## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

_____________________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 2370 J ERR Y TRAXLE R,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. (D . o f N .M .) ( D. C. No . CR- 0 5 - 1 4 4 - B)

_____________________________________

OR DER Fi l ed A pr i l 9, 2007

_____________________________________ B efo re B RI S CO E , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

_____________________________________ T hi s m at t eri s befor e the courton A ppel l antT r axl er ’ s pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng en banc , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, forpanel r ehea r i ng of the opi ni on i s s ued M ar ch 1, 2007 i n U ni t ed St at es v. T r axl erand U ni t ed St at es v. D enni ng, 05- 2370 and 0 6 -2 1 7 9 , res p e c tiv e ly . T h e p e tit io n fo r re h e a rin g e n b a n c w a s c irc u late d to a ll j udges of the courtw ho ar e i n r egul aract i ve s ervi ce. A s no j udge i n r egul ar act i ve s ervi ce r eques t ed thatt he courtbe pol l ed, t he pet i t i on forr ehea r i ng en banc i s deni ed. T he pet i t i on, i n t he al t ernat i ve, forpanel r ehea r i ng, i s al s o deni ed.-2-

T he pane l s hal l , how ever , amend t he opi ni on su a sp o n te a t S e c tio n II . B .3 as n o ted. A co p yo f th e a m en d ed o p inion is at tach ed to this ord er.

E n ter e d fo r th e C o u rt: T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 1,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 05- 2370 J ERR Y TRAXLE R,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. N o. 06- 2179 DE NNI S DE NNI NG,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO ( D. C. NO . CR- 0 5 - 1 4 4 - RB) J i l l M . W i chl ens , A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder( R aym ond P. M oor e, Feder al P u b li c D efen d er, w ith h er o n the b ri efs) O ffice o f th e F ed era l Pu b li c D efen d er, D enver , C ol or ado, forD efe ndant - A ppel l antJ erryT r axl eri n C as e N o. 05- 2370. H o w a rd L . A n d e rso n , F a ira c re s, N e w M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t D e n n is D enni ng i n C as e N o. 06- 2179. D avi d N . W i l l i ams, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed S t a t e s A t t o r n e y, w i t h h i m o n t h e b r i e f ) O ffi c e o f

t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o rn e y,- 2-

A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee i n C as e N os . 05- 2370 and 06- 2179. B efo re B RI S CO E , EBEL , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. D efe ndant s - A ppel l ant s J erryT r axl erand D enni s D enni ng w er e convi ct ed of cons pi r acyt o pos s es s m ethamphet ami ne w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e. D enni ng w as al s o convi ct ed of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e. B oth T r axl erand D enni ng appea l t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of thei rm ot i on t o s uppr es s evi dence r ecove r ed fr om t hei rvehi cl es w hen theyw er e arr es t ed out s i de Las Cruc es , N ew M e x ico . F o r th e re a so n s a rticu late d b e lo w , w e fin d th a t o ff ice rs h a d p ro b a b le caus e t o arr es tT r axl erand D enni ng w hen theys t opped the ca r s , s o the evi dence w a s p ro p e rl ya d m itte d . I n addi t i on, T r axl erappea l s hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng that( 1) comm ent s byt he se n ten c in g ju d g e re fe rrin g to th e A p o stle P a u l im p e rm iss ib lyinjec ted re lig io n in to th e se n ten c in g p ro c e ss , v io latin g h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts p ro tec ted b yth e F if th A m endment ; ( 2) hi s s ent ence i s contr aryt o Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) , beca us e the courtfai l ed t o expl ai n i t s appl i cat i on of th e se n ten c in g fa c to rs s e t fo rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ); a n d (3 ) h is s e n ten c e is ot herw i s e unr eas onabl e. W e fi nd no due pr oces s vi ol at i on and affi r m t he s ent ence .Hansen testified at the suppre ssion hearingthat the informant told Midland 1 po lic eTraxlerwo uldbedrivingablac k truc k. Atthehe aring , H ans e n n e ver t e sti fi e d to the color of

the truck hespotted in New Mexico. It is clear f rom the trial re cord that the truck w as white, not blac k as the informant sug g ested.

