# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 35 48

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Ken ne th L. Irby

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 - C ap e Gir ard eau

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 5, 2 01 6
Fil ed : Au gu st 1, 2 01 6 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Ken ne th L. Irby ple ad ed gu il ty to b ei ng a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , in

vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). He ap pe al s from th e 12 0- m on th

se nt en ce i m

po se d b y th e d is tri ct co ur t. W e aff irm. 1

On Mar ch 13

, 20 14

, Irb y was rid in g in a tru ck whe n la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers

tri ed to in it ia te a tra ffi c st op

. The of fic ers ha d reas on to be li ev e th at th e own er of th e

tru ck was en ga ge d in th e tra ffi ck in g of a dr ug kn own as ba th sa lt s. Offi cers ob se rv ed

Irb y pu sh th e dr i v e r o u t o f t h e dr iv er’s si de do or of th e tru ck

. Irb y th en le d th e

of fic e rs on a hi gh -s pe ed ch as e, du rin g whi ch he fir ed a .12 -g au ge sh ot gu n se ve ral

ti m es in th e di rect io n of th e of fic ers ’ ve hi cl e, on e ro un d of whi ch st ru ck th e ho od of

th e sq ua d car. Irb y dr ov e th e tru ck in ex ces s of se ve nt y m il es pe r h o u r t h ro ug h a

res id en ti al area , cro ss in g se ve ral re s i de nt s’ y ard s. He cau se d th e tru ck to be co m e

ai rb or ne on at le as t th ree oc cas io ns , an d r e c kl es sl y sp ed th ro ug h at le as t th irt een

in te r se ct io ns

. Eve nt ua ll y , Irb y cras he d th e tru ck in to a fen ce an d es cap ed on fo ot

, le av in g t he sh ot gu n i n t he tru ck , alo ng wit h t hr ee s he ll cas in gs

.

Earl y th e fo ll o w i ng m or ni ng , of fic ers le arn ed th at Irb y was arm ed wit h a

ha nd g u n an d hi di ng in th e crawl sp ace un de r a fri en d’s ho m e. Offi cers ob ta in ed a

se arch warra nt fo r th e ho m e an d ev en tu al ly ret rie ve d Irb y an d th e ha nd gu n.

In ve st ig at or s la te r ob ta in ed a ph ot og rap h ta ke n e arl ie r th at m on th

, whi ch de pi ct ed

Irb y ho ld in g t he sh ot gu n t ha t h e h ad us ed du rin g t he hi gh -s pe ed ch as e.

Irb y was ch arg ed wit h th ree co un ts of be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. H e en te red in to a pl ea ag reem en t un de r whi ch he pl ead ed gu il ty to on e of th e

po ss es si on co un ts

, an d th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed to di sm is s th e rem ai ni ng co un ts

. The

di st ric t co ur t ac cep te d Ir by’ s g ui lt y pl ea an d d is m is se d t he rem ai ni ng co un ts

.

The Hon or ab le St ep he n N. Lim ba ug h, Jr

., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) cal cu la te d a ba se of fen se le ve l of

1 4 a n d r eco m

m en de d a 4- le ve l in crea se fo r us in g th e fir earm in co nn ect io n wit h

as sa ul ti ng a la w en fo rcem en t of fic er, U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (U.S.S.G.

or Gui de li ne s) § 2K2 .1(b )(6 )(B)

, an d a 2- le ve l in crea se fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti c e, § 3C 1.2

. The PSR al so reco m m en de d a 3- le ve l de crea se to refl ect Irb y ’s acce pt an ce

of res po ns ib il it y , § 3 E1.1 (a)- (b ), whi ch res ul te d i n a to ta l o ffen se lev el of 1 7.

