## 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. 10

- 3245 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. T ERR EN CE R . V ANC E , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09 C R 40070

—J. Phil Gilbert, Ju dge .
A RG UE D J UNE 7, 2011

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2011

Befo reE A ST E RB ROO K, Chie f Judge, andB AUERand W IL L IA MS, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . On October6 , 2009, a federa l g r a n d j u r y r e t u r n e d a n i n d i c t me n t c h a r g i n g t he defe nd ant, T er re nce Vance, with tw o counts ofposs essi on with i ntent to dist ribu te c ra c k c oca i ne. On M ar ch 16, 2010 , Vance pl eaded gui l ty to both c ou n ts ofthe i nd i ctm ent w i thout a ple a agr eem ent. A proba ti on o ffi cer re com m ended 262 t o 327 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent b ase d2 N o. 10

- 3245 on th e Fed eral Senten cing G uid eli ne s ( th e “G uid eli ne s”), w hi ch the dis tr i ct j ud ge adopted w i thout obj ecti on. Vance was ul ti m at el y s en te nc ed to 2 62 months ’ i m pr i so nm en t a nd 8 yea r s o fs up e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , wh i c h he n o w a pp e a l s . F o r th e f o l l o win gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND A . Fact s o ft he O f f enses On Septem ber15 , 2 009, Vance was apprehended by pol i ce durin g a tra ffi c st op i n M t. Ver non, I l l i noi s. A fter exi ti ng hi s v ehi cl e duri ng the st op , Vance a tte m pted to fl ee. The pol i ce use d a Tase r to s u b d u e hi m and w hen th ey r ea ch ed hi m the y di sc o ve r ed two b ag s co nt aini ng 2. 9 g ra m s o fcr ack coca i ne. T h is form ed the basi s o f Count 1 o fthe i nd i ctm ent. On N ove m ber7, 2008, pursuant to a va l i dlyexec uted w arran t, p oli ce s e a r c he d the h ou se in M t. V ernon w he re Vance was sta yi ng. The offi cer s f ound 2 5. 1 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne, a dig i tal scal e w i th w hi te re si du e on i t, and $52 1. 00 i n cash, wh i ch theya tt ributed to Vance. Thi s f or m ed the b asi s o fCount 2 ofthe i nd i ctm ent.

B. PSR Fi nd i ngs A fter Vance ple aded guil ty to both counts, a p ro bati on officer w as assign ed to the case. In h er pres en ten ce rep ort ( “PSR”) , the proba ti on o ffi cerfou n d that Vance’ s ba se off ense l eve l wa s 2 6, but because he was a car eer offe n d er u n d er § 4B 1.1 of th e G u id elin es an d be c au se h isN o. 10

- 3245 3

m ax im um pos sible sen ten ce o n t h e secon d cou nt w as li fe i m pr i s o nme nt, hi s o ffe ns e l e v e l e l e v a t e d t o 3 7
. Even w i thout car eer off ender sta tus, she f ound that hi s pri or co nv i ct i o ns , r angi ngfr o m the ft to a ddi ti o na l dr ug ch arges, m ad e him a C rim inal H istory Cat egory V Ioffen d e r , p ro d u c in g t h e s am e b as e o ffen se lev el of 3 7. T h is figu re was then r educed by 3 poi nts foracc eptance of r es po ns ibi l i ty, pr o ducinga t o ta l offen se l ev elo f3 4 an d an advi sor y Gui del i nes r ange of26 2 t o 327 m onths f or the o ff enses to wh i ch he pl eaded gui l ty.

C. S e nt e nc i ngHe a r i ng At the s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, ne i th erpa r tyo bj ec te d t o a ny o fthe s ta te m en ts o r fi ndi ng s i n the PS R, incl udi ngthe c a l c ul a t i o n o fthe a pp l i c a b l e Gui de l i ne s r a ng e . I ns t e a d, Vance’ s a tto rneyas ked th e co urt f ora bel ow-Guidel i nes sente nce be cause ofthe dispar i ty between se n tences f or po wder a nd c r ac kc o ca i ne offen se s. The g o ve r nm en t re com men de d a s e nt e nc e a tthe l o w e nd o fthe Gu i deli ne s range . Th e cou rt i m p o s e d 2 6 2 m ont hs and 8 years of su pervi sed r el eas e a fterr evi ew i ng the f acto rs that m ust be co nsi dered i n d ete rm i ni ng an appropri ate sente nce under 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 553.