- 3- I . Backg r ound O n O ct ober28, 2004, E r i c H ans en, a D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s tr at i on A g e n t in L a s C ru c e s, N e w M e x ico , rec e iv e d a c a ll fro m a n o th e r D E A A g e n t in M i dl and, T exas . T hi s agentr eport ed thata r el i abl e conf i dent i al i nform anthad pr ovi ded i nform at i on aboutan i m m i nentm ethamphet ami ne tr ans act i on. T he info rm an t exp lai n ed in g rea t detail that JerryT rax ler an d A d am L ad u e w ere pl anni ng t o buya quant i t yof m ethamphet ami ne fr om an A r i zona- bas ed dea l er named D enni s i n M ayhi l l , N ew M exi co. T he i nform ants ai d T r axl erand Ladue w oul d be dr i vi ng a bl ack For d R angerpi ckup and the tw o had l eftM i dl and that 1 m o rn in g a t 8 :3 0 . T h e M id lan d a g e n t w a s a w a re th a t th e in fo rm a n t h a d p re v io u sly pr ovi ded “us abl e” i nform at i on t o the D E A and l ocal pol i ce. V ol . V at12: 3. H a n se n a n d o th e rs r e sp o n d e d to th is tip b yse tti n g u p su rv e ill a n c e in M ayhi l l . T he off

i cer s s pot t ed a For d R angerpi ckup truck ca rry i ng tw o m en m at chi ng t he des cr i pt i ons of Tra xl erand Ladue as i tent er ed M ayhi l l . T hey fo llo w e d th e tru c k th ro u g h M a yh ill to C lo u d c ro f t, N e w M e x ico , tw e n tym iles to th e w e s t. T he truck dr ove ar ound C l oudcr oftforaboutt w o hour s , goi ng dow n s i de s t r eet s and thr ough parki ng l ot s . H ans en l at ert es t i fi ed the truck w as per form i ng- 4-

“hea truns , ” w hi ch he de s cr i bed as a t act i c fa m i l i art o l aw enfor cementi nvol vi ng err at i c and s pont aneous m aneuve r s m eantt o det erm i ne w hethera vehi cl e w as bei ng fol l ow ed. T he truck l eftC l oudcr oftand pr ocee ded t o A l amogordo, N ew M e x ico , w h e re o ffice rs f ro m M id lan d p a rticip a tin g in th e su rv e ill a n c e p o sitiv e ly i dent i fi ed Tra xl erand Ladue. T he tw o r ent ed a mot el r oom forthe ni ghtand t ook t he truck outon m or e l at e- ni ght“hea truns ” i n A l amogordo. A l s o dur i ng t he ni ghtof O ct ober28, the i nform antpr ovi ded s uppl ement al i nform at i on t hatt he man fr om A r i zona w as s t i l l en r out e w i th the m e th a m p h e tam in e , alth o u g h p lan s h a d c h a n g e d . T h e in fo rm a n t sa id h e k n e w th is beca us e Tra xl erand Ladue had c al l ed t o t el l hi m the dea l w oul d s t i l l t ake pl ace , t ho ug h h e cou l d p rovi de n o fu rther det ai l s. O n t he morni ng of O ct ober29, T r axl erand Ladue l eftA l amogordo a nd d ro v e to L a s C ru c e s. In L a s C ru c e s, T ra x ler a n d L a d u e a g a in d ro v e h a p h a z a rd ly ar ound t he t ow n befor e eve ntual l ym eet i ng a gr een c arw i th A r i zona l i cenc e pl at es i n a parki ng l ot . A chec k on t he pl at es es t abl i s hed the ca rw as r egi s t er ed t o a D e n n is D e n n in g . W hen the truck and c arl eftthe parki ng l ot , s ever al unm arked pol i ce v eh icl es fo ll o w ed . T h e truc k an d ca r fo ll o w ed a ro ad to a m o re ru ral area , w h ere t heyeac h m ade a s udden U - tur n. T hi s for ced the s ur vei l l ance vehi cl es t o do the s ame, compromi s i ng t he oper at i on. T he off i cer s deci ded t o s t op both car s and o rd e re d th e o c c u p a n ts o u t at g u n p o in t.Th edis tric t c ourt ’s order cre ate d s omec on fu sio n a s to wh e n th earre st in th is 2 caseoccurred. In the order denying themotion to s uppress, the c ourt stated, “The (continued...)

