### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20181 U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. D AV ID R O D R IG U E Z , 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 t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B ef ore K IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . R H E S AH A W K IN S B A R K S D A L E , C i rcui tJu dg e: D avi d R odr i guez c hal l enges a g r eat er sen te nce i m pos ed o n re m and by a di f ferent j u dg e f

rom t h e on e w h o i m posed h i s f i rstsentence. Previ ou sly, based o n the G ov ern m en t’ s br ea ch of h i s p l ea ag ree m en t, R od ri gu ez su cce s s fu lly ap pea l ed h i s f

i rstsentence. I n rem an di n g f or r esentenci n g, o u r court ordered it t o b e co n d u c te db yad iffe r e n t ju d g e b e c a u s e o f th a t b r e a c h . Uni t e d S t at e s v. R od rigu ez , 3 0 6 F . A p p ’ x1 3 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b lis h e d). P r im a r ily , R o d r ig u e z cla im s h is n e w s e n te n c e w a s v in d ic tiv e . F o rth is poi n t , t h e pri n ci pa li ssue i s w h et h er Un i t ed S t ate s v. Floyd , 51 9 F . 2 d10 3 1 ( 5 th C i r . 1975) , has bee n ove r r ul ed by T exasv. Mc C ul lough , 4 7 5 U . S . 1 3 4 ( 1 9 8 6 ). In th e a lte r n a tiv e , h e cla im s th e a d v is o r yg u id e lin e s s e n te n c in gra n g e u s e din United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 25, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

2 i m po s i ng hi s s e nt e nc e w as no ts upp o r t e d by t he r e qui s i t e pr e po nde r anc e o f t he evi den ce. A l t h ou gh pl ai n - errorrevi ew app l i es t o each i ssue, t h ere w as no error. AF F I RMED. I. R od ri gu ez , a form er H ou ston po l i ce offi ce r , o p era teda p riva te secu ri ty com pa n y i n H ou st on , T exas, w h ere he em pl oyedseverali l l egal al i en s as arm ed securi t y gu a rd s. R odri gu ez di rect ed them t o app l y f or c om m i ssi on s t o carr y f i rearm s, w h i ch requ ire d s u bm i ssi on of fal se i n f

orm ati on . H e al so pu rchased fir e a r m s a n dtr a n s fe r r e dth e m to th o s e e m p lo y e e s . In Ju n e 200 6 , R o d ri gu ez w as i n di ct ed f or c on spi racy, m ak i n g fal se st atem en t s i n t h e acqu i si t i on of f i rearm s, sell i n g f

i rearm s t o prohibi t ed p ersons, a n d sell i n g f

i rea rm s w i th ou t a l i ce n s e . S ee 1 8 U. S . C . § § 3 7 1 , 9 2 2 , 9 2 4 . H e p l eaded gui l t y t o c ons pi r ac y, i n exc hange f ort he G ove r nm ent ’ s pro m i seto di s m i s s t h e o t he rc o unt s a nd n o t t o s ee k any of fens e- l eve li ncr eas es at s e n te n c in g . T h e presentence i n vest i gati on report ( P S R ) recom m en ded : a base of fen se lev e l o f 18 becau se t h e of

fen se i n volvedat l east 39 firearm s; a f ou r- l evel agg ravati n g- rol e i n crease f or R odri gu ez’b ei n g a l ead er or orga n i zer; an d, a t w ol e veli n crease f

or obst ructi on of

j u st i ce. R odri gu ez’adv i sory gui del i n es s e nt e nc i ng r ang e w o ul d hav e be e n 51 t o 63 m o nt hs , but t he s t at ut o r y m ax i m um w a s 6 0 m o n th s , see 18 U . S . C . § 371 ; t h eref ore, t h e rang e w as 51 to 60 m on t h s. R odri gu ez f

i l ed s eal ed obj ect i on s t o t h e P S R ’ s r ecom m en ded of fen se- l evel i n creases . Ats e nt e nc i ng, t he G o ve r nm en t ’ s r e s po ns e s t o t ho s e o bj e c t i o ns de fe n d e dth eP S R’ s r e c o m m e nde d s e nt e nc i ng r ang e . Thi s a r guably br e ac he d t he G overnm en t ’ s pl ea- agreem en tprom i se n o t t o seek an y of fen se- l eveli n creases . A f t er c on si deri n g t h e parti es’ contenti on s, t h e di st ri ctj u dg e rej ect ed som e pa r t s o f

t he PS R a n d r ul e d: t he o f fe ns e i nvo lve d 2 3, r at he rt han t he recom m en ded 39 , f

ir e arm s, reduci n g t h e rec om m en ded base of fen se l evelby tw o; Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

3 an d a three- l evelaggrav ati n g- rol e enh an cem en t , i n st eadof t h e rec om m en ded f ou r l e vel s, al on g w i t h t h e rec om m en ded t w o- l evelobst ructi on - of

-j u st i ce en h an cem en t , shou l d be i m posed . T h is re su l t ed i n an adv i sory gui del i n es s e n te n c in gra n g e o f 3 7 to 4 6 m o n th s . R o d r ig u e z w a s s e n te n c e dto , in tera lia , 37 m o n th s ’im p r is o n m e n t. Rodr i gue z a ppe al e d hi s c o nvi c t i o n a nd s e nt e nc e . Am o ng o t he rt hi ngs , he c l ai m e d t he G o ve r nm e nt had br e ac he d i t s pl e a ag r e e m e nt by u rgi ng e nhan c e m e nt s a ts e nt e nc i ng; t he G o ve r nm e ntco nc e de d i thad “ ar guably” do ne s o . R o d riguez , 3 0 6 F . A p p ’ x at 1 3 8 . O u r cou rt a ff i rm ed th e con victi on ; b u t, in t he l i ghto f

t he G o ve r nm e nt ’ s con c e s s i o n, i tv ac at e d Ro dr i gue z ’s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a n d e dfo rre s e n te n c in g . Id . at138- 39 . In d o in gs o , o u r c o u r t ru le d th a t, b e c a u s e o f th e p le a -a g r e e m e n t b r e a c h , a di f fer entj udge w oul d pr es i de atr es ent enc i ng:

T h e gov ern m en t . . . con ced [es] . . . th a t R od ri gu e z is en t i t l ed to be resentenced befor e a di fferen tdi st ri ct j u d g e . S ee S an t obel lo v. New Y ork , 404 U . S. 257, 26 2- 63 ( 19 71 ) (pr o vi di ng f o rr e m e dyo f

r e s e nt e nc i ng b e fo r e ad iffe r e n t d is tr ic t ju d g e ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. Sal i ng , 20 5 F . 3 d7 6 4 , 7 6 8 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 0 ) (sam e). In l i gh tof t h i s c on cess i on , w e gran tt h e agreed-upon reli ef by va c at i ng R odri gu ez’ s s en t en ce and rem an di n g f or resentenci n g bef

ore a d i f

f erent di st ri ctj u dg e. I n so do i ng, w e no t e t hatt hi s v ac at uri s c aus e d no tb y any e r r o ro n t he pa r to f

t he di s t r i c tj udg e , butr at he rb y t he govern m en t ’ s er ror. I d. 3 0 6 F . A p p ’x at 13 8- 39 (f o o t no t e s o m i t t e d) . O urc o ur ta l s o s t at e d: “[R ]em a n dto a d iffe r e n t ju d g e is n o t a re fle c ti o n u p o n t h e o r ig in a l ju d g e ”. Id . a t 1 3 8 n .3 (c i t i ng S a n ta b ello , 4 0 4 U .S . a t 2 6 3 ). A t r e s e n te n c in g , R odri gu ez renew ed h i s p ri or obj ect i on s t o t h e P S R ; t h ey w e r e de ni e d. B ased u po n hi s i nde pe nde nta nalys i s , t he s e c o nd j udg e r ul e d, c ont r ar y t o t he o r i gi nalju d ge ’ s r ul i ng, t hatR odr i guez w as r es ponsibl e f or27 Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

4 fi rea r m s (i nst ead o f 23) . The s ec ond j udge al so r ul ed, as had t he f i r st , t hat Rodr i gue z s ho ul d r ec e ive at hr e e - l e ve la gg r av at i ng- r o l e e nhan c e m e nt( ag ai n, in ste a dof th e P S R -re co m m e n d e dfou r lev e ls) a n datw o -lev e l ob s t r u c t ion -ofj ust i c e e nhan c em ent . Th e r es ul t i ng advi so r y gui del i nes s ent enc i ng r ange w as 4 6 to 57 m on th s. R od ri gu ez w a s sen ten ced to , in tera lia , 46 m on t h s’ i m pri sonm en t

— n i n e m on t h s m ore t h an hi s or i gi n alsentence. II. R odri gu ez cl ai m s: hi s s en t en ce on rem an d w as vi n di ct ive (eith er presum ed or act u alvi n di ct iv e n e ss) ; an d, i n t h e al t erna t ive, t h e adv i sory gu i del i n es s en t en ci n g ran ge u sed f or i m posi n g h i s s en t en ce w as not supp ort ed b yth e re q u is ite p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . F o rth o s e tw o cla im s , th is ap pea lpresents several i n st an ces i n w h i ch w e m u st deci de w h et h er t o exerci se ourdi sc r et i on t o r evi ew an i ss ue. I n t hatr egar d, pl ai n- er r orr evi ew w i l lbe appl i ed t o t he tw o cl ai m s. ( I n hi s ope ni ng br i ef, R odr i guez al so c l ai m ed he w as no tc r e di t e d f

o rt i m e se r ve d; ato r ala r gum e nt , hi s c o uns e lc o nc e de d t hati s s ue is m o o t.) A. T h e F i f t h a n d F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t s gua ran t ee du e process , w h i ch obviousl y i n cl u des t h e ri gh tt o be t ri ed an d sen t en ced absen tprosecutor i alor ju d ic ia l v in d ic tiv e n e s s . See, e . g. , T h ig p en v. R o b er ts , 468 U . S. 27, 30 ( 1984) (c i t i ng B lackle dge v. Perr y , 4 1 7 U .S . 2 1 , 2 7 (19 7 4 )) (p ro se cu to ria l vin d ictiven e ss ); Nort h Carol i n a v. Pearce , 3 9 5 U .S . 7 1 1 , 7 2 3 -2 4 (19 6 9 ) (j u d icia l vin d ictiv e n e ss ), overr u led i n pa rt by A la b a m av. S m ith , 490 U . S . 794 ( 198 9) . O f course, becau se R odr i guez w as c onvi c t ed o f a f ede r alc r i m e, only t he Fi f t h A m endm enti s i n pl ay. R odri gu ez cl a im s t h e sec on d j u dg e’ s s en t en ce vi ol ates h i s r i gh tagainst v in d ic tiv e n e s s . Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