I I . DI S C US S I ON On app eal, a sente nce withi n a c or re ctl y- appli ed Gu i del i nes r ange i s e nti tl ed to a presum pti on o fr eas onabl eness . R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U
. S. 33 8, 34 7 ( 2007 )
. A l l se ntences , whe the r “ i ns i de , j us to ut s i de , o r s i g ni f i c a nt l y o ut s i de4 N o. 10

- 3245

A pp . Br. at 11. 1 the Gui del i nes r ange, ” a re revi ew ed und erthe def er enti al ab u s e - of-d isc re tio n st an d ar d

. G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 55 2 U
. S. 38, 40 (2007). I n thi s ca se, the defe nd ant h as c onced ed that the r ange of 262 to 327 m ont h s ’ im p risonm en t w as com p ut ed corre ctl y. W e there f or e a pp l y the presum pti on ofr eas onabl ene ss a nd c o ns i derwhethe r ( 1) the de fendant ’ s ar g um en ts f or a b el o w-Gui del i ne s se nt en ce wer e g i ve n mea ni n g fu l c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d ( 2 ) th e f a c t o r s th a tf o r me d the b as is of t h e jud ge ’s s en te n c e w er e a d eq u at ely co m m u n ic a ted a tthe h e a r i ng . I fthe s e r e qu i r e men t s a r e s a t i s fi e d, w e co ncl ud e that the se nten c e im posed was a r easo nabl e ex er ci se o fthe se nt en ci ng j udg e’ s br o ad di sc r et i o n.
A. M i t i g a t i ng Fa c t o r s Ra i s e d B y Th e D e f e nda nt AtSe nt e nc i ng 1. C rack/P ow derD is parity W i th r espectto hi s a rgum en t that the di str i ct j ud ge d id n otgiv e a d eq u at e c o n sid er at ion to th e d isp ar ity in th e Gui del i ne s be twe enc r ac ka nd po wder c o ca i ne of f e ns e s , Va nc e ’ s c o nt e nt i o n tha t “ the c o ur t f a i l e d to addr es s [ th e cr ac k/ po wder ] a r g um en t ” i s i nc o r r ec t an d 1 m isle ad in g. A t s en te n c in g, th e d ist ric t j u d ge sq u ar ely r es po nde d t o thi s ar g um en t, s ta tingtha t “e ve n t ak i ng i nt o a cc o untthe di ffer en ce s be tweenc o ca i ne b as e an d cocain e, [ thos e di ff er ences] would not affect the c ourt [ ’ s] sente nc e i n thi s m att er . ” Thi s s ati sfi es us thatthe j ud geN o. 10

- 3245 5

A pp . Br. at 12. 2 V ance was s enten ced on Septem ber 17, 2010, m ore than 3 s i x we e k s a ft e r th e Ac twa s s i g n e d i n t o l a w. consi dered the ar gum ent, b u t f ound itunpersuasi ve. H e certainly d id n ot ignore this factor.

2. C hang es Im plem ent ed U nder Fair Sente ncing Act V an ce’s argu m en t tha t the j ud g e h ad a f au lty un d erst a n d i n g o f th e c h a n g e s p u t i n p l a c e u n d e r th e F ai r S en tenci ng A c t of 2010, Pub. L. N o. 11 1- 220, 12 4 S tat
. 23 72 ( 2010 ) , ( here afterthe “A ct”) , i s i rr el evant
. The A ct, wh i ch w as si gned i nto l aw o n A ugust 3 , 20 10, re du ced the disparit y between sente nces i nvol vi ng cr ack and p owd erco cai ne and “r ese t drug quanti ti es re quir ed to tri gge r m andator y s entence s. ” U nite d State s v. B el l, 6 2 4 F. 3d 803, 814 (7th Cir. 2010). W e r e c e nt l y h e l d t hat the A c t“ a pp l i e s o nl y t o de fe nd a nt s wh o a r e s e nt e nc ed b as ed o n c o n d u c t t h at to ok p lac e a fte r A u gu st 3, 20 10 .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fis he r, 6 3 5 F.3d 33 6, 33 8 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ). In l i g hto fo urho l di ngi n Fish er, Van ce co nc ede s th at th e A ct doe s no t a pp l y t o hi m bec au se the o ffenses he co m m itt ed occur re d bef or e the A ct was s i gned i nto l aw . H owever, i t i s worth notin g th at tw o Courts of 2 A p p ea l ha ve rec en tl y d isa gr ee d w ith ou r h old in g in Fish er, fi nd i ng that the A ct do es applyto defendants such as Vance, wh o c om m i tte d offenses pri orto A ugust 3 , 2010 , but w ho were sente nced afte r that date. See U nited 3 Sta tes v. D o ug l a s, ___ F.3d ____, 2011 W L 21201 63 (1st C ir.6 N o. 10

