FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL4, 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. 05- 16325 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 1 7 5 - C R - T - 2 7 - MAP 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 C R U Z V A L D O V I N O S M A N C I L L A , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 4, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C ruz V al do vi no s M anci l l a app ea l s hi s 294 -m on th sent ence , w hich w as i m pos e d a f

t e rhe pl e d gui l ty t o c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s w i th the i nt e ntt o di st ri but e 50 g r a m s o r m o r e o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S . C . § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v iii)2

a nd § 846, a nd r e e ntry of a r e m ove d al i en w hos e r e m ova l w a s s ubs e que ntt o a c o nvi c t i on f

o rc o mmi s s i o n o f

a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

8 U . S. C. § 1 3 2 6 ( a ) a n d ( b ) ( 2 ) . O n ap p e a l, M a n c illa a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to p r o v id e h im o rh is c o u n s e l th e o p p o r tu n ity to o b je c t a f te rim p o s i t i o n o f

h is se nt ence , i n v i ol at i on of U ni t ed S t at es v. Jones, 89 9 F . 2d 10 9 7 , 11 02 (11t h C i r. 1990) , ove rrul e d i n pa r ton othe rgr ounds b y U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M orr i l l , 984 F . 2d 1136, 1137 ( 11th C i r . 1993) . A ft er ca r e f ul r e vi e w , w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd f or f ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. T h e r e le v a n t f

a c ts a r e t h e s e . O n A p r il 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , M a n c illa a n d h is c ode f e nda nt s , A z uc e na B a l t a z a rB or j a a nd I r m a V a l l e R a m i r e z , w e r e c ha r ge d i n a m u lti- c o u n t in d ic tm e n t. M a n c illa w a s c h a r g e d w ith : ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c y to p o s s e s s w ith the i nt e ntt o di s t r i but e 50 gr a m s orm or e of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v iii) a n d 8 4 6 ( C o u n t O n e ) ; ( 2 ) p o s s e s s io n w ith th e i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e a n d w i l l i ngl y a i di n g a n d a b e tt i n g th e p o s s e s s i o n o f 5 0 g r a ms orm or e of

m e tha m phe t am i n e, i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd (b)( 1)(A )( vi i i ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2 (C ou ntT w o); and (3) ree ntry of a re m ov ed al i en w ho se re m ov al w as subsequentt o a conv i ct i on for co m m i ss i on of an aggravat ed f e l ony , i n vi ol a t i on of

8 U . S . C . § 1326( a ) an d (b )( 2) ( C ountF our ) . P ur s ua ntt o a w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e nt , M a nc i l l a pl e d gui l ty t o C ount s O ne an d F oura nd theUpon motion by the g overnment, defendants qualify for oneadditional level re duction 1 for acceptanceof re sponsibili ty if, inter alia, they

assisted authorities by

timely providing information to the g overnment about their own misconduct or by timely notifying a

uthorities of an intent to plead guilty , thereby permitting theg overnment to avoid prepa ringfor trial and the court to allocate its resourc es ef ficiently . See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b).

3 go vernm entagre ed t o d i sm i ss C o u n t T w o. In exchange for M anci l l a’ s gui l ty pl ea , the g ov ernm ental so agre ed no tt o o pp ose M anci l l a’ s r equestfor atw o-l evel r e d u c tio n f

o ra c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 ( a ) , a n d to f i l e a m o t i o n fo r an ad d i t i o n al o n e-l ev el d o w n w ard ad j u stm en ti f M an cilla com pl i ed w i th the prov i si on s of U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(b). 1 T he pl e a a gr e e m e ntf

ur the rs t a t e d tha tthe gove rnm e nta gr e e d t o m ake kno w n to the C ou rtand o ther r el evantautho ri t i es the na tur e an d e xt e ntof de f e nda nt ’ s c oope r a t i on a nd a ny ot he r m i t i g a t i n g c i r c u ms t a n c e s i n d i c a t i v e of t he d efen d an t ’ s reh abi l i t a t i ve i nt e ntby a s s um i ng the f unda m e nt a l c i vi c duty o f re por t i ng c r i m e . H ow e ve r , the d efen d a ntunde r s t a nds tha tthe gove rnm e ntc a n m a ke no re pres ent at i on thatth e C ou rtw i l l i m po se a l es se r se nt ence sol el y on acc ou nto f, or i n con si dera t i on of, s u c h c o o p e r a tio n . T he pl e a a gr e e m e nt d i d n o tm e nt i on a ny i ns t a nc e s of M a nc i l l a ’ s c oope r a t i on. T he go vernm entre se rved the ri gh tt o reportt o the di stri ctcourtand t he prob at i on offi ce

