FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 4, 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- 16984 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 9 9 - 0 0 0 0 3 - CR- W PD 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 L A T R A V I S G A L L A S H A W , a .k .a . T r a v , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

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

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 4, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L a tr a vi s G a l l a s ha w appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rr e - s e nt e nc i ng f

orIn United States v. Allen, No. 03-11389, 142 F . App’x 410 (11th Ci r. Jul y 29, 2005), we 1 vacated Gallasha

w’s prior sentenceand remanded f or re sentenc ing. The proc edural background of this caseis set forth there in. See Allen, 142 F . App’x at 411-12. 2 c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd m a r i j ua na , pos s e s s i on of m a r iju a n aw ith th e in te n t to d is tr ib u te , a n d p o s s e s s io n o f c o c a in e w ith th e in te n t to di s tr i but e . O n appe a l , G a l l a s ha w a r gue s tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e , a nd

1 thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n (1) se nt enci ng hi m base d o n rel evantcond uct i n v o l v i n g 1 5 0 k i l o g ram s o f co cai n e d i stri b u t ed d u ri n g th e co u rse o f th e co n sp i racy; ( 2 ) d e te rm in in g th a t G a lla s h a w w a s am a n a g e ro rs u p e rv is o rin ac r im in a l a c tiv ity i nv ol vi ng fi ve or m ore part i ci pant s; and (3) det erm i ni ng thatfi re arm s w er e po ss es se d d uri ng the course of the offens e. G al l as haw al so ar gu es thathi s s ent ence vi ol at ed hi s r i gh tt o h ave e veryel em entof the offens es of w hi ch he w as conv i ct ed d eter m in ed b y a ju ry . F o r th e r ea so n s d iscu ss ed b elo w , w e A F F IR M G allash aw ’s se nt ence . I . DI S CUS S I ON W e r evi ew a s ent ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourtfor r ea sonabl enes s. S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 785 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( c i t i ng U n ite d S ta te s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 0 - 6 1 , 1 2 5 S . C t. 7 3 8 , 7 6 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ) . T h is re as on abl enes s i nq ui ryi s gui ded b y the fa ct ors s etforth at18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , i ncl ud i ng the appl i cabl e U ni t ed S t at es S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. S ee U ni t ed3

S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ); B oo ker, 5 4 3 U . S . at2 6 1 , 1 2 5 S . C t . at7 6 5 -6 6 . A ft er B o o k er, th e sen t en ci n g p ro cess i nvol ve s tw o s t e ps . F i r s t , as e nt e nc i ng c our tm us tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the r a nge p r o v id e d b y th e g u id e lin e s . U n ite d S ta te s v . C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S e c o n d , th e c o u r t m u s t d e te rm in e ar e a s o n ab le s e n te n c in g , ta k in g in to c o n s i d e r a t i o n th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s . T a l l e y , 4 3 1 F . 3 d a t7 8 6 . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we m u st d eter m in e w h eth erth e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y c alcu lated G allash aw ’s g u id e lin e s e n te n c e , a n d w h e th e rth e s e n te n c e u ltim a te ly im p o s e d w a s r e a s o n ab le . In det erm i ni ng w hether the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed the gu i del i ne ra ng e, w e r e vi e w f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tr e ga r di ng s e nt e nc i ng f orc l e a re rr ora nd r e vi e w the d i stri ctco u rt ’ s ap p l i cat i o n o f th o se fact s t o th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es de no vo . U n ite d S ta te s v . S m ith , 1 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 8 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . A . S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne R a nge In det erm i ni ng G al l as haw ’ s gui del i ne ra ng e, the di stri ctcourtfi rs tca l cul at ed as i ngl e of

f e ns e l e ve l , w hi c h i tappl i e d i n s e nt e nc i ng G a l l a s ha w on a l l c ount s of w hi ch he w as conv i ct ed. U nd erthe se nt enci ng gu i del i nes, m ul t i pl e c ou nt s a re pr ope r l y gr oupe d f