- 3245

App. Br. at13 ( re ferring to t he appl i c at i on of§ 2( a) ( 2) of 4 th e A ct to 21 U .S.C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1)(B ) an d (C )). M a y 31 , 201 1); U nited Sta tes v. R oja s, ___F
. 3 d _

___, 20 11 W L 26 23 57 9, at *1 (11 th C ir. Ju ly 6 , 201 1). U n for tu n at ely for V an ce, ou r h oldi ngi n Fish er w as af f i rm ed afte r much i nt erna l de ba te i n U nite d S ta te s v. H olcom b, N os. 11-1558 , 11-1559, 11-1586, & 11-1 7 5 8 ( 7th Cir. A ug us t 24, 2011 ). W e dec l i ne to revi si t o urho l di ng s i n Fish er an d H o l c o m b. Even i fthe provi si ons ofthe A ct were appli ed to thi s defendant, the re du ced penal ti es cal l ed f or und erthe A ct a re co nsi ste n t w i th the se ntence he r ece i ve d. As Vanc e hi m se l fdes cr ibe d i t i n hi s br i ef, unde r the Ac t“ [ a ] d e f e n d a n tw h o p o s s e s s e s l e s s th a n 2 8 g r a ms ofc r a c ki s s ubj e c tt o the l e s s e r p e na l t i e s i n s ub s e c t i on ( b) ( 1) ( C) [ ofthe Contro l l ed Subst an c es A c t] o fup to 20 y ea r s i n pr i so n or up to 3 0 y ea r s f o r s o m eo ne wi tha pri orco ntro l l ed substa nce co nvi cti on . ” The tw o counts 4 to w h ic h V an c e p lea d ed gu ilty inv olv ed 2.9 a n d 25 .1 gr am s, re specti vel y. H e w as al so a pri or contr olled subst an c e o ffen d er . So, ev en u n d er th e A c t, V an c e w ou ld be e l i gible f orup to 30 yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent o n each of th e t wo c o u n t s . The com bi ne d 2 6 2 mo nt hs h e r ecei ved w ith ou t th e su p p os ed b en efit of th e A c t’s p ro vis i o n s is a full 8 ye ar s l ess than the m axi m um num berf orwh i ch he woul d ha ve b ee n e l i g ibl e o n e ac h c o untun d er the ne w Act
. Ou r c i r c ui t ’ s pr e c e de nt i s c l e a r tha t the A ct does not apply to V ance; were i t t o apply, the sente nce i m posed would st i l l be re aso nabl e bythe A ct’ s t er m s.N o. 10

- 3245 7 B . Th e J udg e ’ s Re a s o ni ng Si nce nei thero fthe defe nd ant’ s a rgum ents for a l ess er se nt en ce co m pelus t o r ev er se the pr es um pti ve l y r ea so nabl e s entence i m posed, the onl y i ssue left i s whether the j u d ge adequatel y a rt i cul ate d the 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553 f ac to rs w hich he f o und mos t si g ni fi ca nti n de ci di ng up on the se ntence of26 2 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. S e c t i o n 3 5 5 3 f a c t o r s r a n g e fr o m “ th e n a t u r e a n d c i r c u msta nces ofthe off ense an d the hi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs ofthe defe nd ant” to “the n ee d forthe sente nce i m posed to re fl ect the s er i ousness o fthe offe n se, to pro m ote re spect for the l aw , and to pro vi de j ust punis hm ent for the o ff ense. ” See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a). A fterr evi ew i ng a tr anscr i pt ofthe sente nc ing hea ri ng, it i s cl ear that the j ud ge disc ussed the re l evant f acto rs in su ffi ci en t det ai l ; unfo r tuna te l y f o r the de fen dan t, the analy sis w as not f avo rabl e t o hi m . A t v ar i ous points du ri ng the se ntenci ng hea ri n g, the j ud ge re fer re d t o V a n c e ’ s e x t e n s i v e c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y a n d t o pr i s o n t i me he ha d pr ev i o us l y s er ve d f or othe r c o nv i ct i o ns . The tr an scr i pt i nd i cate s that the j ud ge too k Vance’ s s tatus as a r epeat off ender ver y se ri ousl y. The f act that Vance w as i ncarc er ate d m or e than once bef or e a nd co nti nued to re - off end w as a f acto r that w ei ghed st ro ngl y a gai nst hi m i n the j udg e’ s ca l cul at i o n o fa n app r o pr i at e se nte n c e. I n the j ud ge’ s v i ew , the defe nd ant’ s e xperi ence ofse rv i ng ti m e a nd r e- offending dem onst ra ted a patt er n of di sr eg ar d f o r the l aw tha t ne ede d t o b e add r es se d. The deci si on notto se ntence the defendant bel ow the Guid el i nes r efl ecte d these speci fi c co ncer ns.8 N o. 10

