## 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. 09

- 1211 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A DA M M EE CE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:08- cr-00095-bb c- 1

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED M AY 28, 2009

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 2, 2009

Befo re B AUER, F L A U M an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Afte r pol i ce a rr est ed A dam Me e c e , th e y o b t a i n e d c o ns e n tfr o m h i s g i r l fr i e n d , J a mi Lee, t o s e a r c h the h o me the c o up l e s ha r e d. T he s e ar ch r ev ea l ed tw o h andgu ns a nd M ee ce was c ha r g ed an d co nv i ct ed o fi l l eg al l y po sse ss i nga fi r ea r m a s a fel o n. Me e c e c l a i ms th a t h i s a r r e s t wa s u n l a wfu l a n d t ha t n e ws of th e a r r es t st ar tl ed Lee i nt o c o ns en tingt o the s ea r ch, so that the di st ric t c ourtsho uld have gr anted hi s m oti on2 N o. 09

- 1211

W i s c ons i n S t atut e § 3 02
. 11 3( 8m ) ( a) s t at es : “Eve ry pe rs on 1 relea sed to e xten d ed sup erv ision un d er th is section re m ain s in the le gal c ustody of the dep art m ent. Ifthe dep art m ent all eges thatany co n d it ion or rule ofex tended superv is ion has been v io la ted by the pers on, the dep art m ent m ay take physic al cust o d y o f t he pers on f or the i nvesti gati on of the all eged v io la tio n .” to s uppr es s th e ha ndg uns a s fruits ofa t aint ed se ar ch

. H e a l s o c l a i ms th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d b y a p p l y i ng a se nt en ce e nha nc ementf o r us i nga fire ar m i n c o nn ec tio n w ith an ot h er felon y, an d th at h is s en te n c e is p r o c e d u r a l l y a n d s u b s t a n t i v e l y u n r e a s o n ab l e . We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND On A pri l17, 20 08, M eece was ser vi ng a s ta te ter m o f extended supervi si on fo l l owing hi s r el eas e fro m pri son o n a fel o ny c o nv i ct i o n. Offi ce r De ni se M ar k ha m , o fthe M adi so n, W i sc o ns i n P o l i ce De par tment, r ec ei ve d a pho ne ca l lth a td a y fr o m a n a n o n y mo u s i n f o r ma n ta c c u s i ng M ee ce o fpo ss es singt wo or thr ee ha ndg uns a nd c o ca i ne at a r esi dence he s hare d w i th hi s g i rl fri end. M ar kham a s k e d the i nfo r man ts e v e r a lque s t i o ns i n a n a t t e mpt to l ea r n abo utthe c al l er ’ s r el at i o ns hi p t o M ee ce a nd the bas is oft he call er’s know ledge

. Con fi d en t of th e inform ant’ s c re d ibi l i ty, M ar kham r epor ted the i nfo rm ati on t o M eece ’ s p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e r, wh o the n a s k e d Ma r k ha m to tak e M ee c e into custo dy pursuant t o the t er m s o f M eece ’ s e xtended rel eas e. 1N o. 09

- 1211 3 M eece was ar re ste d that s am e a fternoon o n hi s way ho me fr o m wo r k

. Ma r k h a m a n d o th e r o ffi c e r s th e n went to the hou se th at M ee c e and Le e sha red

. Th e officers tol d L ee that M eece had bee n ar re ste d and that they b eli eve d ther e were guns i n the hom e. Lee c onse nted to a se ar cho fthe ho us e, w hich r ev ea l ed two ha ndg uns unde r the matt r es s o fM ee ce ’ s be d. In the ki tc he n, the o ffi c e r s f oun d a s c a l e , s e v e r a lp l a s t i c b a g g i e s , a nd a Tup perware bowl, al lco ntai ni ng co cai ne r esi du e. Fin ally , a p olic e d og ale rt ed th e o f f i c er s t o $ 3,4 00 in cash hi dd en i n the base m ent r after s. M eece was char ged i n a s i ngl e- count ind i ctm ent with u n law fu lly p o s s es sin g a firea rm as a c on vic te d felon , in vi ol ati on o f18 U
. S. C. § 92 2(g )( 1)
. H e m ove d to supp re ss th e ev iden ce ofthe wea po ns f o und in h i s ho m e o n the theo ry that the offi cer s l acke d a uthor i ty to tak e h im i nto custo dy and that hi s i l l ega lar re st tainted the dis

