l l e s t abl i s he d tha tw e ge ne r a l l y w i l l notc ons i de ri ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l c l a i m s on di r e c tappe a l unl e s s the r e i s s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e on the re cord. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. A nd re w s, 95 3 F . 2d 13 12 , 13 27 (11th C i r. 19 92 ); s e e a l s o M a s s a r o v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 538 U . S . 500, 504- 05, 123 S . C t . 1690, 1694, 155 L . E d. 2d 714 ( 2003) . S pe c i f i c a l l y , “ [ t ] o obt a i n ar e ve r s a l of ac onvi c t i on b ecau se o f co n st i tu t i o n al l y i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel , a d efen d an tm u st show thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent , and thatthe defi ci entperf orm ance pr e j udi c e d the de f

e ns e . C ouns e l i s he l d t o as t a nda r d of ‘ r e a s onabl y e f

f e c t i ve a s s is ta n c e [ .]’” A n d r e w s , 9 5 3 F .2 d a t 1 3 2 7 . A lth o u g h c le a r ly R o b in s o n a n d h is s e n te n c in g c o u n s e l h a d p r o b le m s in th e ir14

re lati o n sh ip , th e r ec o rd d o es n o t co n tain su ff icien t ev id en ce re g ar d in g co u n se l’ s p e r f o rm a n c e f

o ru s to r e v ie w it. M a s s a r o , 5 3 8 U .S . a t 5 0 4 - 0 5 , 1 2 3 S .C t. a t 1 6 9 4 . F urthe rm or e , the r e i s no ne e d t o r a i s e the i s s ue he r e i n or de rt o pr e s e rve i tf or col l at er al re vi ew . Id. at50 4, 12 3 S . C t . at16 94 (“ W e hol d thatan i neff ec t i veas si st ance -of- coun se l cl ai m m aybe brou gh ti n a col l at er al proceedi ng un der § 2 25 5, w hether or notthe pet i t i on ercoul d h ave r ai se d the cl ai m on di re ct appeal ”) . In l i g h to f th e fo reg o i n g , R o b i n so n ’ s sen t en ce i s AF F I RME D.