orde t e rm i na t i on of

as i ngl e ove r a l l of

f e ns e l e ve l “ [ w ] he n the offe nse l evel i s det erm i ned l ar gel y on the basi s of . . . the qu ant i ty of asubst ance i nvol ve d . . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 3D 1. 2( d) ( N ov. 2005) . G a l l a s ha w w a s c onvi c t e d on4

one c ountof

c ons pi r a c y t o pos s e s w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e c oc a i ne a nd m a r i j ua na , a nd thr e e c ount s of pos s e s s i on w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e drugs . T he offe nse l evel for e ac h o f these coun t s s etforth i n § 2D 1. 1(c) , and “ i s det erm i ned la r g e ly o n th e b a s is o f

. . . th e q u a n tity o f

as u b s ta n c e in v o lv e d .” S e e U .S .S .G . § 3D 1. 2(d). A cc ordi ng l y, § 3 D 1. 2(d) re qu i re s group i ng , and the di stri ctcourtac t ed p r o p e r ly in d e te rm in in g as in g le o v e r a ll o f f e n s e le v e l. G a lla s h a w , h o w e v e r , a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d th r e e e rr o r s in ca l cul at i ng hi s overa l l offe nse l evel . F i rs t , he ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt i m pr ope r l y de t e rm i ne d tha thi s r e l e va ntc onduc ti nvol ve d ove r150 ki l ogr a m s of coca i ne. S ec on d, he cont ends thatthe courterre d i n d et erm i ni ng he w as a m anager ors upe rvi s ori n ac r i m i na l a c t i vi ty i nvol vi ng f i ve orm or e pa r t i c i pa nt s . F i na l l y , he a r gue s tha tthe c our te rr e d i n de t e rm i ni ng tha tf i r e a rm s w e r e pos s e s s e d dur i ng the c our s e of the of f e ns e . W e a ddr e s s e a c h of the s e a r gum e nt s i n turn. 1 . T h e D is tr ic t C o u r t’s D e te rm in a tio n R e g a r d in g D ru g Q u a n tity T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n de t e rm i ni ng tha tG a l l a s ha w ’ s r e l e va nt c o n d u c t in c lu d e d 1 5 0 k ilo g r a m s o f c o c a in e . S e c tio n 1 B 1 .3 ( a ) ( 1 ) p r o v id e s th a t, in det erm i ni ng re l evantcond uct , a s ent enci ng courti s t o con si der: ( A ) a l l a c t s a nd om i s si ons c om m i tt e d, a i de d, abe tt e d, c ouns e l e d, c o m m a n d e d , in d u c e d , p r o c u r e d , o rw illf u lly c a u s e d b y th e d e f

e n d a n t; a nd5

(B ) i n the ca se of a j oi nt l y und ert aken cri m i nal ac t i vi ty ( a c ri m i nal p la n , s c h e m e , e n d e a v o r , o re n te rp r is e u n d e r t a k e n b y th e d e f e n d a n t in c o n cert w i th o th ers, w h eth er o r n o t ch arg ed as a co n sp i rac y ) , a ll r e a s onabl y fo r e s e e abl e a c t s a nd om i s s i ons of othe r s i n f

ur the r a nc e of th e jo in tly u n d e r ta k e n c r im in a l a c tiv ity . . . . R e le v a n t c o n d u c t u n d e r§ 1 B 1 .3 n e e d n o t b e p r o v e n b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t; ra ther, a s ent enci ng courtm ayconsi der r el evantcond uctthatw as es t abl i shed at tr i a l by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H r i s t ov, 466 F . 3d 94 9, 95 4 n . 6 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). Indeed, w e have hel d thata s ent enci ng courtm ay even consi der “ re l evantcond uctof w hi ch a defe nd antw as ac qu i tt ed . . . as l on g as the gove rnm e ntpr ove s the a c qui tt e d c onduc tr e l i e d upon by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1304 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S . __, 126 S . C t . 432 ( 2005) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B a r a ka t , 130 F . 3d 14 48 , 14 52 (11th C i r. 19 97 )) (a l t er at i on om i tt ed). T he di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned, on the basi s of tri al t es t i m on y, thatG al l as haw w a s the s e c ond i n c om m a nd of hi s ga ng, the J ohn D oe s , a nd ove r s a w i t s drugs e llin g o p e r a tio n s . A c c o r d in g ly , th e c o u r t f o u n d th a t G a lla s h a w w a s r e s p o n s ib le f orthe a m ountof