- 5- D enni s D enni ng w as dr i vi ng the gr een c ar . H e admi t t ed he w as i n L as C ruces t o s el l ni ne ort en ounce s of m ethamphet ami ne t o T r axl erand Ladue for $5, 000. Fr om D enni ng’ s car , offi cer s r ecove r ed met hamphet ami ne and a n en v elop e o n w h ich w as w ri tt en the n am e a n d roo m n u m b er o f T rax ler an d L ad u e’s A l amogordo mot el . Fr om T r axl er ’ s truck, offi cer s r ecove r ed $4, 990 fr om the fa ls e b o tto m o f

a n a e ro s o l c a n . T ra x ler , D e n n in g , an d L a d u e w e re c h a rg e d w ith c o n sp ira c yto p o ss e ss w ith i ntentt o d i stri bu t e m ore than fi ft ygram s of m et ham ph et am i ne. D enn i ng w as al so char ged w i t h pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e more than fi ftygr ams of m etha m p h etam ine. L ad u e p lead ed g u il tyan d ag ree d to testi fyag ains t th e o thers a t trial. Pr i ort o t r i al , D enni ng fi l ed a mot i on, w hi ch Tra xl erj oi ned, t o s uppr es s t he evi dence r ecove r ed fr om t he tw o vehi cl es . T he di s tr i ctcourtconduct ed a he ar i ng on t he mot i on atw hi ch the onl yw i tnes s w as D E A A gentH ans en. T r axl erand D enni ng ar gued l aw enfor cementoffi cer s had nei therr eas onabl e s us pi ci on nor pr obabl e ca us e t o s t op D enni ng, T r axl er , and Ladue on the bas i s of the c o n fid e n tia l in fo rm a n t’ s tip a n d p o lic e o b s e rv a tio n s . T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied th e m o ti o n , an aly zing the s top u n d er Ter r y v. O h io , 392 U . S. 1 ( 1968) . T he courtconcl uded thatt he i nform ant ’ s t i p combi ned 2(...continued) 2 ag ents jumped out of their vehicles with guns drawn, stoppe d the Trax ler/L adue truck and the green car , and arrested thesu sp e c ts at gunpo int .”Vo l. I , D oc . 5 8 at 3 (emph a sis a dd e d) . Thec ourtne verthe le ss w e nt o n to analyze thestop n ot a s an arre st but as an investig atorydetention under Te rry . Id. at 6. Our c onclusion that the offic ers had p robablec aus eto arre st when th e ystopp e d th ec ars rend e rs thec on fu sio n interm s inc on se qu e nti a l. A lth ough itis obv iou s th edis tric t c ourtbe lieve d th estop w a s mere ly an investig ative detention, we are willing to a ssume Traxler and D enningwere arrested for F ourth Amendment purpose s the moment officers stopped their c ars at gunpoint.

- 6- w ith th e e v a siv e m a n e u v e rs o f th e v e h icle s in L a s C ru c e s p ro v id e d re a so n a b le s us pi ci on fort he s t op. T he courthel d pr obabl e ca us e t o arr es tar os e once D enni ng admi tt ed the purpos e of hi s tr i p. T he evi dence w as admi t t ed attr i al , and a ju ry c o n v ic te d b o th T ra x le r a n d D e n n in g . II . A n a ly sis D enni ng and Tra xl erbot h cont es tt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of thei rm ot i on t o s uppr es s . T r axl eraddi t i onal l ycl ai m s err orw i th r es pectt o thr ee s ent enci ng i s s ues . W e addr es s eac h ar gum enti n tur n. A . D en n i n g a n d T rax l er’s M oti on to Su p p ress W hen r evi ew i ng a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e ac cept t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs unl es s t heyar e cl ear l yerr oneous and vi ew t he e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t. Uni t ed Stat es v. B as ham , 268 F. 3d 1199, 1203 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) . N everthel es s , Four th A m endment rea so n ab lene ss is a q u esti o n o f law , so w e re v iew d e n o v o the d istri ct co u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f

re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n a n d p ro b a b le c a u s e . Id.- 7-

