## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 2186 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ICHAEL G IB BS, D ef endant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 CR 540

— Suzanne B. C onl on, Judg e.

A RG UE D M AR CH 30, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2009

Befo re K ANN E , W OO D a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ir c uit Ju dg e. On Febr uary22 , 20 07, M i chael Gibbs m ade the m ista ke ofse l l i ng cr ack coca i ne to a w itn es s c oo p er at in g w ith th e fe d er al g ov er n m en t. A gran d j ury ind icted Gibb s for d istribu ting fi fty o r m ore g r ams o fc r ack inv i o l at i o n o f2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) , a nd Gibbs pl eaded gui l ty. The d istri ct c ourtse ntenced Gibbs to ten yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent a nd te n yea rs o fsuperv i sed re l eas e. The co urt al so or dered Gibbs, as a condi ti on o f2 N o. 08

- 2186 hi s su per vi se d r el ea se , t o r epaythe $ 1, 40 0 us ed bythe G o v e rn m en t t o b u y t h e d ru gs . On ap p ea l, G ibb s c h all enges o nl y th e s up er vi sed r el eas e t er m and the re paym ent c ondit i on. H e a rgues that the di str i ct c ourter re d byf ai l i ngt o c al cul at e th e adv i so r y Gui del i ne ran ge an d byi m po singa r epa y m en t o bl i g at i o n wi th outc o nsi der i ngGibb s’ s abi li tyt o pa y . As we e xpl ain b el o w, the l at te ra r g um en t i s pr emature, b utthe f o r m era r g um en t has m er i t. W e there f or e v acat e the super vi sed r el eas e te r m o fGibb s’s s en te nc e an d r emand th e ca se t o the dist ri ct c ourt

. W hi l e th e S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s ar e a d vi so r y, the Suprem e Court has s tr ess ed that dist ri ct c ourt s m ust t re at th e Gui del i ne s as “the st ar tingpoi nta nd the i ni ti alb en ch

m ar k. ” G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 128 S . C t. 58 6, 59 7 (2 00 7). A dist ri ct c ourtm ust “ begin al lse ntenci ng pro ceedin gs by cor re ctl y cal cul ating the appli cabl e Gu i del i ne range” ; f ai lu re to do s o i s a “s i gni fi cant proce du ra ler ro r. ” Id.; see al so U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cK inn ey , 543 F.3d 91 1, 913 (7th Cir. 2008 ) (n o t in g that, un d er G all , this cou rt m us t satisfy its elf th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtco rre c tly ca lcu lat ed th e a d viso ry G u id elin e ra n ge ). W e re vie w th e p ro c ed u re s fo llow ed by the district cou rtdeno vo . U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e ndoz a , 510 F.3d 749 , 754 (7th C ir. 2007). Bo thpa r ti es a g r ee tha t th e co r r ec t adv i so r y Guid el i ne ra nge forGib bs’ s t er m o fsupervi sed r el eas e i s fi ve ye ar s. T o for es ta ll an y p os sib le ob je c t i on , w e e x p lain how we c a l c ul a t e d tha tr a ng e . Be c a us e Gib b s p l e a ded gu il ty to viol ating 21 U .S .C . § 841(a)(1) , he faces a su p ervi sed r el eas e t er m subj ect to a s tatutor y m i ni m um o fN o. 08

- 2186 3 fi ve years an d a statu tory m ax im um of li fe. See § 841(b). Forsupe rv i sed r el eas e, the appropri ate Guidel i ne, U