5 1. B ef ore r e ac hi ng thevi ndi ct iven ess cl ai m , w e m u stdeter m i n e our st an da rd o f r e vi e w for i t . I n c o nt e ndi ng t he c l ai m i s unr e vi e w ab l e , t he G o ve r nm e nt as se r t s R odr i guez ’c ounse leit herw aived ori nvi t ed t hi s c l ai m ed e r r orat r e s e n te n c in g . a. W a iv e de r r o r s a r e u n r e v ie w a b le . E . g. , Un i t ed S ta tes v. A rv iso -Ma ta , 442 F. 3d 382, 384 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (c i t i ng Un itedS ta tes v. Mu sq u iz , 4 5 F . 3d 927, 93 1- 32 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5) ) . Rev i e w o f i nvit e d e r r o r s i s a l m o s ts i m i l ar l y pr e c l ude d; such err ors are revi ew ed on l y f or “ m an i festi nj u st i ce” . Un i t ed S t ate s v. G ree n , 272 F. 3d 748, 754 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pan kh u rst , 118 F. 3d 345 , 359 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 97)) . Forfei t ed error s are revi ew ed u n der t h e l east st ri ct s t and ar d f

or these thre e t yp e s o f e r r o r : p l ai n e r r o r , a s di s c us s e d i nf ra . E . g. , A rv iso -Ma ta , 442 F. 3d at384 (c i t i ng Un ited S ta tes v . G r a c ia -Ca n tu , 302 F. 3d 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 )). “F o r fe itu r e is th e fa ilu r e to m a k e th e tim e lya s s e r tio n o f a r ig h t; w a iv e ris th e inten ti on a lreli n q u i sh m en t of a k n ow n ri gh t. ” Id . (c i t i ng Uni t e d S t at e s v. R eveles , 190 F . 3d 678 , 683 (5t h C i r. 199 9) ) . I n ot h er w ords, f or w aiver, R o d r ig u e z ’ “c o u n s e l [m u s t h a v e k n o w n ] o f th e . . . is s u e a n d . . . c o n s c io u s ly c h o s e [n ] to fo r e g o it” . Id . For t h e i n vi t ed-er ror doctr i n e t o app l y, defen da n t(or h is co u n s e l) m u s t h a v e in d u c e dth e e r r o r . G ree n , 2 7 2 F .3 da t 7 5 4 . A tr es ent enc i ng, af

t ers ent enc e w as i m pos ed, R odr i guez s t at ed he w as c o nf us e d a bo utt hatg r e at e rs e nt e nc e . I n do i ng s o , he q ue s t i o ne d ho w , i n t he lig h t o f th e G o v e r n m e n t’s p le a -a g r e e m e n t brea chat th e first se n te n c in g , h e co u ld n ow rec eive a greatersen t en ce. In respond i n g, the cou rtexpl ai n ed to R odri gu ez t he pr o c e s s i tha d f

o l l o w e d; a nd, a f

t e rs t at i ng i tw as w i t hi n t he s c o pe o f o ur court ’ s r e m andm and at e a s t he di s t r i c tc o ur tund e r s t o o d it , t he c o ur ta sked Rodr i gue z ’c o uns e li f he ha d “ anyar gum e nton t he m and at e ” . C o uns e lr e pl i e d: Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

6 Jud ge , he w as o r de r e d ar e - s e nt e nc i ng. And f r o m t he l oo ks of i t , you have do ne, yo u have w entt hro ugh t hat f il ee xt e ns ively. W e reurged [ pri or c ou n sel ’ s] obj ect i on s, w hi c h wer e ex t e ns ive ; a nd y o u ha ve j us ts um m e d up e x a c tlyw h a t y o u ju s t d id . T h e G overnm en tm ai n t ai n s c ou n sel ’ s r epl y constit u t es w aiver or i n vi t ed error . B u t , t h at repl y, m ad e aft er i m posi t i on of sentence, does not s h ow coun sel kn ew of t h e potenti al vi n di ct iven ess i ssue an d c h ose i n t en t i on al l y t o reli n qu i sh it (w a iv e r). A n d , c e r ta in ly , s e n te n c e h a v in ga lr e a d yb e e n im p o s e d , th e re p lyd id n o t in d u c e t h e c l a im e de r r o r(in v ite de r r o r). A c c o r d in g ly , th e cla im e de r r o ris r e v ie w a b le . b. N e ve r t he l e s s , b e c aus e Rod r i gue z fai l ed t o o bj e c ti n di s t r i c tc o ur to n t he b a s is o f v in d ic tiv e n e s s (fo r fe ite de r r o r), re v ie w is o n lyfo rp la in e r r o r . E . g. , Un itedS ta tes v. S co tt , 48 F . 3d 1389, 1398 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) (c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. V on t st een , 9 50 F. 2d1 08 6, 1 08 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 2) (en ba nc ) ) . (The G o ve r nm e nt st ates, an d i n h i s repl y bri ef R odri gu ez ackn ow l edg es, t h at such f orf ei t ed error r e s ul t s i n pl ai n- e r r o rr e vi e w . Of c o ur s e , w e , no tt h e pa r t i e s , de t e r m i ne o ur stan d a rdof rev ie w . E . g. , V on t st een , 9 50 F. 2da t1 09 1 ( “ Butno pa r t y has t he pow er t o co n tro l ou r stan d a rd o f rev i ew . Arev i ew i n g co u rt m a y rej ect bo th p a r tie s ’a p p r o a c h to th e s ta n d a r d .” (e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l)).) To es t ab l i s h re ve r s ibl e pl ai n er r o r , R o dr i gue z m us ts ho w : a n errorw as com m i t t ed; i tw as c le aro ro bv i o us ; an d, i taf fect ed h i s su b sta n tia l righ ts . E . g. , Un itedS tate s v. B ak er , 538 F. 3d 324, 332 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. T h ompson , 4 5 4 F .3 d4 5 9 , 4 6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 962 ( 20 09 ) ) . Eve n if

r e ve r s ibl e pl ai n e r r o ri s e s t ab l i s he d, w e r e t ai n di scr et i on w he t he rt o c o r r e c ti ta nd, g e ne r all y, w i l ld o so on l y i f i ts e r i o us l y af

fe c t s t he fa ir n e s s , 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 . I d. Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

7 2 . In su p p ort of his vind i ctive n ess cl a i m , R od ri gu ez con ten d s: pu rsu a n t t o Nort h Carol i n a v. Pearce , 395 U . S. 711 ( 1969) , a presumpti on of vi n di ct iven ess ap pl i es t o hi s s en t en ce; or, al t erna t ivel y, t h e re w as ac t ualvi n di ct iven ess. For t h e reasons t h at f

ol l ow , t h ere w as no e r r o r . Ac c ordi n gl y, tha te nds o urpl ai ne r r o rr e v i e w. a. Pearce h e ld a p r e s u m p tio n o f v in d ic tiv e n e s s a r is e s w h e n , a fte ran e w tr ia l, a ju d g e s e n te n c e s ad e fe n d a n t t o a h a r s h e rs e n te n c e . Id . a t 7 2 3 -2 4 ; seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. R ese n d ez -Men d ez , 251 F. 3d 514, 517 n. 6 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) ( appl yi ng Pearce r ul e t o r es ent enc i ng c ont ext , w her e ne w s ent enc e i m pos ed by j udge w ho i m pos ed o r i gi nals ent enc e (c i t i ng Un itedS ta tes v. Ca mp b ell , 106 F. 3d 64, 67 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) ) ) . A ti ssue h ere i s w h et h er t h at pres u m pti on app l i es w h en a d iff er en t j u dge of th e s a m e c o u rt i m poses t h e new sentence. In h is o p e n in ga n dre p lyb r ie fs h e r e , R o d r ig u e z a s s e r te dt h i s i s s u e is c ont r ol l ed by Un i t ed S t ate s v. Floyd , 5 1 9 F .2 d 1 0 3 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 5 ), w h ic h h e ld th e p r e s u m p tio n a p p lie s in th is s itu a tio n . T h e G o v e r n m e n t c o u n te r e dth a t, in th e li g h t of Texa s v . Mc Cul lough , 4 7 5 U .S . 1 3 4 (1 9 8 6 ), Floy d i s no l on ger good l aw. At o r al ar gum e nt , Rodr i gue z ’c o uns e lc o nc e de d Mc Cul lo ugh c o nt r o l s , b ut urge d ourc r i t i c i zi ng Mc C ul lough as hav i n g st rayedfr om t h e pri n ci pl es anno unc e d i n Pearce . O f course, coun sel ’ s r equ estt h at w e cr i t i ci ze Mc Cul lo ugh i s r ej e c t e d; sim i l a rl y, w e d o n ot rely on cou n sel’ s con cess i on tha t Floy d has be e n o ve r r ul e d. Bec aus e o urc o ur t has ne ve r r e nde r e d t hat ho l di ng, w e m us ti ns t e adund e r t ak e an i n dep en den tan al ysi s t o deter m i n e Floyd ’ s val i di t y velnon . A s i s w el lkno w n, “ a pa ne lo f t hi s c o ur tc an o nl y o ve r r ul e apr i o rpanel d e c is io n if [, in tera lia , ] ‘ s uc h o ve r r ul i ng i s une quivo c all y di r e c t e d byc o nt r o l l i ng S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t’”. Mart in v . Medtron i c, I n c. , 25 4 F . 3 d57 3 , 57 7 ( 5 th Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