Th e Fo u r t h Am e n d me n tp r o h i b i t s u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s . To be r eas onabl e undert he Four t h A m endment , an arr es tm us tbe s uppor t ed by p ro b a b le c a u s e . C or t ezv. McC aul ey , — F. 3d — , N o. 04- 2062, 2007 W L 503819 ( 10t h C i r . , Feb. 16, 2007) . O ffi cer s m ay , how ever , m ake a n i nves t i gat orys t op s h o rt o f a rr e s t b a s e d o n a re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n th a t a c ri m e is a fo o t. Id. ( r el y i ng on O l i verv. Woods , 209 F. 3d 1179, 1186 ( 10th C i r . 2000) ) . T r axl erand D enni ng ar gued l aw enfor cementoffi cer s vi ol at ed the Four th A m endmentw hen they s t opped thei rcar s fort w o al t ernat i ve r eas ons : ( 1) the s t op w as an arr es tforw hi ch law en fo rce m en t l ac k ed p rob ab le ca u se, or (2 ) th e sto p w as a n inv esti g atory d e ten tio n fo r w h ich law e n fo rc e m e n t lac k e d re a so n a b le s u sp icio n . W e rejec t b o th a rg u m e n ts b e c a u se w e c o n c lu d e law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffice rs h a d p ro b a b le c a u se to a rr e s t T ra x le r a n d D e n n in g w h e n th e ys to p p e d th e tw o c a rs . P ro b a b le c a u se e x ists w h e n u n d e r th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s th e re is a re a s o n a b le p ro b a b ility th a t a c ri m e is b e in g c o m m itte d . Uni t ed Stat es v. G or don , 17 3 F . 3d 76 1, 76 6 (10th C i r. 19 99 ). T he “‘t otal i tyof the ci rcum st ances’ t es tdoes notdepend on w hetheranypart i cul arfac t ori s i nnocentw hen cons i der ed i n i s ol at i on, buton w hether , t aken a s a w hol e, the fa ct s obs erved bythe l aw e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e rs in d ic a te a fa irp ro b a b ility” o f c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. Uni t ed S ta t e s v . Co n c e

p c i o n - L e d e s ma , 447 F. 3d 1307, 1316 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . “Even w h e re a p a rt ic u la r fa c to r, c o n s id e re d in is o la tio n , is o f ‘l im ite d s ig n ific a n c e ’ . . . , it n o n e th e les s m a ya ffe c t th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t an a ly sis w h e n c o m b in e d w ith- 8-