al l i nform at i on concerni ng the backgrou nd , char ac t er , an d c on du c tof

the de f e nd a nt , t o p r ov i de r e l e va ntf a c tua l in fo rm atio n , i n clu d in g th e to tali ty o f th e d ef en d an t’ s c r im in a l a c tiv i t i e s , if

a n y , n o t lim ite d to th e c o u n t( s ) to w hi c h de f

e nda n t p l e a ds , t o r e s pond t o c om m e nt s m a de4 by the defendantor defendant ’ s c ou nsel , and t o correc t a n y m is s ta te m e n ts o rin a c c u r a c ie s . T he go vernm ental so re se rved the ri gh tt o m ake a ny re com m endat i on i tdeem ed appr opr i a t e r e ga r di ng the di s pos i t i on of the c a s e , s ubj ect t o any l i m i t a t i ons co n tain ed in th e p lea a g re em en t. M an cill a a ck n o w led g ed th at th e g o v er n m en t’ s r e c om m e nda t i ons i nc o rpor a t e d w i thi n the pl e a a gr e e m e ntw e r e notbi ndi ng on the c our t , a nd tha tthe c ourt ’ s f a i l ur e t o a c c e ptthe govern m en t ’ s r e c om m e nda t i ons w ou l d n otconst i tut e groun ds fo r w ithd ra w al of hi s gui l ty pl eaor a c l ai m for bre ac h o f th e a g r e e m e n t . As s i s t a n tU. S . Att o rn e y s Ke l l e y C . Ho wa r d a n d J o s e p h K. R u d d y s ig n e d th e p le a a g r e e m e n t. A tM anci l l a’ s c hang e- of-pl eahear i ng , M anci l l a t es t i fi ed, throu gh an i nt e rpr e t e r , tha tth e p l ea a gr e e m e ntha d be e n tr a ns l a t e d t o hi m , a nd tha the re vi ew ed i tw i th h i s a tto rn ey . T he m agi stra t e j ud ge expl ai ned t he t erm s of the pl ea a gr e e m e nta nd the c ha r ge s i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd M a n ci l l a st a t e d tha the u n d e r s to o d . M a n c illa a ls o in d ic a te d th a t n o o n e h a d a tte m p te d to f o r c e h im to pl ea d g ui l ty, and n o o ne prom i se d h i m anythi ng i n exchang e f o r h i s gui l ty pl ea . H e fu rth er agree d w i th the fa ctual basi s f or hi s pl eaas cont ai ned i n the pl ea a g r e e m e n t. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge e xpl a i ne d the m a xi m um pos s i bl e pe na l t i es, the s e nt e nc i ng pr oc e dur e , a nd the sen t en ce - appe a l w a i ve r , a nd M a nc i l l a s t a t e d tha theMiranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.C t. 1602, 15 L .Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2 5 un ders t oo d. F i nal l y, the m agistrat e j ud ge advi se d M anci l l a of the ri gh t s he w as w a i vi ng by pl e a di ng g u i l ty . A f t e rf i ndi ng tha tM a nc i l l a ’ s gui l ty pl e a w a s know i ng a n d v o lu n ta ry , th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e r e c o m m e n d e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c c e p t h is g u ilty p l e a . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a c c e p te d th e p le a a n d M a n c illa th e n p r o c e e d e d to s e nt e nc i ng. T he pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ) s t at ed thatM anci l l a, a c i t i ze n of M exi co, w as co n v icted in a M i nn es ot a s t at e c ou rtof se l l i ng coca i ne i n 1 99 4. In 19 96 , af t erM anci l l a s erved h is se n t ence for the M i nn es ot a c on vi ct i on , he w as de por t e d t o M e xi c o. O n A pr i l 7, 2005, a c onf i de nt i a l i nfo r m a nt( “ C I ” ) w i th the P ol k C ou n ty S h eri ff’ s O ff i ce (“ P C S O ”) m ade a rr angem ent s f or M anci l l a t o d el i ver f i v e p o u n d s o f

m e th a m p h e t a m i n e t o th e C I i n F l o r i d a . M a n c i l l a a n d h i s two c o d e f e n d a n ts w e r e s to p p e d b y th e P C S O o n a h ig h w a y in F lo r i d a o n t h e w a y to m e e t th e C I . T h e o f

f ic e r s s e a r c h e d th e d e f

e n d a n t s a n d f

o u n d a h a n d g u n , s e p a r a te a m m uni t i on, 7. 2 pounds of m e tha m phe t a m i ne , a nd m or e tha n $5, 000 i n c a s h. A ga i n, a c c or di ng t o the P S I , a f t e rbei n g ad v i s e d of