8 Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q uo t i ng Un i t e d St at e s v . Zuniga - Sal i nas , 94 5 F . 2 d13 0 2 , 13 0 6 ( 5 th C i r. 199 1) ) . T h eref

ore, at i ssue i s w h et h er Mc Cul lo ugh “ e x p lic itlyo rim p lic itly ov erru l [ed]” Floyd . Un i t ed S t ate s v. S h ort , 1 8 1 F .3d 6 2 0 , 6 2 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). F o rth a t a n a ly s is , ar e v i e w o f th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s e x te n s iv e ju d ic ia lvi n di ct iven ess j u ri sprud en ce i s requ i red. Th e sem i n alcase i s Nor t h Caro l i na v. Pearce , rend ered i n 196 9. Th ere, t h e C ou rtconsi dered tw o consol i da t ed cases. S ee 39 5 U . S. a t 7 1 3 . In th e fir s t, d e fe n d a n t w a s co n v ic te da n ds e n te n c e db yt h e t r ia l ju d g e . I d. H e s uc c e s s f

ul l y c hall e nge d hi s c o nvi c t i o n i n as t at e po s t - c o nvi c t i o n pr o c e e di ng a n dw a s re tr ie d , co n v ic te d , a n dg iv e n ag r e a te rs e n te n c e b yth e t r ia l ju d g e . I d. ( O f greati m portan ce to our an al ysi s, an d alt h ou gh i tw as n o t m e n tio n e din Pe arc e , itw as no t e d 1 7 ye ar s l at e ri n T exasv. Mc C ul lough , 475 U . S. 134, 140 n. 3, i s t hatt hi s f

i r s tc as e i n Pearce“ ap pa rently i n volveddi f ferent j u dg es pr e s i di ng o ve r t he t w o t r i al s ” . As d i s c us s e d i nf ra , th e r e b e in gtw o ju d g e s in th is f i r s tc as e i n Pearce w as a ba s i s f o rt hi s c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Floydi n 197 5, w h i ch pr e da t e d Mc C ul lough (1 9 8 6 ). Floyda l s o i n v o lv e dt wo j u d g e s , a n dt h e b e l o wde s c r ibe d p r e s um pt i o n o f v i ndi c t ive ne s s a do pt e d i n Pearce w a s im p o s e din Floyd .) I n t he se c o nd c as e co ns i de r e d i n Pearce , de fen d a n t ple ad ed gu i l ty and w as s e n te n c e d . Id . a t 71 4 . H i s p l ea an d s e n te n c e w ere set asid e in a state p ostc o nvi c t i o n pr o c e e di ng; he w as t r i e d, c o nvi c t e d, a nd give n a g r e at e rs e nt e nc e (t he Pearce Cour tdi d n o t spe c i f y w het hert he j udge w ho ac c ept ed t he gui l t y pl ea w as th e ju d g e w h o s u b s e q u e n tlytr ie da n dre s e n te n c e dth is d e fe n d a n t). Id . B o th d e fe n d a n ts p u r s u e dfe d e r a l h ab eas rel i ef, ch al l en gi n g t h ei r great er s e n te n c e s . Id . a t 7 1 3
- 1 4 . Th e S u p r e m e Co u r t r ej e c t e d c l a i m s t h a t e i t h e r“ t he d ou b l e j eo p a rd y p rov i sion [or] th e E q u a lP rotection C l a u se im p ose s an ab solu te b a rt o a m o r e s e v e r e s e n te n c e u p o n re c o n v ic tio n ”. Id . at7 23 . On t he o t he rha nd, i t w a s ob viou s to the C ou rt t h a t du e p roce ss of la w forb i d s i m p ositi on of “a Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

9 h eaviersentence up on every rec on vi ct ed d efen da n tf or t h e expl i ci tpu rpose of pun i s hi ngt he d e fe nd a ntf o rh i s ha v i ngs uc c e e d e di n g e t t i ngh i s o r i g i nal c o n v ic tio n s e t a s id e ”. Id . a t 7 2 3 -2 4 . T h e C ou rt w en t f

u rt h er, h ow ever, an d hel d: n ot on l y d o es ac t ual vi ndi c t ive ne s s v i o l at e duepr o c e s s , b uta l s o , t he “ ap pr e he ns i o n o f s uc h a r e ta lia to r ym o ti v a t i o n o n th e p a r t o f th e s e n te n c in gju d g e ” d o e s s o a s w e ll, becau se “t h e fear of such vindic t iven ess m a y u n constit u t i on al l y deter” d e fe n d a n ts fr o m e x e r c is in ga n yrig h ts to a p p e a l a n dco lla te r a l a tt a c k . Id . at725. T h eref ore, t h e C ou rtadop t ed a p roph yl act i c r u l e, hol di n g a presu m p t i on of vi n di ct iven ess ap pl i es w h en defen da n trec eives a greatersentence af t er a new tr ia l, u n less : t he sent enc i ng c our taf f i r m at ively st at es obj ec t ive r eas ons f ort hat s e n te n c e ; a n d , th o s e rea son s ar e b a sedu p on“in form a tionco n c e r n in gid e n tifia b le c onducton t he par tof t he def endan t oc cu rri ng af t ert he t i m e o f

t he o r i gi nal s e n te n c in gp r o c e e d in g”. I d. at726. A f e w ye ar s af

t er Pearce w as rend ered i n 196 9, t h e Su prem e C ou rt n a r r o w e dth e a p p lic a tio n o f th is b r o a d p r e s u m p tio n o f v in d ic tiv e n e s s . Col t e n v. K e nt ucky , 4 0 7 U .S . 1 0 4 (1 9 7 2 ), co n s id e r e d w h e th e rth e p r e s u m p tio n s h o u ld ap pl y i n t h e contextof K en t u cky’ s t w o- t i er c ri m i n alcourtsyst em : i n feri or courts of

l i m i t ed j u ri sdi ct i on , w h ich a dj u di cat ed m i sdem ean ors; an d those of g e n e r a l cr im in a l ju r is d ic tio n . Id . a t 1 1 2 . K e n tu c k yla w p r o v id e d th a t, if d e fe n d a n t e le c te dto d o s o , h e co u ldo b ta in atr ia l d e novo i n t h e l att er af t er c o n v ic tio n in th e fo r m e r . Id . D e fe nda nti n Col t e n w as se nt e nc e d t o af i ne i n t he in fe r io rco u r t; h e e le c te dto h a v e atr ia l de no vo i n t h e gen eral

-j u ri sdi ct i on court a n d rece ive d a gr ea ter fi n e. Id . a t1 0 8 . H e cla im e d , in tera lia , hi s s en t en ce s h o u ldb e p r e s u m e dv in d ic tiv e . Id . T h e C o u r t d is a g r e e d . I t “ n o t[e d ] fir s t t h e o b v io u s ”: th e g e n e r a lj uri sdi c t i on c our tw as a d iff er en t co u rt t h an t h e i n feri or c o u rt— “n ott h e court w i t h whos e w o r k [ de fe nda nt] w as s uf f i c i e nt l y di s s at i s f

i e d t o s e e k adif

fe r e nt Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

10 r e s ul to n appe al ; and . . . nott he co ur tt hati s a s ke d t o do o ve rw hati tt ho ugh t it h a da lr e a d yd o n e co r r e c tly ”. Id . at 116- 17. M oreover, t h e gen eral

-j u ri sdi ct i on c o u r t w a s n o t “ e v e n a s k e dto fin de r r o rin a n o th e rco u r t’s w o r k ”. Id . at 11 7. The C o u r t a ls o n o te d :

Itm ay of

t en be t h at t h e sup eri or c o u rtw i l li m pose a puni s hm e ntm o r e s e ve r e t han t hatrec e ive d f r o m t he i nferi or co ur t . Buti tno m o r e f o l l o w s t hats uc h a sentence is a v i n di ct ive pen al t y f or s eeking a sup eri or c o ur tt r i alt han t h att he i nfe r i o rc o ur ti m po s e d a le n ie n t p e n a lty . T h e tr ia l d e novo re presents a com pl et el y f

resh determ i n ati on of gu i l tor i n n ocence. I d. U n der t h ose c i rcum st an ces, “[t] h e possi bi l i ty of vi n d i ct i veness , f

ou n dto e xi s ti n Pearce , [w a s] n ot in h er en t in th e K e n tu c k ytw o -tie rs y s te m ”. Id . at116 ( em ph asi s ad ded ) . T h eref ore, t h e Pearce p r o p h y la c tic r u le w a s n o t re q u ir e d . I d. at118- 19. N o tl o ng af

t e r , i n C h aff

in v. Stync hco m be , 4 12 U . S. 1 7 ( 19 73 ) , t he p r e s u m p tio n ’ s re a c h w a s re s tr ic te dfu r th e r . Chaf f i n a d d r e s s e da circu i t spli t: w he t he rt he v i ndi c t ive ne s s pr e s um pt i o n a ppli e d when, f ol l ow i ng s uc c e s s f

ul appealorc ol l at er alat t ac k, a j u ry , r at hert han a j udge , im p o sed a greater s e n te n c e a fte r r e tr ia l. S ee id . a t 2 1 . I n Ch affi n , de fe nda ntw as c o nvi c t e d a nd s e n te n c e db ya j u r y ; h i s co n v ic tio n w a s a ffir m e d . I d. a t 1 8 -1 9 . H e rec eived fe d e r a l h ab eas r e lie f (r e tr ia l). Id . at19. O n re t r i albe f or e anew j udge and j ury, d e fe n d a n t r e c e iv e da g r e a te rs e n te n c e fr o m th e ju r y . Id . D efen da n tapp eal ed u n s u c c e s s fu llya n dth e n a g a in s o u g h t fe d e r a l h ab eas r e lie f, c l a im in gh is s e n te n c e s h o u ldb e p r e s u m e dv in d ic tiv e . Id . at20. The Cour tr e as o ne d t hatt he pr e s um pt i o n e xi s t s t o pr o t e c ta ga i ns tt he possibi l i t y of

vi n di ct iven ess; t h eref ore, t h e circum st an ces of res en t en ci n g m u st b e e x a m in e dto d e te r m in e w h e th e rt h e yc a r r ys u c h a n in h e r e n t th r e a t. Id . at26- 2 7 . If n o t, th e r e w a s n o re a s o n to a p p lyth e p r e s u m p tio n . Id . Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