cove ryo fthe w eapons by i nfl uenci ng Lee’s co nsent to sea rch the ho use. The d istri ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on and M eece pl eaded gui l ty w hi l e r es er vin g hi s r i ght t o appe althe c o ur t’ s r ul i ngo n the mot i o n. A t s entencing, the dist rict co urt appli ed an o ffense l e v e le nh a nc e men tp ur s ua ntt o U. S
. S
. G. § 2 K2
. 1 ( b ) ( 6) f o r po ss es singthe h an dgu ns i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha fel o ny drug cr i m e. W i th thi s e nhancem ent, M eece’ s Guidel i nes sent e nc i ngr a ng e wa s fr o m 6 3 t o 7 8 mo nths

. T he di s t r i ct cour t s entence d M eece to 78 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent.4 N o. 09

- 1211 I I . DI S C US S I ON M ee c e m a k e s fo u r ar gu m en ts on ap p ea l: (1) t h at h is ar re st w as un law ful; ( 2) thatthi s unl aw ful ar re st tainted L ee ’s c on se n t t o s ea rc h th e h ou se , so th at th e g u n s s h ou ld have been supp re sse d; ( 3) thatthe distric t cour t e rr oneousl y a pp l i ed the sente nce e nhancem ent; and ( 4) that hi s s entence i s unre aso nabl e.

A . A r r est M ee c e’s firstarg u m en t, an d th e p re d ica te for h is seco nd , i s that hi s a rr estwa s il l ega l

. Because M eece w a s s e r v i nga t e r m o fs up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , h e c o ul d b e d e t a i n e d u p o n a r e a s o na b l e s u s p i c i o n th a th e h a d c o mm i tte d, orwas abo ut to co m m i t, a cri m e o r vi ol ati on o f th e t er m s o f h is s u p er vis ed rele as e. K nox v. Sm ith , 34 2 F
. 3d 65 1, 6 57( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3). M ee ce c l ai m s th atthe d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in fin d i n g t h at th er e w as rea so n ab le suspi ci on f orthe ar re st b ecause , al though M ar kham tes ti fi ed that she a ske d the ano nym ous info rm ant s eve ra l q uesti ons and rec ei ved sa ti sfyi ng answers to tho se questi ons, M ar kham neve r sta ted wh at thos e a nsw er s we re . W ith ou t k n ow in g t h e a n sw er s, M e e c e cla im s, th er e is no way to determ in e whether the info rm ant was cre dib l e a nd , the r e f o r e , n o wa y t o kno w i fMar k ham ha d a r e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n tha tMee ce h a d c o mm i t t e d a c rim e. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d th at M ar kh am ’s t es tim on y w as su fficie n t t o s h ow t h a t s h e h ad a re as on ab le su sp icio n, eve n th ou gh it w ou ld h av e b e en be tt er if M ar kham had re ve al ed the i nfo rm ant’ s a nsw er s s o tha tthe y c o ul d b e e v a l ua t e d.N o. 09

- 1211 5 I t ce rt ai nl y would be betterto kno w the answ er s g i ven by the i nfo rm ant, but w e do not need to deci de w h ether the e vi dence i n thi s ca se w as suffi ci ent t o supp or t a fi nd ing of reason able su sp ici on. Th e hea rt of M eece ’s ap p ea l is th at th e h an d gu n s fo u n d in h is h om e s h ou ld h av e b ee n su p p re ss ed . Th e p ot en tia l ill eg alit y of h is ar re st i s use ful to M eece o n ly i fhe c an use i t t o prove th atthe e vi den ce o fthe h an dgu ns was t aint ed. As e xpla i ned bel ow, he ca nnot.