hi s M i r a nda r i ght s , on

2 A pri l 9, 20 05 , M anci l l a t ol d l aw enforce m entoffi ce rs thatan i nd i vi du al nam ed C ar l os had c on t ac t ed hi m abou t the drug deal , C ar l os’ s cousi n i n T ex as arra ng ed th e d e a l . Ma n c i l l a p i c k e d u p th e m e th a m p h e t a m i n e f i v e d a y s e a r l i e rf

r o m two6

i nd i vi du al s a ta C hi l i ’ s r es t aura nt i n D al l as . C ar l os l at ert ol d M anci l l a t o d el i ver the drugs t o F l or i da . I n a s e c ond post -M i ra nda i nt e r vi e w , on A pr i l 19, 2005, M a nc i l l a i nf

or m e d l a w en for c e m e ntof f i c e r s tha the ha d pi c ke d up the pa c ka ge f r o m a n u n k n o w n in d iv id u a l in H o u s to n , w i t h i n s tru c tio n s to d e liv e rit to C a r lo s in F l or i da . M an ci l l a w a s s uppos e d t o c ol l e c t$20, 000 f orhi s pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the c ons pi r a c y , a nd he ha d i nt e nde d t o gi ve R a m i r e z a nd he r hu sb an d $10, 000. M anci l l a had rec ent l y m etR am i re z a nd her husband , w ho w er e the ow ners of a r e s t a ur a nt i n S ul f

ur , T e xa s , a nd the y w e r e both a w a r e tha t the y w oul d b e p ro vi di ng tran sp o rt at i o n t o M an ci l l a fo r th e d el i v ery o f d ru g s. A f te rap p ly in g a th r e e - le v e l r e d u c tio n f o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility because M anci l l a m ade the po st -M i ra nd a statem ent s a ckno w l edgi ng hi s c ri m i nal c onduc ta nd pr ovi di ng l o g i st i cal i nf or m a t i on t o a ge nt s , the P S I r e c om m e nde d a to tal o ff en se lev el o f 3 8 . W ith a c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry II , M an cill a’s G u id e lin e s r a n g e w a s 2 6 2 to 3 2 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, A s s i s t a ntU . S . A tt o rn ey J e f f r e y D ow ni ng r e p r e s e n t e d th e g o v e rn me n ta n d s t a t e d th a th e w a s s t a ndi ng i n f o rA s s i s t a n tU . S. A tt orney H ow ar d. T he di stri ctcourt firs t a do pt ed the fa ctual st at em ent s c on t ai ned in th e P S I an d fo u n d th atth e G u i d el i n es ran g e w as 2 6 2 t o 3 2 7 m o n th s’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he c our tthe n s t a t e d, “ I ’ l l c ons i de rm a tt e r s i n m i t i ga t i on, i nc l udi ng7

a n y s ta tem en ts th at th e d ef en d an t m ay w ish to m ak e.” I n re sp o n se , M an cill a’s a tt orne y a r gue d tha tthe c our ts houl d i m pos e the 120- m onth m anda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e f

ors e ve r a l r e a s ons , i nc l udi ng tha tM an ci l l a w a s a m a rr i e d m a n w ho supp ort ed tw o sm al l chi l dren, thathe had a fi fth-grade educat i on and n o cri m i nal hi s t ory othe rtha n the M i nne s ot a c onvi c t i on, a nd tha the p l ayed a m i n orr ol e i n the c ha r ge d c ri m e s . D e f

e ns e c ouns e l hi ghl i ght e d M a nc i l l a ’ s hi s t or y a nd l i f e t i m e a nd a r g u e d “it’s a s a d c o m m e n ta ry o f s o m e o n e w h o i s i n th e lo w e s t e c o n o m ic s tr a ta in M e x ic o , try in g to - - f

r o m th a t t h i r d w o r ld c o u n try - - d o s o m e th in g b e tte rf o rh is fa m i l y. ” F in a lly , d e fe n s e c o u n s e l h i g h l i g h t e d M a n c illa ’s tw o p o s tM i ra nd a s t at em ent s, w here i n M anci l l a provi ded i nform at i on abou tthe charged of f e ns e a nd the othe ri ndi vi dua l s i nvol ve d i n t h e sc he m e . A l s o a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di st ri ct c our the a r d M a nc i l l a ’ s s t a t e m e ntof r e m or s e . T he gove rnm e nt re qu ested the c ou rtt o i m po se a s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. A ft er he a r i ng the gove rnm e nt ’ s a r gum e nt , the d i s tr i c tc our ta s ke d de f e ns e c ouns e l i f