11 T h e C ou rthel d sen t en ci n g by a j u ry does not c arry su ch a th re a tof vin d i ctive n ess . Itre a s on ed a juryw ou l dn ot (shou l dnot) kn ow of t h e pri or sentence; w oul d havenoin st i t u t i on ali n t eresti n di scouragi n g m eri t l ess ap pea l s; and w as nott he “ sa m e j udi c i alaut hor i t y w hos e handl i ng of t he pri ort r i alw as s uf f i c i e nt l y unac c e pt ab l e t o hav e r e quir e d a r e ve r s al o f t he c o nvi c t i o n. Thus , t he j ur y, unl i ke t he j udg e w ho ha s b e e n r e ve r s e d, w i l lha ve no per s o nalst ak e i n t he p r io rco n v ic tio n a n dn o m o tiv a tio n to e n g a g e in s e lf-v in d ic a tio n ”. Id . a t 2 7 . O ve rt he ne xt 11 y e ar s , t he Cour tc o ns i de r e d pro s e c ut o r i alvi n di ct iven ess s e v e r a l tim e s . S ee B lackle dge v . Perr y , 4 1 7 U .S . 2 1 (1 9 7 4 ); B or denki r c herv. Hayes , 4 3 4 U .S . 3 5 7 (1 9 7 8 ); Un ited S ta te s v . G o o d w in , 4 5 7 U .S . 3 6 8 (19 8 2 ); T h ig p en v. R o b er ts , 4 68 U . S. 2 7 ( 19 84 ) . I n B o r d e n k ir c h e r, 43 4 U . S. at3 63 , t he C o u r t s u m m a r iz e dits v in d ic tiv e n e s s p r e c e d e n ts th r o u g h its fir s t p r o s e c u to r ia lvi ndi c t ive ne s s de c i s i o n i n B lackle dge v. Perr y : T h e C ou rtha s em ph asi zed th a tt h e du e process vi ol ati on i n cases such a s Pearce and Perr y la yn o t in t h e possibi l i t y t h at a defen da n tm i gh tb e deter red f rom t h e exerci se of a l egal ri gh t , see Col t e n v. K e nt ucky , 407 U .S . 1 0 4 ; Chaf

f i n v. S tyn chco m be , 4 12 U . S. 1 7, b ut r at he ri n t he dang e rt hatt he St at e m i ghtb e r e t ali at i ng a g a in s t t h e a c c u s e dfo rla w fu llya tt a c k in gh is c o n v ic tio n . S ee B lackle dge v. Perr y , 417 U . S. at26- 28. G o o dw i n e xp l ai ne d f ur t he rt he r e as o n f

o rt he pr e s um pt i o n: B ot h Pearce and B lackle dge in v o lve dth e d e fen d a n t ’s ex ercise of a p roce d u ra lri gh t t h a t cau sed a co m p l ete r e t r i ala f

t e rhe ha d b e e n o nc e t r i e d a nd c o nvi c t e d. The de c i s i o ns i n t he s e c as e s r e f l e c tar e c o gni t i on b y t he C ou rtof

t h e i n st i t u t i on al bi as i nhere nti n t he j udi c i al s ys t e m a ga i ns tt he r e t r i alo f i s s ue s t hatha ve a l r e ad y b e e n d e cid e d . T h e d o ctr in e s of sta red ec isis , res j u di cat a, t h e la w of t h e case, an d d ou bl e j eopa rdy are al lbased, at l east i n part, on th a t deep

- seated bi as. W h i l e no n e of th ese d octrine s b a rred th e retri a ls in Pearce and B lack le dge , t h e sam e i n st i t u t i on alpressure th a t su p p orts th em m i gh t also su b con sciou sly m otiva te Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

12 a v ind i ct ive prosecutor i alor j u di ci alres pon se t o a d e fen d a n t’ s e x e rc ise of h is rig h t to o b ta in a re tria l of a de c i de d q ue s t i o n. 45 7 U . S. a t 3 7 6 -7 7 (em p h a sis a d d e d). I n t he s e pr o s e c ut o r i al

- vi ndi c t ive ne s s de c i s i o ns , t he Cour t ar t i c ul at e d t he r eas onabl e- l i kel i hood- of

- vi ndi c t ivenes s st andard i n pl ay here . F orex am pl e, 16 m o nt hs b e f

o r e o urc o ur t ’ s 1 97 5 de c i s i o n i n Floyd , t he Cour ts t at e d i n B lack le dge :
“ T h e l e s s o n t h a te me r g e s f r o m Pearce , Col t en , a nd Ch affi n i s t hatt he D ue P roces s C l au se i s not of fen ded b y al lp ossibi l i t i es of increased pu n i shm en tup on r et r i alaf

t erappeal, b u t on l y by t hos e t hatpos e a r e al i s t i cl i ke l i ho o d of

‘vi ndi c t ive ne s s ’” . 41 7 U . S. a t 27 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . Si m i l ar l y, i n G o o d w in , t he C o u r t st a te d : “G iv e n th e s e v e r ity o f s u c h a p r e s u m p tio n [o f v in d ic tiv e n e s s ,] . . . t he C our thas [i m pos ed it] only i n ca ses i n w hi c h a reasona ble l i kel i h oodof vi ndi c t ive ne s s e xi s t s ” . 45 7 U . S. at 37 3 ( e m pha s i s ad de d) . And, i n G o o d w in , t he C o u r tr e a f

f i r me di t s e a r l i e rs t a t e me n to f t h e l a w f

r o m B lack le dge : “As B lackle dge m a k e s cle a r , ‘th e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e is n o to ffe n d e db ya ll pos sibi l i t i es of

i ncr eas ed puni shm ent. . . bu tonl y by t hos e t hatpos e a re a listic l i kel i h ood of

vi n d i ct i veness ’”. 4 57 U . S. at384 ( quot i ng B lack le dge , 417 U . S. at 27 ) (o m i s s i o n i n G o o d w in ) (e m p h a s is a d d e d). Foll o w i ng t he 1 97 3 de c i s i o n i n Ch affi n , j u di ci alvi n di ct iven ess w as not a d d r e s s e da g a in u n til T exasv. Mc C ul lough , 4 7 5 U. S . 1 3 4 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . A s n o t e d , we m u std eci de w h et h er Mc Cul lo ugh o ve r r ul e d o urc o ur t ’ s 1 97 5 de c i s i o n i n Floyd , di s c us s e d i nf

ra . Mc C ul lough add ress ed w h et h er t h e Pearcepresum pti on app l i ed w h e re: a j u ryi m p ose dthe i n i ti a ls e n te n ce; b eca u se o f p rose cu torialm i scon d u ct, h ow ever, t h e tri alj u dg e gran t ed a n ew t ri al ; up on ret ri albef ore t h e sam e j u dg e, de fe nda nta s ke d t hatt he j udge , r at hert han t he j ury, i m pos e s ent enc e; and t hat j udg e i m po s e d ag r e at e rse nt e nc e t han hadt he j ur y f o rt he f i r s tt r i al . 47 5 U . S. Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 12 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

13 at 136. Th e j u dg e, on d efen da n t ’ s m ot i on , m ad e f i n di n gs of

facton w h y h er s e n te n c e w a s g r e a te r . Id . N o tin gth a t “v in d ic tiv e n e s s o f as e n te n c in gju d g e is th e e v il th e C o u r t [in Pearce] sough tt o preven trat h er th a n si m pl y en l argedsentences af t er a new tr ia l”, id . a t 1 3 8 , Mc C ul lough he l d t he pr e s um pt i o n i n a p p lic ab l ef o rth e f o l l o w i ng t hr e e r e as o ns . Fi r s t , t he t r i alj udg e ha d o r de r e d t he ne w t r i al ; t he r e f o r e , s he

“h ad ‘ n o m ot ivati on t o eng a g e in self

- vi n di cat i on ’” , becau se s h e ha d n otbeen r e v e r s e d . Id . at139 ( quot i ng Ch affi n , 4 1 2 U .S . a t 2 7 ). S e c o n d , it w a s u n lik e ly t h at th e great er s en t en ce aros e fro m a d e si re t o di ssuad e defen da n t s f rom r e q u e s tin gn e w tr ia ls . Id . And, t hi r d, “ dif fe r e nts e nt e nc e r s a s s e s s e d t he v ar yi ng s e n te n c e s ”. Id . a t 1 4 0 . Fort hi s t hi r d r e as o n, t he Cour t l o o ke d t o t he t w o - t i e rs ys t e m i n Col t en , f or wh i c h t he p r e s u m p t i o n o f v i n d i c t iv e n e s s h a db e e n h e l dn o ta p p l i c a b l e . As f ur t he rs upp o r t , i tn ot e d: “ H e r e [i n Mc C ul lough ] , t h e sec on d sen t en cer pr o vi de [ d] a n o n- t he

- r e c o r d, w hol l y l o gi c al , no nvi ndi c t ive r e as o n f o rt he s e nt e nc e . W e r e ad Pearce t o requi re no m ore[ , ] parti cu la rlys ince t ri alj u dg es m u s t b e a c c o r d e d b r o a d d is c r e tio n in s e n te n c in g”. Id . (c i t i ng W asm an v. Un i t ed S ta te s , 4 6 8 U .S . 5 5 9 , 5 6 3 -6 4 (19 8 4 )) . M ore o ve r , r e ga r di ng t hi s t hi r d r e as o n ( dif fe r e nts e nt e nc e r s ) , t he Cou rt c l ar i f i e d a po i nt t hat “ha[ d] l e d s o m e c o ur t s t o c o nc l ude by i m pl i c at i o n t hatt he presum pti on o f

vi ndic t ive ne s s a ppli e s e ve n wher edif f e r e nts e nt en ci n g j u dg es are in v o lv e d ”. Id . at 140 n . 3. T h e C ou rt st ated t h at such concl u si on (w h i ch w as al so r e ac he d e ar l i e ri n Floyd , di s c us s e d i nf ra) had r es ul t ed f

r om t he fac t t hat , as no t e d sup ra , t he f

i r s tcase i n Pearce“ ap pa rently i n volveddi f ferent j u dg es p r e s id in go v e rth e tw o tr ia ls ”. Id . T h e C ou rtnoted t h e Pearceopi n i on ha d n ot a d d r e s s e dth a t p o in t; a c c o r d in g ly , McC ul lough “ de c l i ne [ d] t o r e ad Pearceas g o v e r n in gth is is s u e ”. Id . Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 13 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

14 The Cour t l as ta ddr e s s e d j udi c i alv i ndi c t ive ne s s i n A la b a m av. S m ith , 490 U . S . 794 ( 198 9) . Th ere, af t er p lea d ingg u ilty , d e fe n d a n t w a s s e n te n c e d . Id . at 7 9 5 -9 6 . H e a p p e a le d a n d w a s g r a n te datr ia l. Id . at 79 6. T h at tr i alw as bef ore th e ju d g e w h o h a da c c e p te dth e e a r lie rg u iltyp le a . Id . A t tr ia l, t h e v ic tim g a v e g r a p h ict e s tim o n y . Id . D e fe nda ntw as c o nvi c t e d, a n dth e ju d g e im p o s e da g r e a t e rs e n te n c e . Id . T h e ju d g e e x p la in e dth a t h is doi n g so w as b a sed on evi den ce att ri alof w h i ch h e ha d been un aw are w h en im p o s in gth e fir s t s e n te n c e (p u r s u a n t t o th e g u iltyp le a ). Id . a t 79 6 -97. D efen da n tapp eal ed, contending h i s s en t en ce w as du e t h e Pearce v in d ic tiv e n e s s p r e s u m p tio n . Id . a t 7 9 7 . T h e s ta te s u p r e m e co u r t a g r e e d . Id . T h e Su prem e C ou rtgran t ed rev i ew “[b ]ecau se o f th e con flic ti n g re su l ts reached by the l ow er c ou rt s on t h e qu est i on w h et h er t h e Pearce presum pti on of vi ndi c t ive ne s s appli e s w he n as e nt e nc e i m po s e d after tria l i s gr eat ert han t hat pr e vi o us l y i m po s e d aft er a gu i l ty plea”. Id . at 798 ( em ph asi s ad ded ) . T h e C ou rt den i ed ap pl i cat i on of t h e p re su m pti on an d, i n doi n g so, parti al l y overt u rned Pe a r c e . Id . at8 01
- 02 . (As n o t e d s upra , Pea rce consi st ed of t w o consol i da t ed ca ses . T h e latter w a s fa ctu a l l y sim i l a r to t hatbef or e t he C our t ; t her ef or e, t hat p o rtio n of Pearce w a s o v e rr u led .) T h e C ou rthel d: w h ere a gu i l t y pl ea i s successf u l l y ap pea l ed an d f

ol l ow ed byat r i al , a hi ghe rs e nt e nc e s ho ul d n otb e pr e s um e d v i ndi c t ive , b e c aus e t he i n crease i s m u ch m ore l i kely t o be the res u l tof i n creased i n f

orm ati on presented to t h e ju d g e , r a th e rt h a n b a s e do n v in d ic tiv e n e s s . Id . U t i l i zi n g t h e reasonab l el i ke l i ho o d s t and ar d f i r s ta nno unc e d i n B lack le dge , 417 U . S . at 27, t h e C ou rt em ph asi zed that t h e Pearce presum pti on app l i es on l y w h ere t he r ei s a reaso nab lel i ke l i ho o d th a t t h e in c r e a s e in se n te n ce is th e p ro d u c t of act u al vi n d i ct i veness o n t he p a r t o f th e s e n te n c in ga u th o r ity . W h eret h erei s no such r e as o nab lel i ke l i ho o d, t heb ur de n re m ai ns upo n t he d ef end an tt o prove act u al vi n d i ct i veness . Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 14 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

