# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 26 30

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant on io Sh aw, als o k no wn as Lip s, al so kn own as A1

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 5 Fi le d: Marc h 2 3, 2 01 5 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

In 20 12
, a jury fo un d Ant on io Sh aw gu il ty of co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se an d m ari

juan a, an d of po ss es si ng a fir earm in fu rth eran ce of a dr ug -tr affi ck in g of fen se

. On ap pe al
, th is co ur t up he ld th e co nv ic ti o n s , b u t va cat ed th e fir earm

po ss es si on se nt en ce ba se d on All eyn e v. Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 21 51 (2 01 3)

. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. S

ha w , 75 1 F .3d 91 8 (8 th Cir . 20 14 ).On rem an d, th e di st ric t co ur t r e c o g n iz ed th e co rrec t m an da to ry m in im um 1

se nt en ce fo r th e fir earm -p os se ss io n of fen se , th en im

po se d th e sa m e se nt en ces as be fo re: co ns e c u t i v e p ris on te rm s of 21 0 an d 16 8 m on th s. The se se nt en ces were ab ov e th e cal cu la te d ad vi so ry ran ge un de r th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. In th is ap pe al
, Sh aw’s co un se l ha s m ov ed to wit hd raw an d ha s fil ed a br ie f u n d e r And er s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7)
, arg ui ng th at th e dr ug qu an ti ty at tri bu te d

to Sh aw fo r pu rp os es of cal cu la ti ng hi s ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge was no t su pp or te d by th e ev id en ce an d th at in ch oo si ng a se nt en ce ab ov e th e G u i d e l i n e s ran ge , th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in co n s i d e r in g ev id en ce pr es en te d at se nt en ci ng reg ard in g

un ch arg ed cri m in al co nd uc t. In a pr o se br ie f, S h a w a dd it io na ll y arg ue s (1 ) th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to rem ed y th e All eyn e erro r; (2 ) th e ev id en ce di d no t su pp or t hi s

co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e co cai ne ba se ; (3 ) th e ev id en ce di d no t su pp or t
cert ai n en ha nc em en ts in cl ud ed in th e cal cu la ti on of hi s to ta l of fen se le ve l un de r th e Gui de li ne s; an d (4 ) th e co ur t er red in cal cu la ti ng hi s cr im in al hi st or y

.

Sh aw’s ch al le ng es to th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce, th e en ha nc em en ts ot he r th an th e dr ug qu an ti ty us ed in cal cu la ti ng hi s offe ns e le ve l, and hi s crim in al hi st or y

are pr ecl ud ed be cau se , in hi s fir st ap pe al
, th es e is su es ei th er were no t rai se d or were de ci de d ad ve rs el y to hi m

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W al te rma n , 40 8 F.3 d 10 84
, 10 85 -8 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (in ap pe al fo ll owi ng rem an d, refu si ng to co ns id er is su es no t br ou gh t
to co ur t’s at te nt io n in fi r s t a p p e al ; no ti ng de fen da nt do es no t ge t se co nd ch an ce to

m ak e arg um en t no t su pp or te d in fir st ap pe al jus t be cau se he is res en te nc ed ); Uni te d
St at es v. Bar ts h
, 69 F.3 d 86 4, 86 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (wh en ap pe ll at e co ur t rem an ds

cas e, “ al l is su es de ci de d by th e ap pe ll at e co ur t be co m e th e la w of th e cas e” an d m ay

no t b e rel it ig at ed ).

The Hon or ab le Hen ry E. Aut rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-We w i ll co ns id er Sh aw’s rem ai ni ng co un se le d an d pr o se ch al le ng es , as o u r

pr io r op in io n ex pr e s s l y res erv ed an y rev ie w of th e pr oc ed ur al an d su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of Sh aw’s se nt en ces

. Se e 75 1 F.3 d at 92 3 n.1 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es

v. Hat te r , 53 2 U.S. 55 7, 56 6 (2 00 1) (la w-o f-ca se do ct rin e pr es um es he ari ng on

m eri ts ). Fi rs t, to th e ex t e n t t h a t Sh aw in it ia ll y ch al le ng ed an d no w co nt in ue s to ch al le ng e th e dr ug -q ua nt it y cal cu la ti on , we fin d no cl ear erro r. Se e Uni te d St at es v. W al ker
, 68 8 F.3 d 41 6, 42 1- 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (s en te nc in g co ur t m ay de te rm in e dr ug
qu an ti ty ba se d on te st im on y of co -co ns pi rat or al on e); Uni te d St at es v. Pay to n , 63 6
F.3 d 10 27
, 10 46 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); Uni te d St at es v. W ei la nd
, 28 4
F.3 d 87 8, 88 2- 8 3 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 02 ) (d is cu ss in g fact or s rel ev an t whe n de te rm in in g if

pr io r dr ug -p os se ss io n co nv ic ti on pr op erl y was co un te d as r e l e va nt co nd uc t to

co ns pi racy of

fen se fo r pu rp os es o f de te rm in in g ba se -o ffen se le ve l). Seco nd
, we

co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in co ns id eri ng ev id en ce of un ch arg ed cri m in al co nd uc t th at was pr es en te d at the se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Lo ai za -S an ch ez , 62 2 F.3 d 93 9, 94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (p rio r cri m in al co nd uc t, whe th er

or no t rel at ed to of

f e n s e of co nv ic ti on , is pa rt of hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs of de fen da nt th at co ur t sh al l co ns id er in im po si ng ap pr op ria te se nt en ce); Uni te d St at es

v. Je n n er s, 53 7 F.3 d 83 2, 83 5- 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (co ur t m ay co ns id er un ch arg ed cri m in al co nd uc t). Thi rd
, we fin d no m eri t to Sh aw’s arg um en t th at th e co ur t fai le d

to rem ed y it s All eyn e se nt en ci ng erro r on rem an d. The co ur t reco gn iz ed th e co rrec t
st at ut or y m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce, th en im

po se d a se nt en ce ba se d on it s

co ns id erat io n of th e fact or s in 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 53 (a). Fi na ll y , up on in de pe nd en tl y

rev ie win g th e reco rd in acco rd an ce wit h Pen so n v. Ohi o , 48 8 U.S. 75
, 80 (1 98 8)
, we

co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ces are no t un reas on ab le
, se e Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2
F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (ab us e-o f-d is cret io n rev ie w o f s e n te nc in g de ci si on ); Uni te d St at es v. Mag nu m, 62 5 F.3 d 46 6, 47 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (wh ere di st ric t

co ur t s uf fic ie nt ly exp la in s s en te nc in g d eci si on , a pp el la te co ur t g iv es du e d efer en ce
to co ur t’s d eci si on th at § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, o n wh ol e, jus ti fy ex te nt of v ari an ce).

-3

-A c c o r di ng ly, we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n to wit hd raw, an d we affi rm th e

jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-