. S. S. G. § 5 D1. 2(a )(1), sugg est s a r ange ofthr ee to fi ve y e a r s . Wh e n th e qu e s t i o n o n the tab l e r e l a t e s t o th e i mpri sonm ent t er m , i fthe sta tutory m ini m um i s hi gher th anthe Gui del i ne r an g e, the s ta tu to r y min im um c o ntr ols . Se e U .S.S.G . § 5 G 1.1 (b ), see , e . g. , U nite d States v. P oole, 550 F. 3d 676, 67 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. The sa m e pr i nci ple appli es to supervi sed r el eas e. In kee ping w i th thati dea, § 5D1. 2( c) ofthe Gu id elines pro vi des that“[ t] he te rm o fsuperv i sed re lea se im p os ed sh all be n otles s t h an an y s ta tu to rily requ ired term of su p ervised rel ease.” T h u s , t he statu tory m i ni m um t er m o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se de fi ne s ei th erthe bottom l im it ofthe ad visory Gu ideline rang e or the en tire ran ge (i f it coin cid es w ith th e t op of th e G uid eli ne s range ). ForGib bs, bec ause the Gui del i nes s ugges ted thr ee to fi ve years b u t t he statu te requ ires five years, th e ad visory Gu i de l i ne r a ng e b e c o mes fi v e y e a r s , p e r i o d. The p ro b l em we f ace i s that the di str i ct c ourtneve r ackno w l edged thatthe advi sory ra nge was fi ve yea rs . Aft eri m po singthe i nc ar ce r at i o n s ent en ce , i t sa i d: “ The s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e t e r m i s fi v e y e a r s t o l i fe . Ia m i mp osinga pe r i o d o f1 0 y ea r s su per vi se d r el ea se . ” The c o u r ti d e n t i fi e d th e s ta t u t o r y r a n g e , b u ta s f a ra s we ca n t el li t n everc al cul at ed th e adv i so r y Gui del i ne ran ge. T h e G o vern m en t sp ecu lates tha t the district cou rt knew that the Gu i del i ne ra nge w as fi ve yea rs , but it provi des no evi dence to support thi s a sse rt ion ; at o ra l ar gu m en t, th e G ov er n m en t c ou ld n otid en tify a s i n gle st at ementb y the c o urtr efl ec tingi ts kno wl edg e th atthe adv i so r y r an g e was fi ve y ea r s. N o wher e i n th e record4 N o. 08

- 2186 does i t e ven e stabl i sh tha t th e di str i ct c ourtadopted the Gui del i ne r ange i n the prese ntenci ng r epor t. U nd er the c i rcum sta nces , we are unabl e t o sat i sfy o urse l ves th at th e d istri ct cou rt correct ly c a lculated the ad visory Gu i del i ne r ange. Thi s pro ceduraler ro r enti tl es G ibbs to a r e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o fh i s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e t e r m. G ibb s a lso ch alle n ge s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s o rd er co n d iti oni ng super vi sed r el eas e o n Gibbs’ s r epaym ent o f $1 , 40 0 to the Uni te d S ta te s. A di st r i ctc o ur t ha s th e po wert o i m po se as a co ndi ti o n o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se “ an y o the rc o nd i ti on i tc o ns i de r s a pp r o pr i a t e . ” 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 5 8 3 ( d)

. We ha v e i nt e r pr e t e d thi s p o we rt o a ut hor i ze a c on d i t ion req u irin g t h e re p ay m en t o f bu y m on ey . U nited State s v. D add ato , 9 9 6 F

. 2 d 9 0 3 , 9 0 4

- 0 5 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 3 )

. We ac k no wl edg e th at o th er ci r cui ts di sa g r ee , but w e d ecl i ne to ove rr ule o ur l ong- sta nd ing pre cedent. S ee U nited St at e s v. Cot t m an , 14 2 F .3d 16 0, 16 9-7 0 (3 d C ir. 19 98 ); U nited St at e s v. Gi b b e ns , 25 F. 3d 28, 36 n. 9 ( 1stCi r. 19 94). Gib bs assert s that the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have co nsi dered his ab i l i tyt o r epa y wheni m po singthe c o ndi ti o n, b utwe th i nk that the di str i ct c ourtapprop ria tel y defer re d any such c on sid er at ion u n til G ibb s’s rele as e from p ris on . G ibb s w ill h av e a n op p or t u n i t y to rais e th is iss u e a fte r h e s er ve s h is t e n - y e a rp r i s o n t e r m. * * * W e V ACATE th e se nt ence o fs upe r vi se d r el ea se a nd R EM AND th is case for th e li m ited p urp ose of r ed etermi n i n gth e s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e t e r m.

8- 25- 09