15 Id . a t 7 9 9 -8 0 0 (in te r n a l cit a tio n s a n dq u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). i. A g a in s t t h e b a c k d r o p o f th is S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t , w e tu r n to th is c o ur t ’ s s pl i t - pa ne lde c i s i o n i n Uni t e d St at e s v . Floyd , 519 F . 2d 103 1 ( 5th C i r. 197 5) , w h i ch pre- da t ed a great dealof t h e C ou rt ’ s vi n di ct iven ess deci si on s, i ncl udi ng Mc C ul lough ( 1 9 8 6 ). Floydc o ns i de r e d whethe rthePearcepresum pti on appl i es w hen a s e c o ndju d g e , af t e r t r i al , i m pos es a g r eat ers ent enc e t han t hat im p o s e db yafir s t ju d g e , aft er a gu i l ty plea . Id . at 1032. Th at i ssue w as j oi n ed by tw o great , f

orm er j u dg es (l ater , ch i ef j u dg es) on ou r c ou rt : Jud ge C h arl es C l a rk , w ri ti n g f

or t h e m aj ority; a n d J u d ge J a m es P l em on C olem a n , i n dissen t. D efen da n tpl ead ed gu i l t y an d w as sentenced byt h e j u dg e w h o acc epted t he pl e a. Bec aus e t hat j udg e had no t ad vi s e d d e fe nda nta bo uta n a s pe c to f t he se nt e nc e p r i o rt o a c c e p t i ngt he p l e a , h o wev e r , h e g r a nt e dd e fe nd a nt ’ s § 2 2 55 m ot i on an d w i t h drew the gu i l t y pl ea; a n d defenda n treceiveda j u ry t ri albef ore a dif ferent j u dg e. D efen da n tw as foun d gu i l t y an d receiveda g reat er s en t en ce th a n th a t im p o s e do n h is g u iltyp le a . Id . at1032. Ats e nt e nc i ng, t he s e c o nd j udg e st at e d t hat , i n a ddit i o n t o r e vi e w i ng t he presentence i n vest i gati on report , he h ad t al ked w i t h coun selan d the proba t i on off i cer. B u t, the j u d ge stated h e h a dad m on i sh ed the m tha t he “did n ot w a n t t o kn ow an ythi n g abou tt h e circum st an ces i n conn ect i on w i t h [t h e w i t h draw n ] pl ea bef ore an ot h er j u dge i n t h i s c ou rt”. Id . at1033 ( em phasi s added) . At se nt enc i ng, th e s e c o n dju d g e a ls o s ta te dh e w a s b a s in gth e s e n te n c e , a s h e h a d“d o n e in s im ila rca s e s in th e p a s t” , so le lyo n th e o ffe n s e a n de v id e n c e . Id . In r e v i e w in gS u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t, Floydn oted corre ctl y th a t,

“ [ a] bsen tvi n di ct iven ess or t h e possib i l i ty of vi n d i ct i veness , m ore s evere s e n te n c e s im p o s e d fo llo w in g r e c o n v ic tio n a r e c o n s tit u tio n a llyv a lid ”. Id . (c i t i ng Ch affi n , 4 1 2 U .S . a t 2 9 ; Col t en , 4 0 7 U .S . a t 1 1 6 ; Pearce , 395 U . S. at723) Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 15 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

16 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). Floydth e n n o te dth a t, “B lackle dge [in 1 9 7 4 ] . . . m o s t r e c e n tly r e af f i r m e d t hi s pr i nc i pl e ” ; a nd itne xtq uo t e d t he a bo ve - des c r ibe d, r e s ul t i ng
“ r e al i s t i c l i ke l i ho o d o f ‘vi ndi c t iv e n e s s ’”s t a n d a r dd e v e l o pe d i n Pearce, Col t en , a nd Ch affi n . Id . ( quot i ng B lack le dge , 4 1 7 U .S . a t 2 7 ). If s u c h “r e a lis tic lik e lih o o d ” e x is ts , Floydackn ow l edg ed the abov edi s c us s e d Pearce st andard r egar di ng th e se nt enc i ng- j udge- st at ed o bj ec t ive r e a s o n s th a t w o u ldp e r m it t h e g r e a te rs e n te n c e . Id . R efl ectingthe ex trem ely c ar e f ula nalys i s e m pl o ye d i n Floyd , t he m aj o r i t y o pi ni o n t he n ad dressed t he abov e- di scussed fact or n o t ad dr e s s e d i n Pearce : “t hatt he s e c o nd s e nt e nci ng ju d g e . . . w a s ad iffe r e n t ju d g e fr o m th e fir s t” . Id . at1 03 4. (As d i s c us s e d sup ra , t hi s t w o -j udg e s - i n- Pearcep o in t w a s a c k n o w le d g e dte n y e a r s l a t e rin Mc C ul lough .) Floy d con traste d a n y prior-sen ten ce kn ow l ed ge of th e secon d ju d g e in Floy d w i t h t hato f

t he s e c o nd j udg e i n Pearce , not i ng t hat , i n Floyd , “t he s e c o nd

. . . af f i rm ativel y avoided kn ow l edg e of t h e ori gi n alsentence. Su ch l ack of k n o w led g e is clea rlyp ro b a tiv e of a n a b se n ce of act u al vi n d i ct i veness ”. I d. ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Of c o u r s e , t h e r e b e i n g n o a c t u a l v i n d i c t iv e n e s s d i d n o te nd Floyd ’ s in q u iry ; it m o v e dto a p p li ca tio n of th e re a so n a b le-lik e lih o o d -ofv in d ic tiv e n e s s s ta n d a r d . T h e m ajo r ityo p in io n ’ s p a i n stak i n g, in sigh tfu l a n a ly s is i s r e f l e c t e d i n ho w i tf

r am e d t he q ue s t i o n: H o w e v e r , th e b r o a d e rq u e s tio n w e fa c e is w h e th e r , in a n dof i tself, su ch i n ten ti on a li n su l a ti on (tog eth er w i th th e j u dg e’ s i n dep en den tbasi s f or hi s m ore s evere se nt enc e) s o ne gat es t he pos sibi l i t y of vi ndi c t ivenes s as t o r enderu nnece ss ar y Pearce ’ s pr o phy l ac t i c s ho w i ng t h at s u bsequ en tcon du ctw as the basi s f or the i n crease. Id . at1034. A fte rca r e fu l a n a ly s is o f th e e x is tin gp r e c e d e n t, Floydhel d the Pearce p r e s u m p tio n a p p lie d . Id . I n do i ng s o , t e n y e ar s b e f o r e i t s b e i n g n ot e d b y t he S u pre m e Cour ti n Mc C ul lough , t h e Floy d c o ur to bs e r ve d: “ The m e ani ng of Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 16 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

17 Pearce f or t oda y’ s c ase m u st ta k e in to a cc o u n t t hatt he s ec ond s ent enc i ng j udge i n Pearcew as a di f

fere n tj u dg e f

rom t h e f

i rstsentenci n g j u dg e”

— a factnot m e nt i o ne d i n Pearce , b u t cle a r fr o m th e u n d e r ly in g s ta te c o u r to p i n i o n . Id . at 1034 n. 5 (c i t i ng S t atev. Pearce , 1 5 1 S .E .2d 5 7 1 (N .C . 1 9 6 6 )) (em p h a sis a d d e d). A s are s u lt, Floydf

ocused on “ t h e i n st i t u t i on al i n t ere st s i n volvedan d p rocedures to b e fo llo w e d”, id . (em p h asi s add ed), an d concl u ded t h at th e sam e t h reatof vi ndi c t ive ne s s pr e s e nti n Pearcew as pr e s e nti n Floyd : “T h e sam e sor tof ha zard exi st s t h at defen da n t s w i l lbe deter red i n exerci sin gth e irri gh tt o seek revi ew bec ause of

a r e as o nab leappre he ns i o n t hatj udg e s w ho w o r k t o ge t he rda i l y and m u stpresi de at each other’ s r et ri al s w il l h a v e a st ak e i n di scouragi n g such r e v ie w s ”, id . at 103 5 ( em ph asi s add ed). Th e m aj o rity v a ca t ed the sentence, bec a u se t h e requi si t e, st ated bases f or i m posi n g t h e great er s en t en ce had not b e e n p r o v id e d . Id . T h e m a tter w a s “rem a n d ed f or p roce ed i n gs con sist en t w i th Pearce”. Id . T h e di ssent f

rom ap pl yi n g th e Pearce presum pti on w as basedon concl u di n g th a t “ re sentenci n g [h ad been ] af f i rm ativel y show n t o ha ve been u tt e r lyb e r e ft o f a n y ‘ r e a lis tic lik e lih o o d o f v in d ic tiv e n e s s ’”. Id . at1036. I n t hat reg a rd , th e dissen t w a s “u n w illin gto acce p t asa m at t e rof law t h e i dea exp ress ed i n t h e m aj ori t y opi n i on t h at th ere c an be ‘ a reasona bl e app rehen si on th a t ju d g e s w h o w o r kto g e th e rd a ilya n d m u s t p r e s id e a t [e a c h ] o th e r ’ s re tr ia ls w ill h a v e as ta k e in d is c o u r a g in gs u c h re v ie w s ’”. Id . ( em ph asi s ad ded ) . I tal so fo u n dth a t a p p r e h e n s io n “w h o llyu n s u p p o r te db yth e fa c ts in [th e ] c a s e ”. Id . S i n ce Floy d w a s a n n o u n c e din 1 9 7 5 , it h a s b e e n cit e db yo u rco u r t o n ly fo u rtim e s — m o s t r e c e n tlyin 1 9 8 3 . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Henry , 709 F. 2d 298, 3 1 5 n .2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ); G a m b le v . Este lle , 5 5 1 F .2d 6 5 4 , 6 5 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 7 7 ); Ha rd w ick v. D o o litt le , 5 5 8 F .2 d 2 9 2 , 2 9 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ); D an J. Sh e e han Co. v. O c c u p a ti o n a l S afe ty a n dHe a lt h R e v ie w Co m m ’n , 5 20 F . 2d 103 6, 104 1 ( 5th C i r. 19 75 ) . N o ne o f

t he s e c as e s r e l i e d o n Floyd ’ s h o ld in g . Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 17 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