he h a d “a n y th in g e ls e ,” to w h ic h c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d h e d id n o t. T he c our tthe n f

ound tha t“ the c i r c um s t a nc e s of t h i s o ffen s e do notc ry out for s ym pathy” bec ause (1) M anci l l a w as foun d w i th 7 po un ds of 97 perc entpu re m etham ph et am i ne; (2) he had a gun and h i s tw o chi l d re n in th e ca r w hen h e w asOn appe al, Manc illa also argues the g overnment breached theplea agreement by failing 3 to inform the cour

t, at the sentenc ing he aring , of his cooperation and substantial assis tance , as require d by

paragraph 9( a) of

the plea agreement, which stated the go v ernment agree d to “make known to the Court a

nd other relevant authorities the natureand extent of defendant’s cooperation

. . .. ”Given o ur dispo siton of the Jone s claim, ho wever, we wi ll not c on side r thi s argument at th is juncture. 8 arrest ed ; a nd ( 3) he ha d pr e vi ous l y s e r ve d a s ubs t a nt i a l s e nt e nc e f orc oc a i ne tr a f f i c ki ng i n s t a t e pr i s on. T he c our ta l s o f ound tha tth e ci rcu m s t a nc e s of the offe nse r equi re d a “ si gn i fi ca nt l y l on g s en ten ce ” t o sat i sf y the se nt enci ng fa ct ors s et f or th i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , i nc l u d i n g t h e ne e d f orthe s e nt e nc e t o r e f

l e c tthe s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e , t o p ro vi de a de qua t e de t e rr e nc e , a nd t o t a ke i nt o a c c ount M anci l l a’ s b ac kg roun d. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourti m po se d a 29 4-m on th t erm of i mpr i s on me nt on Coun t O ne a nd a c on c urr e nt 24 0- month t e r m o n CountF ou r. A ft eri m po si t i on of the se nt ence , the cou rtdi d n otel i ci tobj ec t i on s, or any f urther a r gum e nt , f

r om e i the rpa r ty . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. O n appe a l , i ti s undi sp ut e d tha ta tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the gove rnm e nt di d notm e nt i on M a nc i l l a ’ s c oope r a t i on, c ons i s t i ng pr i m a r i l y of tw o po st -M i r a nda s t a t e m e nt s t o l a w e nf

orcem en t w h i c h w e r e de t a i l e d i n the P S I a nd m e nt i one d by d e f e n s e c o u n s e l d u r in g h is a r g u m e n t f o rab e lo w - G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . M a n c illa a r gue s th a tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d by f a i l i ng t o e l i c i tf

ur the robj e c t i ons , i nc l udi ng t he gove rn me n t ’ s a l l e g e d b r e a c h o f th e p l e a a g r e e me n td u e t o i t s f a i l u r e t o me n t i on M an ci l l a’ s co o p erat i o n , aft er i m p o si t i o n o f sen t en ce, i n v i o l at i o n o f Jo n es. 3The g overnment does not contend, a nd our own re search has not reveale d any case law 4 sug g esting , that J ones is inapplicable to c laims alleg ing that the g overnment breached a plea agreement. 9 I n J one s , w e he l d tha ta f t e ri m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , a di s tr i c tc our tm us tgi ve the pa r t i e s a n oppor tuni ty t o obj ect t o t h e c our t ’ s ul t i m a t e f i ndi ngs of

f a c t , c onc l us i ons o f la w , a n d th e m a n n e rin w h ic h th e s e n te n c e is p r o n o u n c e d , a n d m u s t e lic it a f u ll art i cul at i on of the grou nd s upo n w hi ch any obj ec t i on i s bas ed . S ee 89 9 F . 2d at 1 1 0 2 . T h is r e q u ir e m e n t s e r v e s “ t h e d u a l p u rp o s e o f p e r m ittin g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to c o rr e c t o n th e s p o t a n y e rr o rit m a y h a v e m a d e a n d o f g u id i n g a p p e l l a t e r e v ie w .” 4 Id . U n d er th e J on es rul e, w hen a di stri ctcourtfa i l s t o el i ci tobj ec t i on s a ft er i m po si ng a s ent ence , w e no rm all y vac at e the se nt ence and rem and t o the di stri ct c o u r t to g iv e t h e p a r tie s a n o p p o r tu n ity to p r e s e n t th e iro b je c tio n s . I d . a t 1 1 0 3 . A r e m a n d is u n n e c e s s a ry , h o w e v e r , if th e r e c o r d o n ap p e a l is s u f f ic ie n t to e n a b le re vi ew . U ni t ed S t at es v. C ruz, 94 6 F . 2d 12 2, 12 4 n . 1 (11 th C i r. 19 91 ). H er e, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t eli cit o b ject io n s a fteritim p o se d M an cill a’s s e nt e nc e . A l though the gove rnm e ntur ge s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pr e -sen t e nc i ng q u e ry “a n y th in g f