B . Ta i nt M ee c e’s se c on d arg u m en t i s t h at th e n ew s o f h is i l l eg ala r r es t ta i nt ed L ee’ s co ns en t to the o ffi ce r s’ s ea r ch, so th atth e e vid e n c e f ou n d d u rin g t h e s ea rc h sh ou ld ha ve been su p p ressed

. “W e review a d istri ct cou rt’s fi nd i ngs o ff act i n a suppress i on hea ring f orcl earer ro r and i ts conclus ions ofl aw de nov o. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 300 F.3d 740 , 745 (7th C ir. 2002). Evidence i s no t a utom ati cal l y t ai nted “si m plybec ause i t would n o t ha ve c o m e to l i g htb utfo r the i l l eg ala ct i o ns ofthe pol i ce. ” Wo ng Su n v . U nited Sta tes , 371 U
. S. 47 1, 48 7- 88 ( 1963 )
. N ei theri s a l lev i dence i nadm i ssabl e that “ som ehow cam e t o l i ght thro ugh a chai n ofcausa ti on that bega n w i th [ i lleg alpol i ce a cti vi ty]
. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cec co l i ni, 435 U
. S. 268, 276 ( 1978 )
. Bu t est abl i shi ng that M eec e ’s arrest i nfluen ced Le e’s cons en t is a nec essary st ar t. The r e m us t be so m e ca us al ne xus be tw een the i l l e g al p o l i c e a c t i v i t y a n d th e d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e . As M eece pro perl y s tat es i n hi s b rie f, “[ e] vi dence w hi ch i s o b t a i ne d a s a resul t of ani l l eg ala r r es t i s fr ui t o fthe6 N o. 09

- 1211 poi sono us tr ee . . . . ” U nite d State s v. Sw if t, 220 F. 3d 502, 50 7 ( 7t h Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )
. I fth e n e ws o ft he ar re st did notin fl uence Lee’ s co nsent, we do not eve n ne e d t o c o ns i de r wh e the r o b t a i ningLee’ s c o ns e nt( a nd , ult i m ate l y, the guns) w as independ ent o fthe ar re st, i nevi tabl e, o r in s om e o therway suffi ci entl y di sta nced fro m th e p re su m p tiv el y illega l arr es t. Se ei d. ( “T he evi dence m ay be purg ed ofthe taint bya fi nd i ng tha t it w as d isc ov er ed by an ind ep en d en t s ou rc e , th at it woul d i ne vi tabl y ha ve b een d i sc o ve r ed wi th o utthe u n law fu l [ac t i v ity ], or th at its d isc ov er y is s u fficie n tly dist ant in cau sa lco nnecti on fro m the i l l ega l[ acti vi ty] so as to atten ua te th e con ne ction be tw een the tw o. ”). W hetherLee’ s co nsent w as infl uenced by the ne w s o f M eece ’ s a rr esti s a f actualdeter m i nati on that w e rev i ew f o r c l ea r e r r o r . “ Cl ea r error r ev i ew mea ns tha t th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s decisi on wil lnotbe re ver sed unl ess afte r r ev i ewi ngthe e nt i r e r ec o r d w e ar e l eft wi tha defini te and fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en com m i tte d.” U nite d State s v. C arm ack, 10 0 F .3d 1 271, 12 76 (7th C ir. 1996). The re cor d i n thi s ca se supp or ts tw o theo ri es as to why L ee con s e nt e d t o the s e a r c h, n e i the r o fwh i c h he l ps M eece . M ar kham te sti fi ed that w hen Lee c on sented to the s ear ch, she sai d that s he had chi l dren in the house an d th a t s h e w as w or rie d ab ou t t h e g u n s. L ee ’s a ffid av it and test i m ony cl ai m ed that sh e c onsented to the s ear ch bec au se sh e nee d ed to pi c k u p h er child from da ycare an d Ma r k h a m th r e a t e n e d th a ti fL e e d i d n o tc o n se nt to the s ear ch, the offi cer s would g et a w ar ra nt, wh i chN o. 09