18 O u r c ou rti s boun d n otonl y by t h e resul t of an opi n i on , “bu tal so [by] t h ose p ortion s of th e opin i on n ece ssa ry to th a t resu l t . . . . ” Se m i no leTr i bev. Flo r i da , 5 1 7 U .S . 4 4 , 6 7 (1 9 9 6 ) (c ita tio n s o m itt e d). Mc C ul lough ex pressly rej ect ed p art of t h e basi s f

or Floyd ’ s r eason i n g— t h ere hav i n g been di f ferent s en t en c i ng j udg es i n Pearce . M oreover, Mc C ul lough hel d h aving dif ferent s en t en cers w as one of t h e p r i m a r y r e a s o n s t h a t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n wa s u n n e c e s s a r y . Re s t a t e d, t he p oss ib l e sa m e-cou rt i n sti tu ti on a l a n d coll eg i a l p ress u res t h a t w ere of con cern to Floy d w e r e he l d i n Mc C ul lough no tt o r e quir e t he pr e s um pt i o n. A c c o r d i n g l y , we h old, a s R od ri gu ez ’ cou n sel con ced ed a t oral arg u m en t, tha t Floydw as overrul ed by Mc Cul lo ugh . I n do i ng s o , w e j o i n o urs e ve n s i s t e rc i r c ui t s t hat , a s di s c us s e d b e l o w , do n o t ap ply t he pr e s um pt i o n when d i f fe r e ntj udg e s pr e s i de o ve rt h e f i r s ta nd s e c o n ds e n te n c in g . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. A n d ers on , 440 F . 3d 101 3, 101 6 ( 8th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (c o lle c tin gca s e s ); G o n za lezv. W o lfe , 290 F. A pp’ x 799, 813 ( 6t h C i r . 2008) (u n p u b lis h e d ), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 0 1 6 (2 0 0 9 ). S om e of t h ese c i rcui t s, h ow ever, hol d the presum pti on i s i n ap pl i cabl e i n t h i s di f ferent- sentencers s i t uat i o n o nl y i f

t he se c o nd s t at e s obj e c t ive , non- vi ndi c t ive r e as o ns f o ri m po s i ng th e g r e a te rs e n te n c e (a d d e d c o n d itio n ). S ee A n d ers on , 440 F. 3d at1016; Mac om be rv . Hanniga n , 1 5 F .3 d1 5 5 , 1 5 6 -5 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); R ock v. Zi m m e r m an , 959 F. 2d 1237, 1257 ( 3d C i r . 1992) , ov e r r ule d on ot hergrounds by B rec h tv. A brah am son , 5 0 7 U .S . 6 1 9 (1 9 9 3 ); s e eals o Uni t e d St at e s v . Ne w m an , 6 F .3 d6 2 3 , 6 3 0 -3 1 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (s e e m in gto im p o s e th e a d d e dco n d itio n ). But seeG on zalez , 2 9 0 F . A p p ’ xa t 8 1 3 ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ch eek , 3 F . 3 d10 5 7 , 10 6 4 ( 7 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Perez , 904 F . 2d 1 42, 1 46 ( 2d C i r. 199 0) . Th e Th i rd an d T en t h C i rcui t s c i t e Mc Cul lo ugh i n s upp o r t o f i m po s i ng t hi s a dde d c o ndit i o n. S ee Macom ber , 1 5 F .3 da t 1 5 7 ; R ock , 9 5 9 F .2 da t 1 2 5 7 -5 8 . Mc Cul lo ugh s t at e d, as q uo t e d s u

p r a : “ H e r e [i n Mc C ul lough ] , t he s e c o nd s e nt e nc e rpr o vi de [ d] a n o nt he

- r e c o r d, w ho l l y l o gic a l , no nvi ndi c t ive r e as o n f o rt he s e nt e nc e . W e r e ad Pearce Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 18 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

19 t o r equi r e no m or e[ , ] par t i c ul ar l y since tr i alj udges m ustbe ac c or ded br oad di sc r et i on i n se nt enc i ng” . 475 U . S. at140 (c i t i ng W as m an , 468 U . S. at563- 64) . Itm ay be tha tt h i s add ed-c on di t i o n d iffe rence of opi n i on i n t h e seven ci rcui t s ari ses, as c an h a p p e n , f rom t h e Su prem e C ou rt ’ s r epea t ed sum m ari zati on an d qu ot ati on f rom i t s vi n di ct iven e ss d e cisi on s. A n d, non e of th e s e cir c u its a d d r e s s e s th is a d d e d -c o n d itio n d iffe r e n c e o f o p in io n . A rgua bl y, t h e evolvedreasonab l e- l i kelih ood-of

- vi n di ct iven ess st an da rd n e g a te s th is a d d e dco n d itio n . S eeA la b a m av. S m ith , 490 U . S. at798- 800. N e ith e rp a r ty , h o w e v e r , h a s ra is e dth is a d d e d -c o n d itio n is s u e . S ee V on t st een , 950 F . 2d at 108 6 (h ol di n g i t i s w i t h i n our di scr et i on t o decl i n e t o consi der i ssues no tr ai s e d o n a ppe al) . I n any e ve nt , a s di s c us s e d i nf ra , be c ause t he s ec ond j udge stated m ore th a n su ff i ci en t rea son s for th e grea ter sen ten ce, w e do n ot n ee dto r e ac h t he i s s ue . I n o t he r w o r ds , e ve n as s um i ng t he ad de d c o ndit i o n i s r e quir e d, t he r ec or d am pl y de m ons t r at es t hatt he s ec ond j u d ge m ore t han f ul f i l l ed t hat c o ndi t i o n. Al o ng t hatl i ne , r e ga r dl e s s o f w he t he rt he a d d e dc o n d i t i o n i s r e quir e d, th e s e c o n dju d g e s h o u l d o b v io u s lys ta te s u c h re a s o n s . T h e ya s s is t n o t o n lyin ou r r evi ew i n g a vi n di ct iven ess cha l l en ge bu ta l so i n revi ew i n g ot h er c h al l en ges to th e s e n te n c e a s w e ll. ii. Th er ef or e, w e a r e no tbo und by Floy d t o p re su m e vi n di ct iven ess per s e . N o ne t he l e s s , a s no t e d a bo ve a nd a s a ddr e s s e d, f o re xa m pl e , i n A labam a v. S m ith , 49 0 U .S . at 799
- 800 , w e m u stst i l lconsi der w h et h er t h ere w as a r e as o nab lel i ke l i ho o d t h at th e increase i n R odri gu ez’sentence w as du e t o ac t ual v in d ic tiv e n e s s . As n o t ed, i n rem an di n g t h i s m att er, t h e pri or pan elrequi red “r e s e nt e nc i ng b e fo r e a d iffe r e n t d i s t r i c tju d g e ”. R od rigu ez , 3 06 F. App’ x at1 38
- 39 . I n do i ng so, i tst ated: “T h e rem edyof res en t en ci n g by a d iffe re n tdi st ri ctj u dg e i s not based on an y m i sst ep byt h e ori gi n alsen t en ci n g j u dg e; inst ead , itref l ect s a need Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 19 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

20 t o rem o v et het ai ntof t heo r igi nale r r o rbyt hego v e r nm e nt”

— i t s b r e ac h o f t he p le a a g r e e m e n t. Id . a t 13 9 n . 3 (em p h a sis a d d ed ). A s su p p ort f or th e d i ff

ere n tj u dg e requi rem en t , our courtcit edS an t obel lo v . New Y ork , 404 U . S. 257, 263 ( 197 1) (requ i ri n g t h at defen da n tw h o s e e ks to h ave h i s s en t en ce vacat ed f or b re a ch of ap leaag re em en t be r e sentence d b y a dif fe r e ntj udg e , t ho ught he o r i gi nalj udg e c o m m i t t e d noe r r o r) , a nd Uni t e d St at e s v . Sal i ng , 205 F. 3d 764, 7 6 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (h o ld in gs u c h ad e fe n d a n t m a ych o o s e b e tw e e n “s p e c ific per f or m ance [ of

t he pl ea a gr eem ent] , w hi c h re qui r es t hatt he s ent enc e b e v a ca ted a n d th a t th e defen d a n t b e resen ten ced b y a d i ff ere n t j u d ge ; o r. . . w i t h draw alof the gu i l t y pl ea, an d the opp ort u n i t y t o pl eadan ew , w h i ch requ i res vac at i on o f

bo t h t he convi c t i on and t he s ent enc e” (c i t i ng Un i t e dS t a t e s v . Pa lo mo , 998 F. 2d 253, 256 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) ) ) . N ee dl es s t o sa y, t hi s d i f fer ent -j udge r e quir e m e nt , b e c aus e o f br e ac h of

a pl e a ag r e e m e nt, also de c r e as e d g r e at l y t he possibi l i t y of

vi n di ct iven ess. I n addi t i on, t her e i s abs ol ut ely no evi denc e t hatt he seco nd j udge w as reasona bl y l i kely t o i m pose a vi n di ct ive sentence. R odri gu ez ha s not show n , f or ex a m p l e, som e relation sh i p be tw ee n the f i rst an dseco n dj u d ge s, o r a d esire to enf or c e de c i si ons by t hei rc our t , t hat w oul d i ndu c e t he se c ond j udge t o a c ti n t hat fas hi on. N or , as anot herex am pl e, has R odr i guez sho w n t hat t he s ec ond j udge h as som e sortof bi as a gainsth i m , incl u di n g becau se R odri gu ez show ed breach o f h i s p l e a a g r e e me n t b y t h e Go v e r n me n t . No r , a s a f i n a l e x a mp l e , h a s h e s h o wn th e s e c o n dju d g e s e e k s to d is c o u r a g e a p p e a ls . I n s ho r t , b as e d o n t hi s r e c o r d, t he r e i s no rea s o n t o t hi nk anyl i kelih ood of vi ndi c t ivenes s i s i nhere nti n t hi s sit uat i on— qui t e the c ont r ar y. The s e c o nd j udg e c o nduc t e d no t o nl y an i nde pe nde nt r e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd PSR, b uthe al so t ook the f

u rt h er st ep of h aving “ t h e p robati on off i cer . . . p rovi de the [j u dg e] w i t h t he und e r l yi ng AT F r e po r t s r e ga r di ng t he w eapo ns pur c has e s ” a nd i n dep en den t l y exam i n i n g t h at evi den ce. T h ere bei n g n o reasonab l e l i kelih ood Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 20 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