ot heri ndi ci a of pr obabl e ca us e orr eas onabl e s us pi ci on. ” Id. ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Johns on , 3 6 4 F .3 d 1 1 8 5 , 1 1 9 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). “ [ N ]o sin g le fa c to r is det erm i nat i ve, and w e vi ew t he ci r cumst ance s i n thei rt ot al i tyr atherthan i ndi vi dual l y . ” Id. ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . V a len zu e la , 3 6 5 F .3 d 8 9 2 , 8 9 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . A confi dent i al i nform ant ’ s t i p can fact ori nt o the t ot al i tyof the ci rcum st ances sup po rt i ng probab l e cause w hen the ti p is corr ob orat ed b yoffi cers ’ in v e s tig a tio n s . Uni t ed Stat es v. A r t ez , 389 F. 3d 1106, 1111 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . For exampl e, i n A rt ez w e found pr obabl e ca us e w hen pol i ce obs erved thats ever al cons ecut i ve vi s i t or s t o a r es i dence eac h s t ay ed onl yfora s hor tper i od of t i m e, w h ic h c o rr o b o ra te d a n in fo rm a n t’ s tip th a t d ru g tr a n s a c tio n s w e re o c c u rr in g . U ndert he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s t es t , anydefi ci encyi n one as pectof an in fo rm a n t’ s tip m a yb e c o m p e n s a te d fo r b yo th e r i n d ic ia o f re lia b ility. Id. ( quot i ng Il l i nois v. G at es , 4 6 2 U .S . 2 1 3 , 2 3 3 (1 9 8 3 )) . O ffi cer s i n t hi s cas e had pr obabl e ca us e t o concl ude a c r i m e w as bei ng comm i t t ed. Fi r s tof al l , a numberof fa ct s corr obor at ed the mat er i al as pect s of the i nform ant ’ s t i p, i ncl udi ng ( 1) t he arr i val i n N ew M exi co of Tr axl erand Ladue, ( 2) t he make and model of thei rpi ckup truck, and ( 3) t he r endez vous w i th a ca r re g iste re d in A riz o n a to a m a n n a m e d D e n n is. L a w e n fo rc e m e n t w a s in cont empora neous comm uni cat i on w i th the i nform ant , w ho t ol d them t he t r ans act i on w as s t i l l “on” e ven though i tdi d nott ake pl ace i n M ayhi l l as- 9-

or i gi nal l yexpec t ed. Secondl y , w hen the i nform ant ’ s s tr ongl ycorr obor at ed i nform at i on i s combi ned w i t h offi cer s ’ obs ervat i ons of eva s i ve dr i vi ng t echni ques cons i s t entw i t h an i m m i nentdrug tr ans act i on, fur therw ei ghtm us tbe gi ven t o t he c o n c lu sio n th a t a d ru g tra n sa c tio n w a s a t p lay. A ll o f th e se fa c ts to g e th e r e a sily a m o u n t to a fa irp ro b a b ility th a t a c ri m e w a s b e in g c o m m itte d . G i ven the w ei ghtof thes e ci r cumst ance s , a mi nori ncons i s t encyi n the i nform ant ’ s t i p— t he truck w as w hi t e i ns t ead of bl ack— does notdefe ata fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. A ccor di ngl y , pr obabl e ca us e ar os e pr i ort o the s t op, and the evi dence w as pr oper l yadmi t t ed. B. Traxl e r ’ s Se nt e nc i ng Tr a xl e rw a s s e nt e nc e d t o 3 24 months , a tt he bo t t om of t he a pp l i c a bl e U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( U SSG ) r ange. A ts ent enci ng, T r axl erobj ect ed t o the G ui del i nes r ange of

324–405 m onths r ecomm ended i n hi s pr e- s ent ence inv esti g ati o n rep o rt . H e sp ec ifi ca ll yreq u ested that the c o u rtreject an u p w ard t w o- l evel l eade r s hi p adj us tm entand thatt he courtcons i dera non- G ui del i nes s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) due t o hi s drug addi ct i on, age, and poor heal t h. T he courtfound Tra xl erw as a l eade rand i m pos ed the tw o- l evel a dju stm e n t p u rsu a n t to U S S G § 3 B 1 .1 (c ). T h e c o u rt, h o w e v e r, o n lyin d ire c tly ad d resse d T rax ler’s r ea so n s fo r a low er se n tenc e u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a).- 10-

I n t he cour s e of the s ent enci ng, the fol l ow i ng excha nge t ook pl ace betw een t he s ent enci ng j udge and Tr axl eraft erT r axl erexpr es s ed hope thathe w oul d “get s om ethi ng outof [j ai l ] ”: T H E C O U R T : G os h, I do t oo. T hat ’ s m yhope fory ou. T he fa cti s , good th in g s c a n c o m e f