- 1211 7

T h e m a g istrate jud g e an d d istrict cou rt cred ited the o ffi- 2 c e r s’ v e r si o n o f e v e n t s a n d M e e c e d o e s n o tc l a i m th a tL e e ’s c ons en twas c oe rc ed by thi s r epo rt ed thr ea tofno tbe i ng a l l owe d to l e a ve the h ou s e un t i l a s e a r c h war r a ntwa s o bt a i ne d a nd e x e c ut e d. coul d take hour s, and that, duri ng tha t t i m e, L ee w oul d not be a l l owed to l eave the house. Lee ne verev en hi nted 2 that the ne w s o f M ee ce’ s a rr estpro m pted her conse nt; w he th er she con sen ted to the searc h ou t of a c o n c ern f o r he r c hi l dr en ’ s sa fety o r b ec au se s he ne ede d t o pi ckup her chi l d fr om daycar e i s i rr el evant
. M eec e d oes m ake a go od poi nt thatthe m agi str ate j udg e an d, t o a l es ser ex te nt, the di st r i ctc o ur t to o ko ne o fL e e ’ s s t a t e me n t s o u to fco n t e x t
. D u r i n gc r o s s - e x a mi na ti o n a t th e ev i den ti ar y he ar i ng, Le e st at ed ab o ut M eece : “Q uite h one stly, he h as been i n t r o u ble before and Ipre ttym uch have t ake n car e o f m y th ree chi l dren by m yse l ff ora ver y l ong ti m e . . . . ” The m agi str ate j ud ge us ed this st a t e m en t to conc lud e tha t “M eece ’s ar r es t ha d z er o i m pac t o n Le e’ s co nse ntt o s ea r ch : she t est i fi ed that M eece ’ s a rr est w as abso l utel y inconsequenti alto her thought proce ss. ” The di str i ct c ourtst ate d that “Lee t est i fi ed that the defendant’s ar re st w as h ar d ly su rp ris in g or ev en co n se q u en tia l.” M eece i s co rr ect that Lee’ s s ta tem ent was i n re sponse to th e gover nm ent’ s per si ste nt acc usati on that s he was l y i ngdur i ngthe e vi den ti ar y he ar i ngt o pr o te ctthe f athe r o fhe r c hi ldr en . I t was no t r el at ed to he r tho ug ht proce ss on the day she g ave conse nt. But the f act8 N o. 09

- 1211

re m ai ns thatLee had t w o opportunities t o cl ai m thather co ns en t was i nfl ue nc ed by th e ne ws o f M ee ce ’ s ar r es t an d n ev er m ad e t h a t c laim . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as co rre c t in ob se rv in g t h at “L ee te st ified atth e h e ar in g a n d sa id no thingt o s ug g e s ttha tde fe nd a nt ’ s a r r e s twa s a f acto r inh er d ec isio n to letth e o ffice rs int o h er h ou se .” M ee c e s i m plyf ai l s t o poi nt us t o any c onvi nci ng ev id en ce th at L ee w as infl ue nc ed by M ee c e ’s arrest. M eece ’s cl ai m thatthe new s o fhi s arr estm ust hav e infl uenced Lee’ s co nsent f al l s s hor t. The f act that Lee co nsented t o the s ear ch afterl ea rn in g ofM eece ’ s a rr esti s no t su ffi ci en t; c hr o no l o g y do es no t pr o ve caus at i o n. The dist ri ct c ourtdi d not e rri n de n ying M eece ’ s m oti on t o supp re ss.
C. Se nt e nc e E nha nc e me nt M eece next ar gues that, eve n i f hi s convi ctio n w as proper, the dist ri ct c ourter ro neousl y a pp lied a sente nce enhancem en t u nd erU
. S. S. G. § 2 K 2. 1( b) ( 6)
. That s ecti on increas es a d efend an t’s offense leve l b y f ou r l evels “[i ]f th e d efe n d an t u se d or p os se ss ed an y fire ar m or a m m u n iti on in connect i on with a n othe r fel ony offense; o r posses sed or tr ansfer re d a ny fi re ar m or am m unit ion w i th knowle dge, intent, o r re aso n to bel i eve thati t would be us ed or po ss es se d i n c o nne ct i o n wi tha no th erfel o ny offense. ” “ W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a p p licati on o f sente nci ng guidel i nes de n ov o, bu t where the di str i ct co ur t ba se s th e appl i ca ti o n o fa s en te nc i ngg ui deli ne on f actualfi nd i ngs, we re vi ew f orcl earer ro r. ” U nited Sta tes v. Wagn er, 467 F.3d 1 0 8 5 , 1 089 (7th Cir. 2006).N o. 09