- 3245 I n cl osing, we cannot f aul t th e d istri ct j ud ge f or denyi ng a bre ak to a ca re ero ffender, part i cul arly when the s entence i m posed fel l withi n the agr eed- up on Guidel i nes r ange. W hi l e e ver y j ud ge is en ti tl ed to se ntence at v ar ian c e w ith th e G u id elin es , no j u d ge is re q ui r ed t o do so . U nited S t a t es v. C o rner, 598 F.3d 411, 416 (7th Cir. 2010 )
. As we he l d i n U nite d State s v. Scott, 55 5 F
. 3d 605, 61 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , “ I fa dist ri ct c ourtm ay devi ate fro m th e Gui del i ne s ba se d o n i ts di sa g r ee m en t wi ththe S en tenci ng Com m i ssi on’ s poli cy, i t i s e quall y withi n i ts au th ority to ad he re to the G uid eli ne s beca u s e i t con cu rs w ith th e p olic y jud gm en t t h e G u id elin es refle c t.” W e ar e s ati sfi ed that the di str i ct j ud ge adequat ely re sponded to the defe nd an t’s argum ents f ora l ess er sente nce and thathe a rt i cul ate d the f acto rs that f or m ed the b asi s o f t h e s entence with s uffi ci ent par ti cul ar i ty. A ccor dingl y, hi s deci si on t o sente nce th e d efendant at the l ow end o fthe Gu i del i nes r ange w as n ot an abuse o fdi sc r et i o n.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, w e A FFIRM the d efend an t’s convi cti on a nd se ntence.N o. 10

- 3245 9 W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tj udg e, diss en ti ng. Beca use Iam not as su r ed th atthe j udg e ade qua te l y r es po nde d t o Van ce’s argu m en ts con cern in g t h e effect th at his con viction for a cri m e of cra ck ra ther than pow der coca i ne had o n h is se nt e nc e , Ithinka l i mi t e d r e man d i s the p r o pe r c o urse ofact i on. Ither ef or e di sse nt. The ful l co nt ex t o fthe j udg e’ s r emar k s atthe s en te nc i ng hear i ng i s i m port ant. The j ud ge fi rs t a ske d the par ti es whethe r the r e w ere a ny o bj ec ti o ns t o the PS R a nd the probati o n o ffi ce r ’ s g ui del i ne s r an g e ca l cul at i o n, a nd the p ar tie s h ad n o ob j ec tio n s. T h e jud ge th en st at ed : A n d t he Courtwould note thatev en with the r educti on i n the coca i ne ba se, well, the new co cai ne bas e re d u c tio n in t er m s o f t h e g u id elin es rea lly w ou ld ha ve n o effect in th is case beca u s e of the career off ender sta tus. A nd so the Court, even t aki ng i nto ac co untthe di ffer en ce s betw ee n c o ca i ne b as e an d c oc ain e, w ou ld n otaffe c t t h e c ou rt [’s] s e n t en c e in th is m atter. These rem ar ks evi dence so m e co nfusi on. The fi rs t sente nc e a nd i t s r e fe r e nc e t o the “ ne w” c o c a i ne b a se r e d u c t i o n s u g g e s tth a tth e r e ma r k s r e fe r t o th e F a i r S en te nc i ngAc t, a nd the u s e o f“ s o ” i n the s e c o nd s entence su g g es ts tha t i t is a c o m m en t ab o utthe F S A as wel l

. But if th e F SA ap p lied to V an c e, h is gu id elin es ran ge w ou ld change because the new st atuto ry m ax i m um would be 30 ye ar s, see21 U
. S. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( C), wh i ch w oul d affect th e co m put at i o n o fthe g ui del i ne s r an g e unde r the c ar ee r offe n d er gu id elin e, seeU
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1. If these re m ar k s we r e ab o utthe F S A, the n, the y we r e i nc o r r ect10 N o. 10