ro m jail. A g u yn a m e d P a u l w a s p u t in jail a c o u p le th o u sa n d y e a rs a g o a n d w ro te a b u n c h o f lette rs f ro m jail — T R A X L E R : Y es. T H E C O U R T : — and peopl e ar e s t i l l r eadi ng thos e l et t er s and bei ng e nc ou r a ge d b yt he m and fi nd i ng ho pe i n the m t ho us a nd s of y e a r s l a t e r . So don’ tt el l m e thatgood t hi ngs can’ tcome fr om j ai l . I gues s theycan, and I hope theyw i l l i n y ourexper i ence . V ol . X at31: 7- 17. T r axl erfi r s tar gues t hi s r efe r ence t o the A pos t l e Paul byt he s ent enci ng j udge im p e rm iss ib lyinjec ted re lig io n in to th e se n ten c in g p ro c e ss , the re b yv io latin g h is F if th A m e n d m e n t rig h t to d u e p ro c e ss o f law . H e a lso a rg u e s th a t h is c a se sh o u ld b e re m an d ed fo r re-sen tenc ing u n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109, 1117 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) , beca us e the s ent enci ng j udge di d notcons i dert he G u id e lin e s fa c to rs in a rriv in g a t h is s e n ten c e . F in a lly , h e a rg u e s h is s e n ten c e is o th e rw is e u n re a s o n a b le . W e d is a g re e . T ra x ler d id n o t o bjec t at th e h e a rin g to th e se n ten c in g ju d g e ’s c o m m e n ts a b o u t th e A p o s tle P a u l, s o w e re v ie w h is d u e p ro c e s s c la im o n ly fo r p la in e rr o r. See Un itedS ta tes v . B a ttl e , 289 F. 3d 661, 664–65 ( 10th C i r . 2002) . W e r evi ew- 11-

s e n te n c e s im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F .3 d a t 1 1 1 4 . 1. D u e P rocess Sent enci ng m us tcompl yw i th due pr oces s , and a j udge maynotbas e a s e n te n c e o n im p e rm is s ib le c o n s id e ra tio n s , s u c h a s ra c e , re lig io n , o r g e n d e r. G ar dnerv. F l or i da , 430 U . S. 349, 358, 362 ( 1977) . T r axl erar gues t hatt he s ent enci ng j udge i m pos ed a hi ghers ent ence beca us e of i m perm i s s i bl e r el i gi ous c o n s id e ra tio n s . T rax ler princ ipallyreli es o n a F o u rth C ir cu itca se th at he ld a ju d g e’s com m ents abo ut r el i gion du ri ng sent encing v i olat ed the defen dan t ’s du e process ri g h ts . See Uni t ed Stat es v. B akke r , 925 F. 2d 728 ( 4th C i r . 1991) . I n B akke r , t he defe ndantw as a hi gh- pr ofi l e t el evange l i s tchar ged w i th fr aud. J i m B akkerw as a c c u se d o f

m isa p p ro p ria tin g m ill io n s o f d o llars c o llec ted b yse lli n g p a rtn e rsh ip s to hi s fol l ow er s t hatw er e s uppos ed t o pr ovi de l odgi ng benef i t s ata C hr i s t i an r etr eat cent erB akkerpr om i s ed t o cons t ruct . I ns t ead, B akkerus ed the moneyt o fund a l avi s h l i fes t y l e forhi m s el f and hi s w i fe. I n s ent enci ng B akker , t he j udge comm ent ed: “H e had no thoughtw hat everabouthi s vi ct i m s and thos e of us w ho do have a r el igi on ar e r i di cul ed as bei ng s aps f r om m oney- gr ubbi ng pr eache rs or p rie sts . ” Id. a t 7 4 0 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . O n appea l , t he courtvaca t ed B akker ’ s s ent ence . I n fi ndi ng thatt he j udge appea r ed t o s ent ence B akkerm or e har s hl yforper s onal cons i der at i ons r athert han- 12-