- 1211 9 “[ R] ev i ew o fa di st r i ctcou r t’ s se nt en cinge nha nc ement und erU .S.S.G
. § 2K2.1 ( b) ( [ 6] ) i s a m i xed questi on o ff act and l aw thatwe rev iew for c l earer ro r. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M arkovitch , 4 42 F
. 3d 10 29 , 1 03 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( ci ting U nite d State s v. W

yatt, 102 F.3d 241 , 246 (7th C ir. 1996)). W e hav e stated before th a t “ [t]h e seizure of a firearm in close prox im ity to il le g a l d rugs i s con side red pow erful su pp o r tf o r the i nfe r e nc e tha tthe fi r e a r m was u sed inco n n ec tio n w ith th e d ru g t ra ffick in g op e ra tio n .” M arkovitch , 44 2 F
. 3d at 1032 ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ew i ng, 979 F.2d 12 34 , 123 8 (7t h C ir. 19 92 )); see U. S
. S
. G. § 2 K 2. 1 Ap pli cati on N ote 14 ( B) ( fi re ar m f ound in cl ose proxi m i ty to drug par aphernal i a t ri gge rs the enhancem ent). I n thi s ca se, the sea rch ofM eece ’ s ho use re ve aled two handguns and $3, 400 i n cash, as wellas a sc al e, s ev er alb ag g i es, a nd a Tuppe r war e bo wl a l lc o ntaini ng co cai ne r esi du e. Th e dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed th at M eece w as traffi cking d r u g s and that the gu ns w ere i n the ho us e to pr o te cta g ains t th e i nc r ea se d risk of a h om e in va sio n as so c iat ed w ith d ru g t ra f f i c k in g. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le Page, 47 7 F .3d 4 85 , 48 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( W hen “g uns ar e pos ses sed al ong w i th the m ate ri al s o f a dr ugt r affi ck er, i t i s a re as o nabl e i nfer en ce tha t th e gu ns prote ct or em bold en the crim inal enterp rise. ”). M eec e a r g ue s tha tthe g un s we r e n o ti n c l o s e p r o xi m i ty to the dr ugpa r aph erna li a be ca us e th e g uns wer e f o und ups ta i r s whi l e th e sc al e an d b ag g i es w er e f o und o n the m ai n fl oo r and the ca sh was re covere d fr om the base

m en t. W e ar e unpe r su ade d b y thi s ar g um en t. I f, a s th e dist ri ct cour t f ound, the guns w er e prese nt to p ro te ct ag a i n s tth e i n c r e a s e d r i s ko fa h o me i n v a s i o n, th e n t he10 N o. 09

- 1211 b e dr o o m was a l o g i c a lp l ace to sto r e the m. I two ul d d o no g o o d, f o r ex ampl e, to k ee p th e g uns i n th e base m en t r afte r s wi ththe c as h. W hile v ar i o us i nfer en ce s m i g htb e dr awn fr o m the f acts o fthi s ca se , w e ca nnot co ncl ud e that the di str i c t c o u r t ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e f a c t s a n d u s e o f th e en h an c em en t w as in e rro r . SeeM arkovitch , 44 2 F
. 3d at 1031 ( “Wher e the re a r e two pe r m i ss ibl e vi ews o fthe e v i de nc e , the f a c t fi nd e r ’ s c ho i c e b e t we e n the m ca nn o tbe cl ear l y e rr oneo us. ” ( quoti ng A nd erson v. C ityof B e s sem er, 470 U
. S. 564, 574 (1985 )) ).

D . R easo nab l eness o fSentence M ee c e’s fina l arg u m e n t ch alle n ge s t h e le n gt h of h is sentence. A di str i ct c ourtm ust i m pose a r eas on ab le sente nce and we re vi ew se ntences f oran abuse o fdi scr etio n . G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 12 8 S
. Ct. 58 6, 594 ( 2007 )
. W hen a s entence i s withi n a pr oper l y c al cu l ate d G uidel i nes ra nge it “i s e nti tl ed to a re buttabl e pr esum pti on o fr easo n ab l e n es s” on ap p ea l. U nite d State s v. N it ch , 47 7 F
. 3d 93 3, 93 7 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); se e R it a v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 338, 347 (2007). M eece ar gues that hi s sentence w as i m posed in a proc ed ura ll y un re a s o na ble m an ne r becau se th e d istri ct cou rt i m prope r l y c a l cul ate d his Guidel i nes r ange by a pp l y i ngthe se nte nc e e nh a nc e men t
. We ha v e a l r e a dy fou n d th at th e e n h a n c e m en t w as ap p ro p ria te , so th is ar gum ent f ai l s. M eece al so ar gues that, ev en i fhi s Guidel i nes r ange w as p ro p er ly c alc u lat ed , h i s se n te n c e is su b st an tiv elyN o. 09

