FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 18, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 15 32 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :0 9- cr-8 01 01 -KLR-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us ROSCOEM ANUEL JAMES DANIELS, a.k .a. Ro sc oe Dani el s, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st18 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON, andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ro sc oe m anue l Dan ie ls ap pe al s h is 15 1- m on th to ta l s en te nc e o f

im pr is on m en t, i m

po se d a t the bo tt om

of t he gu id el in es ran ge , aft er p le ad in g g ui lt y to on e co un t o f di st rib ut in g M DMA or“ ecs ta sy” invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(C) an d o ne co un t o f be in g afel on inpo ss es si on of afir earm in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ). Dani el s co nt en ds th atth e se nt en ci ng co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n wh enitdi d n otgra nthi m a do wnwar d v ari an ce. I. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort cl as si fie d Dan ie ls as acare er o ffen de r be cau se of h is co nv ic ti on s i n 1 99 9 fo r sa le of m ari juan a an d ro bb ery. See Un it ed St at es Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es § 4 B1 .1(a ). On the ba si s o f th atcla ss ifi cat io n a nd hi s cr im in al hi st ory , th e PSR cal cu la te d Dan ie ls ’ advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge as 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t. Dan ie ls m ad e n o o bjec ti on s t o t he PSR o r th e cal cu la ti on s i n i t. He d id , ho wev er, fi le a m ot io n fo r a v ari an ce. Tha t m ot io n a rg ue d tha t h e sh ou ldrece iv e a va ria nc e fro m

th e car eer o ffen de r gu id el in es ran ge be cau se hi s cl as si fic at io n a s a care er o ffen de r ov er-r ep res en te d h is pre vi ou s cr im in al hi st ory . He bas edth at arg um en t o n h is ass ert io n t ha t h e p la y edon ly a min orrol e in th e 1 99 9 ro bb ery. At the sen te nc e h eari ng , he a ga in m ad e n o o bjec ti on to th e PSR an d rei te rat edhi s m ot io n fo r a v ari an ce. Insupp ort o f th atm ot io n Dan ie ls pre se nt ed
2th e v ic ti m

of t he 19 99 rob be ry

as awitne ss . The v ic ti m tes ti fie d t ha t an ot he r in di vi du al in vo lv edin th e ro bb ery ha d b een it s “ rin gl ead er” andth atDani el s h ad
no t h arm edor t hr eat en edhi m du rin g t he cri m e. On cr os s- ex am in at io n, the pr os ecu to r dr ew ou t tha t the vi ct im kn ew Dan ie ls ’ m ot he r, an d t he pro se cu to r as ke d t he vi ct im

ab ou t num ero us in co ns is te nc ie s b etweenth e te st im on y he ha d jus t g iv enan d the actua l p ol ic e rep ort o f th e cri m e. Insen te nc in g Dan ie ls th e d is tri ctco urt o bs erv ed : “ Eve n i f I acc ep te d [t he
ro bb ery vi ct im ’s] tes ti m on y [Dan ie ls ] wou ldst il l b e g ui lt y of a id in g a ndab et ti ng .” The co urt al so no te d t ha t the vi ct im ha d a dm it te d t o n otrem em be rin g m an y

th in gs , th athi s t es ti m on y

was c om pl et el y di ffer en t fr om

th e actua l p ol ic e rep ort o f th e ro bb ery, an d t ha t i t was “pr et ty clear[th e v ic ti m ]’ s t ry in g t o h el p o utso m eo ne .” As a re su lt , th e co urt ex pl ai ne d, i t was “ no t i nc li ne d t o a ccep t [t he vi ct im ’s] te st im on y .” II. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e u nd er “ a d efer en ti al ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard .” Gall v. Un it edSta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 41 , 12 8 S .Ct. 58 6, 5 91 (20 07 ). The b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th ata se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le li es with t he pa rty chal le ng in g t he sen te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 78 8 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 5) . “ [W] he n t he di stric t co urt i m po se s a s en te nc e wit hi n t he
3advi so ry