c oc a i ne tha tpa s s e d thr ough the J ohn D oe s dur i ng the r e l e va nt t i m e per i od . T ri al and d eposi t i on t es t i m on y e st abl i shed thatthe John D oes packaged 5 t o 7 ki l og ra m s of c ocai ne a w ee k for a peri od of approx i m at el y t en m o n th s , o rw e ll o v e r1 5 0 k ilo g r a m s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t c le a r ly e rrin6

cr edi t i ng thi s t es t i m on y, and u nd er§ 1 B 1. 3(a) (1), the qu ant i ty of drugs thatpass ed thr ough the J ohn D oe s w a s pr ope r l y c ons i de r e d r e l e va ntc onduc ti n de t e rm i ni ng G a l l a s ha w ’ s ove r a l l of

f e ns e l e ve l . M or e ove r , be c a us e the f ourc ount s of c o n v ic tio n w e r e g r o u p e d u n d e r§ 3 D 1 .2 ( d ) , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s r e q u ir e d to c o n s id e rth e a g g r e g a te q u a n tity o f d ru g s in c a lc u la tin g its o v e r a ll o f f e n s e le v e l. S e e U . S . S . G . § 3D 1. 3( b) ( “ I n the c a s e of c ount s gr oupe d t oge the rpur s ua ntt o § 3D 1. 2( d) , the of

f e ns e l e ve l appl i c abl e t o aG r oup i s the of f e ns e l e ve l c orr e s pondi ng t o the aggregat ed qu ant i ty . . . . ”) . 2. T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’ s D et erm i nat i on R egar di ng R ol e a s M anager or S upe rvi s or T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y ap p l i ed § 3 B 1 . 1 (b ) o f th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es, w h i ch p ro v i d es fo r a th ree-l ev el u p w ard ad j u stm en t“ [i ] f th e d efen d an tw as a m anager or s up ervi sor . . . and the cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty i nv ol ved fi ve or m ore pa r t i c i pa nt s orw a s othe rw i s e e xt e ns i ve . ” S e ve r a l gove rnm e ntw i tne s s e s , i nc l udi ng Je ff re y B ul l ar d, John G oo di ne, E ri c M i t chel l , and C harl es C l ark, t es t i fi ed that G al l as haw : (1) w as se cond i n com m and i n the John D oe hi er ar chy; (2) pai d o ther m e m be r s of

the ga ng; ( 3) di c t a t e d the a m ountof drugs t o be pa c ka ge d f or di s tr i but i on; ( 4) s t or e d drugs f orthe J ohn D oe s a thi s hom e ; a nd ( 5) r e c rui t e d J ohn D oe m e m be r s . T hi s t e s t i m ony w a s s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t abl i s h by apr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tG a l l a s ha w s e rve d a s am a na ge rors upe rvi s orw i thi n the m e a ni ng7

of § 3B 1. 1( b) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L a F r a ugh, 893 F . 2d 314, 319 ( 11th C i r . 1990) (uph ol di ng di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of m anageri al rol e a dj ustm entw here de f e nda nt“ i l l e ga l l y obt a i ne d al a r ge num be rof [ s t ol e n l ong di s t a nc e t e l e phone se rvi ce ] ac ce ss codes, sol d them t o o thers , offe re d ass i st ance w hen p eopl e had tr o u b le u s in g th e m , a n d c o m m u n ic a te d w ith h is b r o th e r , h is g ir lf r ie n d a n d o th e r s in the conspi ra cyatre gu l ari nt erval s” ). In addi t i on , tri al t es t i m on y e st abl i shed that the cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty i nv ol ved m ore than fi ve part i ci pant s. T hu s, the di stri ctcourt di d n otcl ea rl y e rrappl yi ng an up w ar d adj ustm entun der § 3B 1. 1(b). 3. T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’ s D et erm i nat i on R egar di ng P osse ss i on of a F i re arm G al l as haw al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n app l yi ng a tw o-l evel u p w a r d a d