bas ed on B akker ’ s conduct , t he courtconcl uded thathi s due pr oces s r i ght s had bee n compromi s ed bec aus e of “ t he expl i ci ti ntrus i on of per s onal r el i gi ous pr i nci pl es as t he bas i s of a s ent enci ng deci s i on. ” Id. at741. T he dec i s i on emphasi zed thatt he sen tenc ing jud g e’s “ p erso n al reli g iou s p ri n ciples” w ere the re aso n fo r B ak k er’s s ent ence and r efus ed t o “s anct i on s ent enci ng pr ocedur es thatcr eat e the per cept i on of the benc h as a pul pi tfr om w hi ch j udges announce thei rper s onal s ens e of r el i gi os i t yand s i m ul t aneous l ypuni s h defe ndant s foroffe ndi ng i t . ” Id. at740. T he c o u rt p a id p a rticu lar a tten tio n to th e p e rso n a l o ffe n se th e ju d g e e x p re ss e d o n b e h a lf of “thos e of us w ho do have a r el i gi on, ” w hi ch s ugges t ed thatB akker ’ s conducthad s u bje c te d th e ju d g e p e rs o n a lly to ri d ic u le . Id. a t 7 4 0 . T he ca s e w as r emanded forr es ent enci ng aft erthe courtconcl uded the s ent enci ng j udge’ s r el i gi on had bee n the dec i s i ve fa ct ori n det erm i ni ng w hat s e n te n c e to im p o s e . Id. at740–41 ( “R egr et t abl y , w e ar e l eftw i th the appr ehens i on t hatt he i m pos i t i on of a l engthypr i s on t erm her e mayhave r efl ect ed the fa ctthatt he c o u r t ’ s o wn s e n s e o f

r e l i g i o u s p r o p r i e tyh a d s o me h o w b e e n b e tr a y e d . ” ) . On r emand, a di ffe r entj udge r educe d B akker ’ s s ent ence fr om for ty - fi ve t o ei ght een y e a rs . See United S tates v. Tagga rt , N os . 92- 6468, 92- 6469, 1993 W L 10876, at*1 (4th C ir . Jan . 2 1 , 1 9 9 3 ). W e have once be for e addr es s ed an appeal pr edi cat ed on B akke r . In a case i nvol vi ng t heftof m i l i t aryequi pm ent , w e i nt erpr et ed B a kker’s d u e p ro c e ss lo g ic to ext end onl yt o t hos e ci r cumst ance s w her e i m perm i s s i bl e per s onal vi ew s expr es s ed at- 13-

s e n te n c in g w e re th e b a s is o f th e s e n te n c e . Un itedS ta tes v . R o th , 934 F. 2d 248, 253 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (fin d in g n o d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n w h e n ju d g e ’s r e fe re n c e to h is p erso n al m il it aryb ac k g rou n d “sim p lyh igh li g h ted th e se ri o u sn ess o f d efen d an t’ s o ffe n s e ” ). O th e r c o u rt s a g re e . See, e. g. , A r net tv. Jacks on , 393 F. 3d 681, 687–88 ( 6t h C i r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng no due pr oces s vi ol at i on w hen s ent enci ng j udge’ s r efe r ence t o a B i bl e ver s e w as nott he “ba s i s ” of the s ent ence orthe j udge’ s “fi nal s our ce of a u th o rity ” ); Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Sa l a ma , 974 F. 2d 520, 522–23 ( 4th C i r . 1992) ( fi ndi ng no due pr oces s vi ol at i on w hen j udge’ s “s hock” a tthe l eni encyof the G ui del i nes and refer ences t o d efen dan t ’s al i enag e did not i nfluence the sent ence im po sed). T hese cases confirm t hat cont ext m at t ers . T he cont extof the j udge’ s comm ent s i n thi s cas e ea s i l ydi s pos es of the due p ro c e ss a lleg a tio n . It i s o b v io u s th a t th e se n ten c in g ju d g e re fe rre d to th e A p o stle P a u l’s le tters a s a w a yto ill u stra te th a t so m e th in g g o o d c a n c o m e f ro m d ifficu lt ci r cumst ance s , even j ai l . I n no w aydi d the j udge i ndi cat e Tra xl erneede d a l onger s ent ence t o payr el i gi ous penanc e. I ndeed, nothi ng s ugges t s the j udge’ s per s onal vi ew of thos e l et t er s pr om pt ed ori nfl uence d anyas pectof Tra xl er ’ s s ent ence . T he j udge expr es s ed no per s onal offe ns e ana l ogous t o the B akker j udge’ s defe ns e of “thos e of us w ho do have a r el i gi on, ” and the r ecor d does nots uppor ta vi ew that T r axl err ece i ved a ha r s hers ent ence beca us e of the j udge’ s per s onal r el i gi ous pr i nci pl es . I n fac t , t he j udge s ent ence d T r axl eratthe bott om of the G ui del i nes ra n g e .- 14-