u r t h e r ” s a tis f

ie d J o n e s , w e d is a g r e e in lig h t o f o u rd e c is io n in U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ny de r , i n w hi c h w e he l d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i n q u i ry of w hether there w as “ anythi n g further, ” w hi ch t oo k p l ac e a ft erthe courti m po se d S ny de r ’ s s e nt e nc e , w a s nots uf f i c i e ntt o s a t i s f

y J one s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S ny de r , 94110

F . 3d 14 27 , 14 28 (11t h C i r. 19 91 ); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. C am pb ell, --- F . 3d -- -, 2 0 0 7 W L 9 3 2 4 * 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . J a n . 3 , 2 0 0 7 ) ( h o l d in g th a t d is tr ic t c o u r t’s p o s tse nt enci ng qu es t i on “ Is there anythi ng further? ” f ai led to sat i sf

y J on es ). If

“ a ny thi ng f

ur the r ” w a s i ns uf

f i c i e ntpos t - s e nt e nc i ng i n S ny de r( a nd ourr e c e nt C a m pbe l l de ci s i on) , w e c a nnotdi s c e rn how the e xa c ts a m e i nqui ry i n the i ns t a nt c a s e , b u t th is tim e p r io rto s e n te n c in g , w o u ld s a tis f y J o n e s . M or e ove r , the vi ol a t i on w a s no t a m e r e “ t e c hni c a l ” J one s vi ol a t i on s i nc e the r e c o r d is n o t s u f

f ic ie n t f o rm e a n in g f

u l ap p e lla te r e v ie w . I n t h e c a s e a t b a r , t h e di s tr i c tc our t di d nots ol i c i ta ny obj e c t i ons a f t e ri ti m pos e d M a nc i l l a ’ s s e nt e nc e a nd there by vi ol at ed Jones by n o tel i ci t i ng ful l y a rt i cul at ed obj ec t i on s t o the se nt ence or the m an n er i n w hi ch i tw as pron ou nced. L i ke i n S nyder, af t erthe courti nq ui re d w hether there w as “ anythi ng el se , ” no o bj ec t i on s w er e m ade. A nd the re cord b efo re us s i m pl y doe s nota l l ow f orm e a ni ngf

ul appe l l a t e r e vi e w s i nc e the obj e c t i on M a nc i l l a a s s e r t s - - tha tthe gove rnm e ntbr e a c h the pl e a a gr e e m e ntby f a i l i ng t o i nf

or m the c our tof

M a nc i l l a ’ s c oope r a t i on - - w a s notm e nt i one d dur i ng th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g . S e e U n ite d S t a t e s v . H o llo w a y , 9 7 1 F .2 d 6 7 5 , 6 8 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1992) ( w he r e de f e nda ntdi d notobj e c tt o P S I o r t o h i s s e nt e nc e a tthe s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , h o ld in g th a t d is tr ic t c o u r t’s f a ilu r e to e lic it o b

je c tio n s w a s n o t a m e r e “te c h n ic a l” v io la tio n o f J o n e s , a n d s e n te n c in g r e c o r d w a s n o t s u f f ic ie n tly11

devel op ed for to revi ew ); cf . U ni t ed S t at es v. C ruz, 94 6 F . 2d 12 2, 12 4 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ( r e v ie w in g te c h n ic a l J o n e s c la im w h e r e r e c o r d w a s s u f f ic ie n t f o rap p e lla te re v iew b ec au se , at th e s en ten cin g h ea rin g , C ru z o b jected to th e d istrict co u rt’s ca l cul at i on of the am ou ntof drug s use d t o d et erm i ne hi s guid elin e r ange, w hi ch w as the sa m e c l ai m he ra i se d o n app ea l ). A cc o rd in g ly, b ec au se th e r ec o rd w ith re sp ec t t o th e g o v er n m en t’ s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e rth e p le a a g r e e m e n t w a s n o t d e v e lo p e d b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, w e v acat e an d rem an d fo r i m p o si t i o n o f sen t en ce co n si st en tw i th Jo n es. V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.