ju s tm e n t u n d e r§ 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm . W e d is a g r e e . B ul l a r d t e s t i f

i e d tha tG a l l a s ha w s hota nothe rga ng m e m be r , M a r l on B e nne by , a nd be a thi m w i th api s t ol a taJ ohn D oe drug hol e . B ul l a r d’ s t e s t i m ony w a s s uf f i c i e nt for the di stri ctcourtt o fi nd by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence thatG al l as haw pos s e s s e d af

i r e a rm . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L e e , 68 F . 3d 1267, 1276 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( “ [ W ] e gi ve gr e a tde f

e r e nc e t o the di s tr i c tc our t ' s a s s e s s m e ntof the c r e di bi l i ty a nd e vi de nt i a ry c ont e ntof

[ w i tne s s e s ’ ] t e s t i m ony . ” ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) ) . T hough G a l l a s ha w a r gue s tha tB ul l a r d l a t e rga ve c ontr a di c t ory t e s t i m ony i n c onne c t i on w i th as e pa r a t e s t a t e - c our tpr oc e e di ng, G a l l a s ha w ha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha tthe8

di s tr i c tc our tc l e a r l y e rr e d i n c r e di t i ng B ul l a r d’ s t e s t i m ony , a nd w e w i l l nots e c ond gue s s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. S e e C B S B r oa d. , I nc . v. E ch o S t ar C o m m c’ n s C o rp . , 4 5 0 F . 3 d 5 0 5 , 5 1 7 n . 2 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ B ecau se ap p e lla te c o u r ts r e v ie w in g ac o ld r e c o r d g iv e p a r tic u la rd e f e r e n c e to c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n s o f

af a c t- f in d e rw h o h a d th e o p p o r tu n ity to s e e liv e te s tim o n y . . . w e do nots e c ond gue s s the c our t ’ s j udgm e nt s . ” ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed)) . T he di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y de t e rm i ne d one ove r a l l of f e ns e l e ve l f

or G a l l a s ha w , a nd i n doi ng s o pr ope r l y c ons i de r e d the a ggr e ga t e qua nt i ty of drugs in v o lv e d in th e c r im in a l a c tiv ity a s e s tab lis h e d b y ap r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v id e n c e . B e c a us e tha tqua nt i ty w a s ove r150 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne , § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 1) of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes provi des f or a bas e off

ense l evel of thi rty- ei gh t . T he court a ls o p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d G a lla s h a w ’s r o le a s am a n a g e ro rs u p e rv is o r , r e s u ltin g in a n upw a r d a dj us tm e ntof thr e e l e ve l s unde r§ 3B 1. 1( b) , a s w e l l a s hi s pos s e s s i on of a f i re arm , w hi ch w as the basi s f or an up w ar d adj ustm entof tw o l evel s und er§ 2D 1. 1(b)(1), for a n o vera l l offe nse l evel of 43 . B ec ause the courtfoun d that G al l as haw fe l l w i thi n cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory I , thi s r es ul t ed i n an adv i sory g u i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e o f

l i f e . U. S . S . G. ch. 5, pt . A (s ent enci ng t abl e) . W e f i nd that th e c o u r t d id n o t e rrin c a lc u la tin g G a lla s h a w ’s a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s e n te n c e . N e x t,9

w e a ddr e s s w he the rG a l l a s ha w ’ s s e nt e nc e i s r e a s onabl e , t a ki ng i nt o c ons i de r a t i on the fa ct ors out l i ned i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . B . R ea sonabl enes s of G al l as haw ’ s S ent ence G al l as haw ar gu es thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s . O urr e a s onabl e ne s s r e vi e w i s de f e r e nt i a l , a nd “ w e r e c ogni z e tha tar a nge of re as on abl e s ent ence s e xi st s f rom w hi ch the di stri ctcourtm aychoo se . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . P o p e , 4 6 1 F .3 d 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . M o r e o v e r , th e p a r ty c ha l l e ngi ng as e nt e nc e on appe a l be a r s the bur de n of de m ons tr a t i ng tha tthe se nt ence i s unrea sonabl e. S ee i d. B ec ause w e f i nd thatG al l as haw has notca rr i ed th a t b u r d e n , w e a f