I n s hor t , T r axl ers uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce— r el i gi ous orotherw i s e— beca us e of t he court ’ s r efe r ence t o t he A pos t l e Paul . W e ar e s at i s fi ed the j udge’ s per s onal r el i gi ous vi ew s w er e nota fa ct ori n T r axl er ’ s s ent ence . 2. Sanchez- Juarez W hen a de fenda ntm akes a non- fr i vol ous ar gum entfora bel ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence , butr ece i ves a w i t hi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence , t he di s tr i ctcourtm us tpr ovi de t he appe l l at e courtw i t h a r ecor d byw hi ch thi s courtcan di s cern w hethert he di s t r i ct c o u rt c o n s id e re d th e a p p lic a b le 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . Sa nch ez-Jua rez, 446 F. 3d at1117. A r gum ent s “cl ear l yw i thoutm er i t ” ca n be “pa s s ed overi n s i l ence . ” Id. ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. C unni ngham , 4 2 9 P . 3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) . At th e se n ten c in g h e a rin g , T ra x ler a rg u e d a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e w a s a p p ro p ria te beca us e of hi s age, l ong drug addi ct i on, and poorheal th. T r axl erar gues t he di s t r i ct c o u rt d id n o t re fe r to th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs in a rriv in g a t h is s e n ten c e . S in c e h e d id n o t o bje c t a t s e n te n c in g , w e re v ie w fo r p la in e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. Torr es - D uenas , 4 6 1 F . 3 d 1 1 7 8 , 1 1 8 2 -83 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). R ese n tenc ing is no t r eq u ir ed u n d er Sanchez - Juar ez . T he s ent enci ng j udge m u st a d d re ss th e su b sta n c e o f T ra x ler ’s a rg u m e n t b u t n e e d n o t re fe r e x p licitlyto e v e ry § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , 444 F. 3d 1218, 1222 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . T he s ent enci ng j udge her e di s cus s ed Tra xl er ’ s l ong hi s t oryof drug abus e and the s er i ous nes s of the met hamphet ami ne pr obl em as r eas ons fornot depart i ng fr om t he G ui del i nes . H e addr es s ed Tra xl er ’ s m edi cal pr obl ems by- 15-

d ir e c tin g th a t T ra x le r b e h o u s e d in a fa c ility w ith a p p ro p ri a te m e d ic a l r e s o u rc e s . T h e ju d g e a lso re fe rre d to a n d in c o rp o ra ted th e p re -se n ten c e re p o rt, w h ich e x p re ss ly di s cus s ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s and det erm i ned theydi d notw arr anta nonG u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . T he r ecor d t hus pr ovi des an ade quat e bas i s forr evi ew i ng the s ent enci ng j udge’ s cons i der at i on of the § 3553( a) fac t or s , and w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatthe j udge co n side red them alon g w ith T rax ler’s argu m en ts. A cc o rdin g ly , there w as n o erro r, letalon e p lai n erro r. 3. R eason ab l en ess T rax ler’s sen tenc e is p resu m p ti v elyrea so n ab le un d er Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), b e c a u s e it is w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . T rax ler ha s p rese n ted n o thing to reb u t th at pre su m p ti o n o r i n d icate tha t th e c o u rt w o u ld im p o se a lesser se n tenc e u p o n fu rth er c o n side rati o n . T rax ler’s plea fo r a l es s ers ent ence w as ful l yeval uat ed att he s ent enci ng hear i ng. E ven w i thoutt he Kris tl presum pti on of reasonab l eness, w e w ou l d find T raxl er’ s sent ence w as a r eas oned and r eas onabl e appl i cat i on of the court ’ s di s cr et i on under§ 3553. I I I . C oncl usi on Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM T r axl er ’ s s ent ence and the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s den i al of the m oti on t o sup press .