21 of vi n di ct iven ess i s r ef l ect ed i n t h e j u dg e’ s r espon se, af t er i m posi n g sentence, w he n Rodri gu ez , a s di s c us s e d s u p r a, expr es se d hi s c onf usi on t o t he j udge r e ga r di ng r e c e ivi ng t hatg r e at e rs e nt e nc e , e ve n t ho ugh , a s Rod r i gue z no t e d, t he G ove r nm enthad br eac hed t he pl ea agr ee m entatt he f i r sts ent enc i ng. The j udge s t at e d: I h ave ru l ed on the objec t i on s your l aw yer t ol d m e w ere

e xt ant . Ib as e d m y o w n i nde pe nde ntr e c o l l e c t i o n o f t he e vi de nc e . Iha ve r e adt he e nt i r e f i l e . Ia m no tb as i ng m yru lin g o n a n y s ta te m e n t m a d e to [th e fir s t ju d g e ]. I m ad e m y o w n i nde pe nde nta s s e s s m e nto f t he e v a lu a tio n s . I r e v ie w e dth e A T F file . T h is is cle a r ly w i t h i n t h e sc ope of th e 5th C i rcui t ’ s m an da t e as I pe r c e ive t he m and at e t o r e ad . I n s um , b ecaus e t he r e i s no r e as o nab l e l i ke l i ho o d o f v i ndi c t ive ne s s , t he pr e s um pt i o n o f

v i ndi c t ive ne s s do e s n otapp l y. A gain, becau se t h ere w as no error , our pl ai n - errorrevi ew end s att h i s poi n tregardi n g presum ed vi n di ct iven ess. b. O f c o ur s e , a s di s c us s e d sup ra , w h ere, as h ere, t h at pres u m pti on does not appl y, def

endantm ay s t i l ls ho w a d u e- pro c es s vi ol at i on by sho w i ng ac t ual v in d ic tiv e n e s s . E . g. , Mc C ul lough , 475 U . S. at138 (c i t i ng W as m an , 468 U . S. at 5 6 9 ); see Pearce , 395 U . S . at 725 . A s noted, R odri gu ez al so c l ai m s s u ch v i n d i c t iv e n e s s ; b u t , h e d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s c o n t e n t i o n u n t i l h i s r e p l y b r i e f h e r e . As di s c us s e d i nf

ra , th a t p o in t, h o w e v e r, w a s ad d re ss e d in th e G o v e rn m e n t’ s b rie f. F or obvi ou s r eason s, our courtgen eral l y w i l l n ot consi der an i ssue rai sed fo rth e fir s t t im e in are p lyb r ie f. E . g. , Un i t ed St at e s v . Br o w n, 305 F. 3d 304, 307 n. 4 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) (c i t i ng Un i t ed Stat es v. Pri n ce , 8 68 F . 2d 137 9, 138 6 ( 5th C i r. 198 9) ) . A dd i n g i n sul tto p rocedural i nj u ry here i s t h at th e act u al

- vi n di ct iven ess i s s u e , n o tr a i s e du n t i lt h e r e p l yb r i e f, w a s n o te v e n r a i s e di n d i s t r i c tc o u r t . As Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 21 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

22 di s c us s e d s upra , n o f orm of vi n di ct iven ess— presum ed or act u al

— w as cl ai m ed t h ere. N evert h el ess, al so f or obvious reasons, “ w e ordi n ari l y h ave t h e di scr et i on to d e c id e le g a l is s u e s th a t a r e n o t t im e lyra is e d ”. V on t st een , 950 F . 2 d at 1091 (c i t i ng Un itedS ta tes v. G iov a n n etti , 928 F . 2d 225 (7 t h C i r. 199 1) (pl ai n - error r evi ew ) ) . Acc or di ngl y, t hati ncl udes “ c ons i der [i ng] i ss ues notr ai se d i n an i ni t i al b r ie f” o n a p p e a l. Est at eof Li s lev . Com m ’

r of Int e r nalRev e nue , 341 F. 3d 364, 3 8 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), m and at er e c al le d andm odif i e d on ot hergrounds by431 F. 3d 4 3 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); cf. Un itedS ta tes v. W h itfi eld , 590 F . 3d 325 , 346
- 47 (5t h C i r. 200 9) (“A s a gen eralru l e, a p art y w aives a n y argu m en ttha ti tfai l s t o bri ef on a p p e a l . Ho we v e r , t h i s c o u r th a s r e c o g n i z e da n e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s r u l e wh e r e b ywe w i l lc o ns i de rapo i nto f e r r o rno tr ai s e d o n a ppe alw he n i ti s ne c e s s ar y t o pr e ve nt a m is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e .” (c ita tio n a n dq u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d)); Mart i nezv. Mu ka sey , 5 1 9 F . 3 d5 3 2 , 5 4 5
- 4 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) (“ F o ro b v i o u s r e a s o n s , we gen eral l y do n o t con sider con ten ti on s ra i sed for th e f i rst ti m e a t oral arg u m en t.

. . . In o u rd is c r e tio n , b e c a u s e th is is aq u e s tio n o f s ta tu to r yco n s tr u c tio n , w e w ill c o ns i de ri t . ” ) . Pr e s e nthe r e i s one of t ho s e ex c e pt i o ns t o no tr e vi e w i ng an i s s ue fir s t r a is e din are p lyb r ie f. Th i s exc ept i on ar i se s outof t he G ove r nm ent ’ s, as not ed, addr es si ng ac t ual vi n di ct iven ess i n i t s bri ef. Th e gen eralrul e againstnot c on si deri n g an i ssue n ot rai sed u n t i lt h e repl y bri ef i s v ie w [e d ] . . . d iffe r e n tlyw h e n an e w is s u e is ra is e din th e a p p e lle e ’ s b r ie f a n dth e a p p e lla n t r e s p o n d s in h is r e p lyb r ie f. Cou si n v. Tran s Un i on Corp . 246 F. 3d 359, n. 22 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1) a nd V alleci l lo v. Un i t ed S t ate s HUD , 155 F. A pp’ x 764, 766 n. 1 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) . I n t hat sit uat i on, t he c our tavo i ds t he m or e un f a irs c e nari o that occurs w h en “ an app el l an trai ses a com pl et el y n ew i s s ue init s r e ply br i e f, di s ad va nt ag i ng t he a ppe l l e e , a nd forw h ich th e p ro c e d u ra l ba r c o n ce rn in gin iti a l br iefs w a s p r o p e r ly d e v e lo p e da n du tiliz e d .” Co u sin , 246 F . 3d Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 22 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

23 at 373. T h i s s i t u ati on i s not present i n t h i s c ase becau se t he go ver nm entr ai se d t he i ss ue pres ent ed by [ ap pel l an t , ] el i m i n ati n g an y surpri se. Un i t ed S t ate s v. R am i rez , 5 5 7 F .3d 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). A l t h ou gh R odri gu ez’open i n g bri ef h ad not c l ai m ed actual vi n di ct iven ess, t he G ove r nm entas se r t ed i n i t s br i ef that“Rodri guez h as n ots how n any ac t ual vi ndi c t ive ne s s ” . Con s i de r i ng t hi s a s s e r t i o n, t he r e i s no prej u di c e t o t he G ov ern m en t for ou r ex ercisi n g ou r d i scre ti on to con sider R od rig u e z ’q u i te b e la te da c tu a l-v in d ic tiv e n e s s cla im . B e c a u s e th is re p ly -b r ie f c la im w a s n o t r a is e din d is t r i c t c o u r t, w e w ill assum e revi ew i s f

or pl ai n err or. A rgua bl y an ev e n m o re str i ctst an da rd of r e v ie w co u lda p p ly , su c h a s th a t to p r e v e n t a m a n ife s t m is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e . Cf. Un i t ed S t ate s. v. Mi l ler , 5 76 F . 3d 5 28 , 5 29
- 30 & n. 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 9) ( ap plyi ng m an if est - m i sca rr ia g e -of-ju stic e sta n d a rd w h e re d e fen d a n tf ail ed i ndi strictcourt t o m o ve f

o rj udg m e nto f

a c quit t al ; r e l i e f

i s g r an t ed on l y i f

t he r e ha s b e e n a
“ m an i festm i scarr i age of j u st i ce, w h i ch i s f

ou n d i f t h e recor d i s devoi d of evi den ce p oin ti n g to g u i l t”. ( quo t i ngUn i t ed S t ate s v. G ree n , 293 F . 3d 886 , 895 ( 5th C i r. 200 2) ) (i n t ern a l q u ot ati on m arks om i t t ed)) . W e need not deci de that questi on b e c a u s e th e cla im fa ils e v e n u n d e rth e m o r e le n ie n t r e v ie w fo rp la in e r r o r . A l on g t h at l i n e, i ti s w el lest abli shed t h at t h ere c an nev er be pl ai n err or i f the i ssue i s a fact u alon e, w h i ch could hav e been res olvedi n di st ri ctcourtup on p r o p e ro bje c tio n . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. L ee , N o. 09- 40099, 2010 W L 742592, at *3 ( 5t h C i r . 4 M ar c h 2010) ( quot i ng Un i t ed Stat es v. L opez , 92 3 F . 2 d47 , 50 ( 5 th C i r. 199 1) ) . A l t h ou gh an i ss u e o f fa ct, act u alvi n di ct iven ess v e lno n i s n ot, how eve r , w i t hi n t hatc at ego r y. I t i s qu est i on able such an act u al

- vi n di ct iven ess o bje c tio n co u ldb e re s o lv e d i n d i s tr ic t c o u r t. Cf . V on t st een , 950 F. 2d at1090 (presum ed vi n di ct iven ess) . M oreover, i t i s t h e revi ew i n g, not t h e di st ri ct , court Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 23 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