f irm th e s e n te n c e im p o s e db y th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A tG al l as haw ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad c ons i de r e d a l l of

the f a c t or s s e tf

or th i n § 3553( a ) , a nd a c know l e dge d tha tthe sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es w ere ad v i so ry. W h i l e th e co u rtd i d n o ti n d i v i d u al l y d i scu ss ea ch of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, w e have hel d thatno thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here r e qui r e s the di s tr i c tc our tt o do s o. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . I ti s e nough tha tthe c our ta c know l e dge tha ti tha s c ons i de r e d the de f e nda nt ’ s a r gum e nt s a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t786. T hough G a lla s h a w r e c e iv e d th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m s e n te n c e o f s e v e n ty y e a r s , h is c o rr e c tly ca l cul at ed advi sorygu i del i ne se nt ence w as l i fe i m pri sonm ent . G al l as haw ar gu es10

th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e g iv e n m o r e c o n s id e r a tio n to m itig a tin g f a c to r s in c r a f t i ng hi s s e nt e nc e , y e tthe c our ts t a t e d on the r e c or d tha ti tdi d c ons i de rthe fa ct ors r equi re d b y the se nt enci ng st atut e. W e f i nd thatG al l as haw has notca rr i ed h is b u r d e n o f

s h o w in g th a t h is s e n te n c e lie s o u ts id e th e r a n g e o f r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e s . C . C ons t i tut i ona l E rr or G a lla s h a w a ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t tr e a te d th e g u id e lin e s a s if they w er e m andat ory, there by com m i tt i ng B oo ker e rr or. A s not ed abov e, ho w ever , the di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s l y tr e a t e d the gui de l i ne s a s a dvi s ory . S e e , e . g. , R 10 a t21 ( a c know l e dgi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a r e a dvi s ory ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e f i nd thatthe di stri ctcourtcom pl i ed w i th B oo ker. Fi n a l l y , G a l l a s h a w a r g u e s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tr a n a f o u l o f th e Su p r e me C o u r t’s h o ld in g in A p p r e n d i v . N e w J e r s e y b y e n h a n c in g h is s e n te n c e o n th e b a s is o f f a c t s n o tp r o v e n t o aj u ry b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab l e d o u b t . 5 3 0 U . S. 4 6 6 , 4 9 0 , 1 2 0 S. C t . 23 48 , 23 62 -63 (20 00 ) ( “ O ther than the fa ctof a pri or conv i ct i on , any f ac tthat i n creases the p en al ty fo r a cri m e b eyo n d th e p rescri b ed st atu t o ry m ax i m u m m u st b e su b m i tt ed t o a j u ry, an d p ro v ed b eyo n d a reaso n ab l e d o u b t . ”). S p eci fi cal l y, G a l l a s ha w a r gue s tha tthe c our tvi ol a t e d A ppr e ndi by de t e rm i ni ng tha thi s r e l e va nt co n d u cti n cl u d ed resp o n si b i l i ty fo r o v er 1 5 0 k i l o g ram s o f co cai n e, th ath e w as a11

