FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 27, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ 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. 07- 10371 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 1 6 8 - CR- CB 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 P A T R I C K T H O M P S O N , 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 o rth e So u th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L 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: P a tr ic k T h o m p s o n ap p e a ls h is tw o 4 8 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e s f o rc o n s p ir a c y toUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). 1 2 po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e c ocai ne and crac k cocai ne, 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), 8 4 6 , a n d p o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e c o c a i n e a n d c r a c k c o c a i n e , 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( a ) ( 1) , a s w e l l a s hi s c onc ur r e nt240- m onth s e nt e nc e f orobs truc t i on of j ust i ce , 18 U . S . C . § 1 51 2(c) (1), w hi ch w er e i m po se d u po n res ent enci ng . A ft er r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . B AC KG RO UN D A ct i ng on a t i p from a c on fi dent i al i nform ant , po l i ce det ai ned and then a r r e s t e d T hom ps on a ta m ot e l i n M obi l e , A l a ba m a . A s e a r c h of the m ot e l r oom unc ove r e d 1. 5 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne a nd 217 gr a m s of c r a c k c oc a i ne a nd a r e c e i pt i n T h o m p so n ’ s n am e fo r a st o rag e u n i ti n M assach u sett s. W h i l e i n cu st o d y, T h o m p s o n a s k e d a w o m a n n a m e d T a n y a L e e to g o to th e s to r a g e u n it in M a s s a c hus e tt s t o r e m ove e vi de nc e . L e e c om pl i e d a nd r e m ove d a s ui t c a s e tha ts he s a i d c ont a i ne d a gun, m one y a nd c r a c k c oc a i ne . T hom ps on w a s tr i e d a nd conv i ct ed on char ges of drug t ra ff i cki ng and o bstruct i on of j ust i ce . In a pri or appeal , thi s C ou rtvaca t ed T ho m pson ’ s s ent ence s, concl ud i ng that the di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed const i tut i on al B oo ker error w hen i tappl i ed a f i re arm 1 enhancem entt o T ho m pson ’ s s ent ence , pu rs uantt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1), un der a m a nda t or y gui de l i ne s s c he m e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T hom ps on, N o. 04- 14722, 171In h is f ir st a pp e al, wit h the e xcepti on of the B oo ker challeng eto t hefire arm

e nh anc e ment, 2 Thompson did not ch al l en g e the district cour t’s guidelines calculations. Thus, the district court’s application of theguidelines, with the exception of the firea rm enhanc ement, is the law of thecase . See United States v. Esc obar- Urre g o, 110 F.3d 1556, 1560- 61 (11th Cir. 1997). 3 F . A pp ’ x 8 23 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). T he C ou rtno t ed thaton re m and t he di stri ctcourt shou l d d et erm i ne w hatse nt ence w as re as on abl e a ft erconsi deri ng the gu i del i nes a s a d v is o r y a n d th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s , b u t th a t is s u e s a lr e a d y o rn e c e s s a r ily de c i de d c oul d notbe r e a r gue d. I d. a t831 n. 5. 2 O n rem and, T ho m pson ar gu ed thathe di d n otpo ss es s afi re arm for purpo se s of § 2 D 1. 1(b)(1) and thatsuch po ss es si on m ustbe foun d b y aj ury. T he di stri ct c our tf ound by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e tha tT hom ps on pos s e s s e d the gun and app l i ed the fi re arm enhancem enti n cal cul at i ng T ho m pson ’ s a dv i sory g u id e lin e s r a n g e o f

3 6 0 m o n th s to lif

e im p r is o n m e n t. T hom ps on a l s o a r gue d f ora m a nda t or y m i ni m um 20- y e a rs e nt e nc e , be l ow the advi sory gu i del i nes r ange, because: (1) hi s f ather had i nd uced hi m t o try cr ac k a n d jo in th e d ru g c u ltu r e w h e n T h o m p s o n w a s o n ly th ir te e n y e a r s o ld ; ( 2 ) h is ai l i ng m other a nd hi s c hi l dren rel i ed up on hi m ; (3) hi s drug o pera t i on had b ee n l i m i t e d i n s c ope ; ( 4) he ne e de d oppor tuni t i e s f orr e ha bi l i t a t i on; ( 5) othe rdrug d e f e n d a n ts a n d h is c o - c o n s p ir a to r s h a d r e c e iv e d le s s e rs e n te n c e s ; a n d ( 6 ) it w o u ld b e u n ju s t f o rh im to s p e n d s u c h a s ig n if ic a n t p o r tio n o f

h is lif e in ja il.4

D uri ng the se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtcom m ent ed that T h o m p s o n ’s e x te n s iv e c r im in a l h is to r y w a s s e r io u s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t it h a d r e a d th e le tte r s f

r o m T h o m p s o n ’s r e la tiv e s r e q u e s tin g a le s s e rs e n te n c e . W h ile ac kn ow l edgi ng thatthe l ett erw ri t er s w er e goo d p eopl e, the di stri ctcourt que s t i one d the i rc onc l us i on tha tT hom ps on w a s a good pe r s on gi ve n hi s e xt e ns i ve cr i m i nal hi st ory. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed that , base d o n T ho m pson ’ s c ri m i nal re cord, i tbel i eved T ho m pson w as no ta goo d p er son, bu ta bad pers on w ho had