- 1211 11

Fail ing t o consi der the § 3553( a) f act ors is actuall y procedu ral 3 error . G a ll, 1 2 8 S
. Ct
. a t5 97. M eec e add r e s s e s i tun de r s ub

st anti ve reas onab le ness , but itm akes no d ifferenc e i n thi s cas e. unreas onabl e a nd thatthe dist ri ct c ourtdid not adequatel y e xplain h ow “a 78 m onth s tayi n pri son woul d b e th e l eastmean s ne ce ss ar y t o meeta ny o fthe goa ls se t out in 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553. ” M eece does not 3 expla i n w hy hi s s entence i s unre as onabl e o therthan sta ti ng t h at “ [ p]o sse ssi on o fa fi re ar m , al one, does not provi de m uch gui dance to a cour t w h en d ete rm i ni ng a p ro p er se n t e n c e” an d p oin tin g ou t t h at M ee c e’s on ly othe r fel ony convi cti on was f orf ai l i ng to r etur n to a w or k r el eas e pr ogr am . A s di scusse d bel ow, the di str i ct cour t co nsi dered m or e than M eece ’ s ba re p oss ess i on o f tw o hand guns; M eece ca nnot r ebut the pre sum pti on o f re aso nabl eness . M eece ’ s a rgum ent that the di str i ct c ourtf ai l ed to ex pl ain h o w the s en te nc e was a ppr o pr i at e i n li ghto fthe goa l s s et out i n § 3 553( a) al so f al l s s hor t. “The di str i ct cour t need not add re ss each § 3553 ( a) f acto r i n ch ec kl i st f ashi on, expl i ci tl y a rt i cul ating i ts c onclusi on f orea ch f acto r; r ather, the c ou rt m ust s i m plygi ve an adequate sta tem ent o fr eas ons, co nsi ste nt w i th § 3553 ( a) , forbel i evi ng the se ntence i t s el ects i s a pp ro pri ate
. ” U nited Sta tes v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 537F.3d 72 2 , 72 8 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). In thi s ca se, the di st r i ctc o ur t ade qua te l y e xpl aine d the ne ce ss i tyo fthe s en te nc e i m po se d a t the s en te nc i ng hear i ng. She expla i ned to M eece : “Your w i l l i ng n es s to i gnor e the c on se quences o fyo ur a cti ons i s chi l l i ng. You ar e ve r y da ng er o us t o the com m un i ty
. At thi s po i nt, the12 N o. 09

- 1211 dam age has been re l ati vel y c ontaine d , but Ise e y ou as a p oten tial t h r e a t f or a l ong tim e to com e.” A l ittl e later, the c ourtsum m ar i zed the need f orthe 78- m onth s entence : Your cri m i nal hi sto ry re fl ects your l engthyi nvol vem en t i n c r i m i na la ct i vi ty
. You ha ve a l co ho la nd dr ug add i cti ons, vi olent te nd enci es, and psychol ogi cal p ro bl ems. Yo u’ ve b ee n a ff o r ded a numbero fo pport u n i t i e s f o r c o r r e c t i o n a l t r e a t me n t o v e r th e y e a r s, b ut th ey have not prove d hel pful

. You co m m i tte d t h is o ffen se whi l e y o u wer e o n s upe r vi si o n, de m o ns tr at i ng a s er i ous di sr ega rd f orthe l aw . W hen the ser i ou sness ofthe offense is c ouple d w i th yo ur pri orcr i m i nal histor y , i t w arran ts a sen ten ce w ithin th e ad visory gui del i ne range, and Ibel i eve i t warr ants a s entence at the hi gh end ofthe ra nge. S uc h a s en tence i s r easonab l e a nd no gr eat erthan necessar y t o hol d you ac co unt ab l e, pr o te ctthe c o m m uni ty, pr o vi de y o u the opportunity t o parti ci pate in cor re cti onaltr eat m en t, and achi eve parity w i th the se ntences o fsi m i l ar l ysi tuate d offenders. The di st r i ctc o ur t th o r o ug hl y a nd tho ug ht ful l y c o nsid e r e d the § 355 3(a) f acto rs i n li gh t of M eece ’s i nd i vi du alci rcum sta nces.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Fort h e rea sons disc ussed abo ve, we A F F I RM M eece ’s convi cti on a nd se ntence.

9- 2- 09