m a na ge rorl e a de rof

hi s ga ng, a nd tha the pos s e s s e d af i r e a rm . T hi s a r gum e nt f a ils . A ppr e ndi he l d tha tac our tm a y nots e nt e nc e ade f e nda ntbe y ond the m a xi m um pe na l ty a uthor i z e d by s t a tut e , ba s e d on the f a c t s pr ove n a ttr i a l be y ond a re as on abl e dou bt . Id. In hi s f i rs tse nt enci ng appeal , w e hel d thatthe st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence s app l i cabl e t o G al l as haw w er e f i ve ye ar s a s t o cou nton e, tw e nty y e a r s a s t o c ountf our , f i ve y e a r s a s t o c ountt e n, a nd f or ty y e a r s a s t o c ount e le v e n . U n ite d S ta te s v . A lle n , 3 0 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 7 5 - 7 6 , 1 2 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . T hese st atut ory m axi m um s w er e bas ed up on an un spec i fi ed am ou ntof m ar i j uana, and “ ov erw hel m i ng and ess ent i al l y uncon trovert ed” e vi dence attri al that G a l l a s ha w pos s e s s e d 1809. 74 gr a m s of pow de rc oc a i ne . I d. a t1277- 79 ( c i t i ng U n i t ed S t at es v . C o tt o n , 5 3 5 U . S . 6 2 5 , 6 3 3 , 1 2 2 S . C t . 1 7 8 1 , 1 7 8 6 (2 0 0 2 )). T h u s, the t ot a l s t a tut ory m a xi m um s e nt e nc e ba s e d upon the qua nt i t i e s of c oc a i ne a nd m a r iju a n ap r o v e n a t tr ia l w a s s e v e n ty y e a r s , th e s e n te n c e G a lla s h a w r e c e iv e d . G a l l a s ha w poi nt s outtha tthe r e l e va ntdrug qua nt i t i e s w e r e nota l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd a r gue s tha t , the r e f or e , the y w e r e notpr ove n t o aj ury be y ond a reaso n ab l e d o u b t . G al l ash aw rai sed th i s arg u m en t , an d w e ad d ressed i t , i n h i s fi rst s e n te n c in g ap p e a l. S e e A lle n , 3 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 6 - 7 9 . N o n e th e le s s , w e r e ite r a te th a t, unde rC ott on, i ti s e nough tha tthe e vi de nc e a s t o the r e l e va ntqua nt i ty of drugs beIn deter mining the a

ppropriateadvisory

guideline ra

ng e in Gallasha

w’s ca se, the district 2 court did consider

relevant conduc t that was not proven to a jury beyond a re asonabledoubt. However, bec ause the se facts were not used to sentenc e Gallashaw beyond the statutory maxi mum, the district court did not violate Apprendi. 12 p r o v e n a t tr ia l b y “o v e rw h e lm in g a n d e s s e n tia lly u n c o n tr o v e r te d ” e v id e n c e , e v e n if no qua nt i ty i s a l l e ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt . 535 U . S . a t633, 122 S . C t . a t1786 ( c i t a t i on a nd i nt e rna l quot a t i on om i tt e d) . I n A l l e n, w e he l d tha t“ ove rw he l m i ng and ess ent i al l y uncon trovert ed” e vi dence w as pres ent ed attri al thatG al l as haw p o s s e s s e d 1 8 0 9 .7 4 g r a m s o f p o w d e rc o c a in e . 3 0 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 7 - 7 9 . T h e q u a n tity of drug s proven attri al se rved as the basi s f or det erm i ni ng G al l as haw ’ s s t atut ory m a x im u m s e n te n c e o n e a c h o f th e c o u n ts , w h ic h to ta le d s e v e n ty y e a r s . S e e id . B ec ause G al l as haw w as se nt ence d t o seventy y ears of i m pri sonm ent , the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t s e n te n c e h im b e y o n d th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m a u th o r iz e d b y th e f a c ts prov en attri al , and, consequent l y, there i s no A pp re nd i error. 2 I I . CONCL US I ON G al l as haw ’ s s ent ence w as w i thi n the advi soryse nt enci ng gu i del i ne ra ng e, as prop er l y c al cul at ed by the di stri ctcourt . T he di stri ctcourtconsi dere d the fa ct ors ou t l i ned i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , appl i ed the gu i del i nes i n an adv i sorym anner, as r e qui r e d by B ooke r , a nd G a l l a s ha w di d note s t abl i s h tha thi s s e nt e nc e f a l l s out s i de the ra ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s. M oreover, the courtdi d n otse nt ence G al l as haw abov e the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence base d u po n the fa ct s proven t o a j ury a t13

tri al . B ec ause w e f

i nd no error, w e A F F I R M G al l as haw ’ s s ent ence .