The PSR cal cu la te d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI. Irb y ’s cri m in al hi st or y

in cl ud ed co nv ic ti on s f

o r po ss es si on of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an d st eal in g a car in

19 95 ; fir st -d eg ree ta m

pe rin g (u nl awfu ll y op erat in g a v e hi cl e wit ho ut th e own er’s

co ns en t) an d es cap e fro m cu st od y in 19 97 ; res is ti ng arre st in 20 04 an d ag ai n in 20 06 ;

an d do m es ti c as sa ul t, th ird -d eg r e e as sa ul t wit h ph y si cal in jury, pr op ert y da m ag e,

r o b b e r y , an d bu rg la ry in 20 08

. The PSR cal cu la te d a cri m in al hi st or y sc or e of 23

, whi ch was 10 po in ts ab ov e th e sc or e ne ces sa ry to pl ace Irb y in th e hi gh es t cat eg or y

.

W it h a to ta l of

fen se le ve l of 17 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI, th e PSR

reco m m en de d an ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge of 51 to 63 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The

go ve rn m en t reco m

m en de d an up ward va ria nc e to 10 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t to

refl ect th e da ng ero us ne ss of Irb y ’s be ha vi o r w h i le fle ei ng fro m th e po li ce an d hi s

e x te ns iv e cri m in al hi st or y

. Irb y req ue st ed a se nt en ce at th e to p of th e Gui d e l i n e s

ran ge

.

The di st ric t co ur t va rie d up ward

, im po si ng a 12 0- m on th se nt en ce, whi ch was

th e m ax im

um te rm pe rm it te d un de r 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( a)(2 ). In ex pl ai ni ng it s reas on s

fo r th e se nt en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at Irb y ’s cri m in al hi st or y co ns ti tu te d “ on e

of th e wor st reco rd s” it ha d ev er se en

. It reco un te d Irb y ’s ab ov e-d es cri be d of fen se s

an d ex pl ai ne d th at “ it ’s no t jus t th e nu m be r of co nv ic ti on s,” b u t “[i ]t’ s th e ki nd of

co nv ic ti on s th at are on y ou r reco rd

, y ou kn ow, a lo t of vi ol en t type of fen se s.” It al so

no te d th at th e ci rcu m st a n c e s of Irb y ’s pr es en t cri m e su pp or te d an up ward va ria nc e
be cau se he ha d sh ot at po li ce of fic ers to faci li ta te hi s es cap e an d “ reck le ss ly crea te d

-3

-a su bs ta nt ia l ris k of de at h or se rio us bo di ly in jury to ot he rs ” by dr iv in g at hi gh sp eed s

th ro ug h a res id en ti al ne ig hb or ho od

. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at “[f ]o r th os e

reas on s[ ,] I t h i n k th at y ou de se rv e a hi gh er se nt en ce th an wha t th e gu id el in es

pr ov id e.”

Irb y arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t p r o c e du ral ly erre d an d th at th e se nt en ce

im po se d was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e
di st ric t co ur t fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Fe em st er, 5 72 F.3d 45 5, 4 61
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ). A di st ric t co ur t co m m it s pr oc ed ur al erro r by “fai li ng to

cal cu la te (o r im

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as

m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er t h e § 3 5 5 3( a) fact or s, se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on

c l e arl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e c h o s e n

se nt en ce— in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de v i a t i o n fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge .”

Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7)

. A di st r i ct co ur t im po se s a

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce “ whe n it fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at

sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ; g iv es si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o a n i m pr op er o r

irr el ev an t fact or ; or co ns id e r s o n l y th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e

fact or s com m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t.” Uni te d Stat es v. Noss an , 64 7 F.3d 82 2,

82 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mo us se au , 51 7 F.3 d 10 44

, 10 48 -4 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 08 )).