- 3245

as to th e e ffec t re tr oa c tiv e a p p lica tio n oft h e F SA w ou ld have had on Vance’ s guidel i nes r ange. M ore i m p ortan tly, they did not resp ond to Van ce’s ar g u m e n t th at h e s h ou ld rec eiv e a low er se n te n c e in l i g hto fthe c r a c k/ po wde r di s pa r i t y i n the g ui de l i nes. T h is a rg u m e n t is w h olly u n re lat ed to th e F SA . Ou r d ec isi o n i n U nited Sta tes v. C o rner m ake s cl earthata j ud ge can ta ke th e cra ck/pow der di spari ty i n the car eer off ender gui del i ne i nto acco u n t du ri ng se ntenci ng. 59 8 F. 3d 411, 41 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( en banc). The m aj or i ty tak es th e po si ti o n tha t th e st at ement“taking i nt o a cc o untthe diff er ences betw een c oca i ne bas e a nd co cai ne, would not aff ec t th e co ur t[ ’ s] se nt en ce i n thi s m at te r ” m ea ns tha t th e j ud ge j usti fi abl y r ej ecte d V an ce’ s di spari ty ar gum ent. Idi sa g r ee . F i r st, Vanc e di d no t m ak e th e di spa r i tya r g um ent until a

fterthe dist ri ct c ourthad m ade the re m ar ks t o w h ich th e m ajorit y p oin ts
. See S e n t
. T r . p p . 4 , 6
. And the a rgum ent had notbee n m ad e in any wri tte n subm i ssi ons, so the j ud ge ’s com m ents coul d not hav e been resp ond ing to any argu m en ts m ad e the re either. S i g ni fi ca nt l y, e ve n i fthe r emar ks wer e r efer r i ngt o the cra ck/pow der di spari ty i n the pr e-F SA guidel i nes, they ar e s ti l l i ncor re ct, as i t i s no t t rue that the di spari ty w ou ld h ave “n o effect” on Van ce’s sen ten ce. H ad Van ce’s off ense i nvol ved pow der c oca i ne, r atherth an crackco cai ne, hi s pre - FS A gui del i ne r a ng e would have been si gni f i cantl y l ower. The appli cabl e powd er co ca i ne g ui del i ne r an g e was 1 88 t o 2 35 m ont hs , whi l e th e prese nce o fcr ack coca i ne yi el ded Vance’ s 2 62 to 327 m onth r ange.N o. 10

- 3245 11 W e ha ve i ss ue d l i m i te d r emands o n many o cc asions w hen w e hav e be en unsure w hetherthe j ud ge adeq u at ely u n d er st oo d h is d isc re t i o n a t s en te n c in g. See, e.g., Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S i mms , 626 F.3d 966 , 9 7 2 (7th Cir. 2010); U nited Sta tes v. B ell, 585 F.3d 1045, 1054 (7th C ir. 2009 )
. Vance’ s a rgum en t that the cr ack/pow der di spari ty sh ou ld be ta ke n int o a c c ou n t w as n otfrivo lou s. See C o r n er, 59 8 F
. 3d at 416. Yet the t ra nscri pt does not pr o vi de as su r an ce tha t th e j udg e r es po nde d t o i t wi ththe und er sta nd i ng tha t the se nten ces f orthe tw o types of c oc ain e w ou ld be d iffer en t. C f. U nited Sta tes v. K ilg o re, 59 1 F.3 d 890, 89 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( “the dist ri ct c ourt
. . . m ust ex plai n i ts de ci si o n a nd a ddr es s no n- fr i vo l o us s en ten cing argu m en ts”). The g ov er nm ent c onceded as m uch du ri ng o ra l ar gum ent when i t s tat ed th at a l i m i ted r em and w oul d be a si m pl e way t o a ddr es s co nc erns abo utwhethe r the dist ri ct cour t too k the dispar i ty i nto acco unt. I agr ee w ith the g ove rnm ent a n d b el i eve thatthe properco urse o f actio n i s a l i m i te d r emand to a skthe j udg e whethe r he woul d hav e s en te nc ed Van ce a ny di ffer en tl y i n l i g hto fthe d i s p a r i t y i n c r a c ka n d p o wd e r c a r e e r o ffe n d e r g u i del i ne ra nges in t h i s ca se and the di scr eti on j ud ges have to con side r them un d er C o rner . Th er e for e, I res p ec tfu lly diss ent.

9- 26- 11