Gui de li ne s ra ng e, we or di na ril y wil l ex pe ctth atch oi ce t o b e a rea so nabl e on e.” Id . Butwhat ev er the sen te nc e, in rev ie win g i ts reas on ab le ne ss we m us t
co ns id er “ th e to ta li ty of th e fac ts an d c irc um st an ces ,” an d we wi ll rev ers e “ if, b ut
on ly if, we are l eftwith t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt
co m m it te d acle ar erro r of

jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng ata se nt en ce tha t l ie s o ut si de th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 , 11 90 (11 th Cir
. 20 10 ) (en ba nc ) (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d)
. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fi nd in g o f fac ts , whi ch in cl ud e an y cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns , on ly for cl ear e rro r. Irey, 612 F.3dat 1 19 0. Th e Supr em e Co urt ha s ex pl ai ne d: If th e di st ric t co urt’s acco un t of th e ev id en ce is pl au si bl e in li gh t of th e reco rd vi ewed in it s en ti rety , th e co urt of ap pe al s m ay no t rev ers e it ev en th ou gh co nv in ced th at ha d it be en si tt in g as th e tri er of fact , it wou ld ha ve weig he d th e ev id en ce di ffer en tl y . Whe re th ere are two pe rm is si bl e vi ews of th e ev id en ce, th e fact fin de r’s ch oi ce be twee n t he m can no t b e cl earl y erro ne ou s. And ers onv. Ci ty of Bes se m er Ci ty, 47 0 U.S. 5 64 , 57 3– 74 ; 1 05 S.Ct . 15 04 , 15 11 (1 98 5) . In ad di ti on , “ a fai lu re t o o bjec t t o a ll eg at io ns of f actina PSI ad m it s t ho se fact s fo r se nt en ci ng pu rp os es .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W ad e, 45 8 F .3d12 73 , 12 77 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ).

4Here, Dan ie ls m ad e n o o bjec ti on s t o t he all eg at io ns of f actinth e PSI reg ard in g h is 19 99 rob be ry co nv ic ti on . Thu s, tho se fact s wer e ad m it te d fo r pu rp os es of h is sen te nc in g. Ev enif h e h adob jecte d, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n o r cl earl y err i n s en te nc in g Dan ie ls to a te rm of i m pr is on m en t atth e v ery bo tt om

of t he advi so ry

gu id el in es ran ge . Inli gh t o f th e rec or d i n i ts en ti rety , th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t the vi ct im ’s tes ti m on y

was b ia se d a ndin cred ib le is , at a m in im um , pl au si bl e. The di st ric t co urt d idno t, the refo re, cl earl y err i n re fu si ng to acce ptth attes ti m on y or ab us e it s d is cret io n i n re fu si ng to gra nta do wnwar d v ari an ce o n t he ba si s o f th at te st im on y . The ot he r ob

jecti on s Dan ie ls rai se s ab ou t the subs tant iv e rea so nabl en es s o f hi s t ot al sen te nc e are witho utm eri t. Whil e th e co urt’s d is cu ss io n o f th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s d idpl ace s pe ci fic em ph as is on Dani el s’ cri m in al hi st ory , th atwas n otto th e d etriment o f al l the ot he r § 3 55 3( a) fac to rs . In ad di ti on , Dani el s’s 1 51 -m on th
se nt en ce i s atth e b ot to m

of t he gu id el in es ran ge an d wel l b el ow t he 20 -y ear st atut ory m ax im um . In s ho rt, o urrev ie w of the reco rddo es no t l eav e u s wi th th e

“ de fin it e an d fi rm

co nv ic ti on ” th atth e d is tri ctco urt arriv edat asen te nc e o ut si de th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es un de r th e fac ts of t hi s ca se . See Ire y , 61 2 F .3d at11 89
. 5AFFIRMED.

6