Irb y co nt en ds th at th e di s t r i c t co ur t pr oc ed ur al ly erre d be cau se it di d no t

ex pl ai n why th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge was in ad eq ua te to acco un t fo r th e of fen se

co nd uc t. “ [A] di st ric t jud ge m us t gi ve se rio us co ns id erat io n t o th e ex te nt of an y
de pa rtu re fro m th e Gui de li ne s an d m us t ex p l a i n h i s co nc lu si on th at an un us ua ll y
le ni en t or an un us ua ll y ha rs h se nt en ce is ap pr op ria te i n a p a r ti cu la r cas e wit h

su ffi ci en t jus ti fic at io ns .” Gall

, 55 2 U.S. at 46

. W e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ex p l a n at io n sa ti sf

ie d bo th of th es e pr oc ed ur al req ui rem en ts

, gi ve n Irb y ’s li feth reat en in g co nd uc t du rin g th e in st an t of fen se , as well as hi s co ns is te nt pa tt ern of

vi ol en t, re ck le ss off

en se s.

-4

-Irb y arg ue s th a t h i s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e

di st ric t co ur t co m

m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s.

“ In rev ie win g th e re as ona

ble ne ss of a se nten ce ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , ap pe ll at e

co ur ts m ay

. . . ta ke th e de gr ee of vari an ce int o acco un t and co ns id er the ex te nt of a
de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s,” bu t m ay no t req ui re “ ‘ext rao rd in ary’ ci rcu m st an ces

to jus ti fy a se nt en ce ou ts id e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ” or ap pl y “ a rig id m at he m at ic al

fo rm ul a th at u s e s t h e pe rcen ta ge of a de pa rtu re as th e st an da rd fo r de te rm in in g th e

st ren gt h of th e jus ti fic at io ns req ui red fo r a sp eci fic se nt en ce.” Gall

, 55 2 U.S. at 47

. W e “ m ay co ns id er th e ex te nt of th e de vi at io n [fro m th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge ],

bu t m us t gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,

on a who le , just ify the ex te nt of t he va ria nc e.” Id . at 5 1.

Irb y co nt en ds th at t he di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ace su ffi ci en t weig ht on th e
ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge , whi ch ha d al read y in co rp or at ed th e ci rcu m st an ces of hi s

of fen se an d hi s c r i mina l hi st or y

. 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 4)

. Bu t “ fact or s th at ha ve

al read y be en ta ke n in to acco un t in c a l c u l a t in g th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge can

ne ve rth el es s fo rm th e ba si s of a va ria nc e.” Uni te d St at es v. St on er, 79 5 F.3 d 88 3, 88 5
(8 th C i r

. 2 01 5) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Dav id

, 68 2 F.3 d 10 74

, 10 77 (8 th Ci r.

20 12 )). Alt ho ug h th e PSR in crea se d Irby’ s offe ns e le ve l to refl ect Irb y ’s us e of th e
sh ot gu n an d hi s reck le ss dr iv in g, th e di st ric t co ur t a c t ed wit hi n it s di sc ret io n whe n

it co n c l u d ed th at th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge ha d no t fu ll y ad dr es se d th e

se rio us ne ss of I rb y ’s act io ns . See i d.

As reco un te d abo ve , th e di st ric t cou rt exp la in ed th at th e nu m be r an d sev eri ty

of Irb y ’s pr io r of

fen se s co ns ti tu te d “ on e of th e wor st reco rd s I’ve ev er se en .”

Alt ho ug h each of Irb y ’s pr io r of fen se s rece iv ed po in ts

, hi s to ta l cri m in al hi st or y was
well ab ov e th e sc or e req ui red to pl ace Irb y in cat eg or y VI

, l e a v i n g 10 po in ts

es se nt ia ll y un c o un te d. So m e of Irb y ’s pr io r of fen se s were si m il ar to th e in st an t

of fen se an d m an y in vo lv ed vi ol en t or reck le ss co nd uc t, an d so , gi vi ng du e de fere nc e

-5

-to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on , we co nc lu de th at th e 57 -m on th va ria nc e fro m th e to p

of th e ad vi so ry

sen te nc in g ra ng e was jus ti fie d.

The sen te nc e is affi rm ed

.

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

-6

-