24 t hatdec i des w h ethert he di st r i c tc our t ’ s se nt enc e w as purs uant t o a c t ual v in d ic tiv e n e s s . O ure xe r c i s i ng o urdi s c r e t i o n t o re vi e w t hi s cl ai m i s , i n l ar ge pa r t , t o m ak e ab s o l ut e l y c l e art hatt he s e c o nd j udg e c o m m i t t e d n o e r r o r . A c tin ge n tir e ly w i t hi n ourm a n dat e, t he s ec ond j udge c onduct ed an i ndependent , obj ec t ive a n a ly s is o f th e P S R a n dth e A T F re p o r ts . R o d r ig u e z co n te n d s th e re c o r d s h o w s th e s e c o n d ju d g e a c te dv in d ic tiv e ly b e c a u s e : h e s u m m a r ilyo v e r r u le dR o d r ig u e z ’o bje c tio n s to th e P S R ; a n d , h e d id n ot al l ow t h e G overnm en t t o contribu t e t o t h e sentenci n g h eari n g . N e i t h er m a tt e re v e n re m o te lys u g g e s ts v in d ic tiv e n e s s . T h e recor d r ef

l ect s t h at t h e second j u dg e caref u l l y consi dered R odri gu ez’ o bj e c t i o ns . M o r e o ve r , Rodr i gue z ha s o f fe r e d noa ut ho r i t y r e quir i ng t he s e c o nd ju d g e to s ta te h is re a s o n s fo rd e n y in gth e m . Cf . Uni t e d St at es v. Roc ha , 916 F .2 d2 1 9 , 2 3 9 (5 th C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) (a ffir m in gd is tr ic t c o u r t’s h a v in g“s u m m a r ily o v e r r u le d[d e fe n d a n t’s ] o bje c tio n s to s u c h e v id e n c e ”). R o d r ig u e z d o e s , a p p a r e n tly , re c o g n iz e th e p a te n t a b s u r d ityo f h is c o nt e nt i on tha tt he s e c o nd j udg e ’ s s t at e d i nt e nt i o n no tt o e nga ge t he G o v e r n m e n t a t r e s e n te n c in gs o m e h o w e v in c e s v in d ic tiv e n e s s . H e a d m its in h is re p lyb r ief t h a t his con ten ti on crea tes aC a tch -22 f or th e d i stri ct cou rt: ac c o r di ng t o Rodr i gue z , t he s e c o nd j udg e i s vi ndi c t ive f o rno tha vi ng e nga ge d t he G ov ern m en t; bu t, h a d th e j u d ge d on e so, h e w ou l dh a ve cau sed the G ov ern m en t, o nc e aga i n, t o br e ac h i t s pl e a ag r e e m e nt . The r e c o r d s ho w s , a s di s c us s e d i nf ra , t hatt he se c ond j udge w as ent i t l ed t o r ely o n ot herbas es , negat i ng any ne e d to s o lic it in p u t fr o m th e G o v e r n m e n t. A gain, t h ere i s si m pl y n o evi den ce of act u al vi n di ct iven ess. T h eref ore, t h ere was no err or. I n sum , our pl ai n - errorrevi ew f or vi n di ct iven ess— presum ed or act u al

— en ds. Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 24 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

25 B. I n t he a l t e r nat ive , Rod r i guez c l ai m s t he a dv i s o r y gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng ra n ge u sed to im p ose h i s sen ten ce w a s n ot su p p orted bythe req u i sit e p rep on d er a n ce of the ev i d en ce. A l th ou gh , po st- B ooker , t h e G u i del i n es are advi so r y o nl y, and an u l t i m at e se nt enc e i s r evi ew ed f orreas onabl enes s under an ab us e - o f

- di s c r e t i o n s t and ar d, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm us tst i l lpr o pe r l y c al c ul at e t he a d visorygu i d e lin e s sen ten ci n g ra n ge f or u se in d ecidin g o n the sen ten ce to im p o s e . G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). I n th a tr e s p e c t , fo rp r o p e r lyp r e s e r v e dc la im s , as e n t e n c in gc o u r t ’s appl i c at i o n o f

t he g ui de l i ne s i s r e vi e w e d de no vo ; i t s fac t ual f i ndi ngs , on l y for c le a re r r o r . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F . 3d 751 , 764 ( 5th C i r. 2008) (c i t i ng Un itedS ta tes v. Ju a re z D u a rte , 5 1 3 F .3 d 2 0 4 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 8 S . C t. 24 5 2 ( 2 0 0 8 )); Un i t ed S t at e s v . Vi l lega s , 404 F . 3d 355 , 359 ( 5th C i r. 2005) . I n t hatr egar d, t hos e fac t ualf i ndi ngs m ustbe s u p p orted by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . E . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. D u h on , 541 F . 3d 391, 395 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) (c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 4 0 2 F .3d 5 1 1 , 5 1 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 )). H ere, how ever, as R odri gu ez ackn ow l edg es, revi ew i s onl y f or pl ai n err or becau se, atres en t en ci n g, he obj ect ed on bases di f ferent f rom t h ose presented h e r e . Vi l lega s , 404 F . 3dat3 58 . As di s c us s e d sup ra , to e s ta b lis h r e v e r s ib le p la in er r or , R odr i guez m usts how a c l earorob vi ous er r ort hataf fec t ed hi s subs t ant i al r ig h ts . E . g. , B ak er , 538 F. 3d at332 (c i t i ng T h ompson , 4 54 F. 3da t4 64 ) . Aga i n, i f rev ersible p l a i n erro r i s est a b li sh ed , w e sti l lretain discretion w h eth er to c o r r e c ts uc h e r r o ra nd, g e ne r al l y, w i l ldo s o o nl y i f i ts e ri ou sl y af

fec t s t he fa ir n e s s , 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 . I d. R odri gu ez contends: t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c al cul ati on s f or t h e base of

fen se l evelan d the agg r av ati ng- r o l ea nd obs t ructi on - of

-j u st i ce enh an cem en t s w ere not sup ported by a prepon deran ce of t h e evi den ce; an d, t h eref ore, each cl ai m ed error constit u t es r eversibl e pl ai n err or f or w h i ch w e shou l d gran treli ef. R odri gu ez Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 25 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

26 assert s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c l ai m ed er ror f or each of t h ese cal cul ati on s li es in its re ly in go n th e P S R . “ [A] di st ri ctcourtm ay ad opt t h e fact s c on t ai n ed i n a P S R w i t h ou tf u rt h er in q u ir yif th o s e fa c ts h a v e a n a d e q u a te e v id e n tia r yb a s is w ith s u ffic ie n t in d ic ia of rel i abili t y an d t h e d efen da n td oes n otp resent rebu t t alev i den ce orot h erw i se d e m o n s tr a te th a t t h e in fo r m a tio n in th e P S R is u n r e lia b le ”. Uni t e d S t at e s v. C ab rera , 2 8 8 F. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 7 3
- 7 4 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . Fo r t h e f o l l o wi n g r e a s o ns , t he P S R contai n ed su f

f i ci en tfact s t o provi de an adeq u ate evi den t i ary basi s f or cal cul ati n g t h e t h ree bel atedl y cha l l en ged s e nt en ci n g el em en t s: t h e base of fen se le v e l a n dth e a g g r a v a tin g -r o le a n do b s tr u c tio n -o f-ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n ts to it. Fort he b as e o f

fe ns e l e ve l , t he PSR c o nt ai ns num e r o us de t ail s r e ga r di ng Ro d r i g u e z ’ s f

i r e a r m s d e a l i ngs . (M o r e o v e r , i n a d d i t i o nt o c o n s i d e r i n gt h e P S R, t h e sec on d j u dg e consi dered t h e A T F report s and , on the recor d, i den t i f i ed each o f t he w e ap o ns f

o rw hi c h h e de e m e d Ro dr i gue z r e s po ns ibl e . ) Fo rt he ag gr av at i ng- r o l e e nhan c e m e nt , t he PSR sh o w s Rod r i gue z w as i n c har ge o f t he dai l y o per at i ons of

t hi s privat e s ec urit y c om pany ( B C P D ) and pos se ss ed f i nal dec i si on- m aki ng aut hor i t y. F i n a l l y, f or th e ob stru cti on -of-j u sti ce en h a n cem en t, t he PSR sh o w s t hat , dur i ng t he r ai d, fe de r ala ge nt s l e ar ne d t hatBC PD g uar ds hadr e c e iv e da d v a n c e wa r n i n g s f r o m t h e i rs u p e r v i s o r s t h a tl a w e n f o r c e m e nt a g e n ts w e r e a r r e s tin gth e g u a r d s a n dh a db e e n to ldto v a c a te th e irjo b s ite s if th e irw o r k d o c u m e n ts w e r e n o t in o r d e r . R odri gu ez, how ever, insi st s h e p rovi ded rebu t t alev i den ce that preven t ed t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s b e i ng en t i t l ed to rely on t h e P S R . “ If i n f orm ati on i s presented t o t he s e nt e nc i ng j udg e w i t h whi c h t he defen da n tw o ul d t ak e i s s ue , t he def endantbe ar s t he bur den of dem ons t r at i ng t hatt he i n for m at i on c annotbe reli edu p o n b eca u se iti s m a terial l y u n tru e, i n a ccu ra te or u n reli a b l e.” Un i t ed S ta tes v. A ng u lo , 927 F . 2d202 , 205 ( 5th C i r. 199 1) . R odri gu ez m ai n t ai n s h e m et t h i s burd en by sub m i t t i n g w ri t t en obj ect i on s t o t h e P S R . Th ese obj ect i on s, Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 26 Date Filed: 03/25/2010N o. 09- 20181

27 h ow ever, are n o t ev id e n c e — th e ya r e m e r e ly“u n s w o r n a s s e r tio n s ”. Un i t ed S t ate s v. Lgh od aro , 967 F. 2d 1028, 1030 ( 5t h C i r . 1992) (c i t i ng Uni t edS tatesv. S an d ers , 9 4 2 F .2 d8 9 4 , 8 9 7 -9 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 )). Bec aus e no t e s t i m o ny o ro t he re vi de nc e w as s ubm i t t e d t o r e butt he i nf or m at i on i n t he PS R , t he di st r i c tc our tw as f r ee t o adoptt he PS R ’ s f i ndi ngs w ith o u t fu r th e r in q u ir yo re x p la n a tio n . Un itedS ta tes v. Mir , 919 F . 2d 940, 943 ( 5t h C i r . 1990) (c i t i ng Un i t edS tate s v. Mu el ler , 902 F . 2d 336 , 346 ( 5th C i r. 199 0) ) . Th e di st ri ctcourtcom m i t t e d n o err or. A gain, our pl ai n - errorrevi ew draw s t o a cl ose. III. F o rt h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , t h e j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED. Case: 09-20181 Document: 00511062570 Page: 27 Date Filed: 03/25/2010