“ appeare d b ef

ore j ud ge af

t erj ud ge af

t erj ud ge i n [hi s] hi st ory. ” T he di stri ctcourt a l s o s t a t e d tha t , unde rthe c i r c um s t a nc e s , a m i ni m um s e nt e nc e w oul d notbe approp ri at e, bu tw ant ed t o h ea r w hatT ho m pson w ou l d say before choo si ng an approp ri at e s ent ence . T he di stri ctcourtthen al l ow ed T ho m pson t o al l ocut e. T ho m pson ar gu ed tha t , a l though he ha d done s om e ba d thi ngs , he ha d notc om m i tt e d a ny vi ol e nt cr i m es and d i d n otbel i eve thathe dese rved w hatam ou nt ed t o al m osta l i fe s e nt e nc e . T hom ps on e xpr e s s e d r e m or s e f orhi s c r i m e s a nd s t a t e d tha the ha d a go od hear tand b el i eved thathe coul d b e r ehabi l i t at ed. T ho m pson al so as ked for a le s s e rs e n te n c e b e c a u s e h is m o th e rw a s ill. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta c k n o w l e d g e d th a ti th a d h e a r d Th o mp s o n a n d h a d c o me t o the heari ng w i th an o pen m i nd , bu tfe l tthata 480 -m on th sent ence w asThe § 3 5 5 3 ( a) f a c to r s in c lud e : ( 1 ) th e n atu re an d c irc ums ta

n c e s o f th e o f

f e n se and the 3 his tor y and c ha rac teri sti c s o f t

hede fendant; (2 ) t

hene e d to re fl e c t the seri ou sn e ss o f t heof fens e , to promote re spect for

the l aw , an d t o provide just punishment for the off ense; (3) the nee d for deter renc e; (4) theneed to protect the publi c; (5) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational trainingor medical care; (6) thekinds of sentenc es av ai l ab l e; (7) thesentenc ing guide lin e s rang e ; ( 8) pertinent p oli c y state mentsof

th e S ent enci ngCommis sio n; ( 9) thene e d to avoid unwar

rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities; and (10) theneed to provide re stitut ion to victims . See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 5 ap p r o p r ia te a f

te rc o n s id e r in g th e a d v is o r y g u id e lin e s a n d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . T he di s tr i c tc our ts t a t e d tha ta 480- m onth s e nt e nc e “ m e e t s the s e nt e nc i ng o b je c tiv e s o f

p u n is h m e n t, d e te r r e n c e a n d in c ap a c ita tio n .” T h o m p s o n f ile d th is ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n appe a l , T hom ps on c ont e nds tha thi s s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e the d is tr ic t c o u r t f

a ile d to c o n s id e rp r o p e r ly a t s e n te n c in g T h o m p s o n ’s a r g u m e n ts m a de i n m i t i ga t i on. A ft erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), a di stri ct court , i n d et erm i ni ng a r ea sonabl e s ent ence , m ustconsi der the corre ct l y c al cul at ed a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 784, 786 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . A l though the di s tr i c tc our tm us tc ons i de rthe 3 § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s , “n o th in g in B o o k e ro re ls e w h e r e r e q u ir e s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t to s t a t e on the r e c or d tha ti tha s e xpl i c i t l y c ons i de r e d e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s or t o di s c us s e a c h of

the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324,6

13 29 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). R ather, an ac kn ow l edgm entby the di stri ctcourtthati thas consi dere d the defendant ’ s a rgum ent s a nd the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors w i l l suff i ce . Id. at 1329- 30. W e r e vi e w a de f

e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f orr e a s ona bl e ne s s i n l i ghtof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F . 3d 13 50 , 13 53 (11t h C i r. 2006) . “ [ T ] he pa r ty w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le in th e lig h t o f b o th [ th e ] r e c o r d a n d th e f a c to r s in s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788. D uri ng T ho m pson ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtst at ed thati thad consi dere d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a nd the advi sory gu i del i nes r ange. T he di stri ct courtspec i fi ca l l y not ed T ho m pson ’ s e xt ensi ve cr i m i nal hi st ory. T he di stri ctcourt a l s o l i s t e ne d t o a nd a c know l e dge d a l l of T hom ps on’ s a r gum e nt s i n m i t i ga t i on of h is s e n te n c e , in c lu d in g th e f a c t th a t h is f

a th e rin tr o d u c e d h im to d ru g s a t a n e a r ly a ge a nd tha thi s c o- de f

e nda nt s r e c e i ve d l e s s e rs e nt e nc e s . T he di s tr i c tc our tw a s not re qu i re d t o add re ss ea ch fa cti n m i t i gat i on or t o add re ss expl i ci t l y e ac h § 35 53 (a ) f a c to r . G iv e n T h o m p s o n ’s e x te n s iv e c r im in a l h is to r y a n d th e s e r io u s n e s s o f h is offe nses , w hi ch i ncl ud ed att em pt s t o h i de evi dence af t erhi s a rr es t , w e c anno tsa y thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s 480 -m on th sent ence s a re un re as on abl e. T ho m pson al so ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i ca t i on of the fi re arm7

e nha nc e m e ntvi ol a t e d hi s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s . T hi s a r gum e nti s f or e c l os e d by Un i t e d S t a t e s v . C h a u , 4 2 6 F . 3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 3 - 2 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , i n wh i c h we concl ud ed thatB oo ker does notproh i bi textra -ver di ctenhancem ent s und eran advi sory gu i del i nes s ys t em . B ec ause T ho m pson w as re se nt ence d u nd eran a dvi s or y gui de l i ne s s c he m e , the r e w a s no S i xth A m e ndm e ntvi ol a t i on. A FFI R M ED .