## 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. 11

- 3527 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C O REY D. W INTERS, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 09 C R 254

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D A PRI L 20, 2012

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 29, 2012

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Cor ey W i nter s pl eaded gui l ty to conspi ra cy to p ossess with the i ntent to dist ribute l ar ge quanti ti es ofdrugs. The pl ea a greem ent pr ovi ded that t he go ver nm ent woul d rec om m end a ba se off ense l eve l o f32
. But at sente nci ng the go ver nm ent c oncurr ed i n the Pr es en te nc e I nv es ti g at i o n Re po r t’ s (“PSR” ) c o ncl usi on that W i nter s w as a ca re ero ff ender, wh i ch raised W int e r s’s offen se level to 37. T he district cou rt2 N o. 11

- 3527 ado pte d the PS R, s etW i nt er s’ s off en se l ev ela t 37, a nd sente nced hi m to 165 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, w ell b elow th e r ec o m m en ded Gui del i ne s. W i nt er s appe al s, a r g ui ng that the g ove rnm ent v i ol ate d the p l ea agr eem ent b y no t r e c o mm e nd i ng t o the di s t r i c t c o ur t a b a s e o ff e ns e l eve l o f3 2. The S upr eme Co ur t’s de ci si o n i n Sy k es v. U nited Sta tes , 13 1 S
. Ct. 22 67 ( 2011 ), o ver ro de that re com m endati on. W e a f fi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entence
.
I. CoreyW i n te rs was part ofa l ar ge drug co nspir acy i n W i sco nsi n. H e e ventual l y pl eaded gui l ty, pursuant to a pl ea agr eem ent, to o ne co u n t ofco nspir acy to posse ss w i th the i ntent to dist ribute 5 ki l ogr am s o r m or e o f coca i ne, 50 gr am s o r m or e ofco cai ne bas e, and m ar ij uana, in viol ation of 21 U

. S. C
. §§ 846, 841(a)( 1) an d 841(b)(1) (A ). Am o ng othe r thi ng s , the p l e a a g r e e men tp r o v i de d: “The part i es ackno w l edge a nd understa n d t h at the g overn m ent wil l r eco m m end to the s entenci ng co urt that the a pp l i cabl e ba se off ense levelf orthe off ense charg ed in c ount o ne i s 3 2 under S entenci ng Guidel i nes M anual § 2 D 1.1 (c )(4) .” The PSR prepar ed by the Unite d Sta tes Prob at i on Offi ce, however , d ete rm i ned that W i nter s was a car eer off ender und er U
. S. S. G. § 4B1. 1( b)

. The PSR thu s set W i nter s’ s o f f ense l eve l at37bas ed on the c ar eer o f f e nd e r p r o v i s i o ns o fthe S e nt e nc i ngGu i de l i ne s . U. S
. S
. G. § 4B 1.1( b). W i nt er s o bj ec ted to the PS R’ s det er m i na ti o n tha t he was a c ar ee r o f f en der, a r g ui ngtha t hi s pr i o r c onv ic ti o nsN o. 11

- 3527 3 for flee in g w er e n ot cr im es of vio len c e a n d th u s d id not quali fy hi m as a car eero ff ender f orpurposes o f the S entenci ng Guidel i nes. In m aki ng thi s a rg um ent, W i nter s ac k no wl edg ed th atwhethe r the se c o nv i ct i o ns potenti al l y qual i fi ed f orpurposes o fthe car eero ff ender st at u s w as th en u n d er re vie w b y th e Su p re m e C o u r t in U nited Sta tes v . S yk es , 598 F.3d 33 4 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ), ce rt
. grant e d 13 1 S
. Ct. 6 3 ( 20 10 )
. W i nt er s re qu es te d a nd r ec ei ve d s ev er alc o nt i nua nc es o fhi s se nt en ci nghe ar i ng w hi l e Sy k es r em ai ned pend i ng. I n J une o f2 01 1, the S upr eme Co ur t he l d i n S y k e s v. U nited Sta tes thatfel on y ve hi cl e fl i ght was a cri m e o f vi ol ence f orpurpose s ofthe car eero ff ender provi si ons. Sy k es v. U nited Sta tes , 1 31 S
. Ct. 2 26 7, 2277 ( 20 11 )
. The P ro b at ion O ffice iss u ed an u p d at ed P SR, w h ich ag ain concl u d ed t hat W i nter s was a car eero ff ender base d on h i s p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n s . S e n t e nc i n gp r o c e e d e d o n N o v e mber1, 20 11. At s en te nc ing, th e di st r i ctc o ur t as k ed th e g o ve r nm en t whethe r i t ha d a ny o bj ec ti o ns t o the P SR a nd the g o ve r nm en t resp onde d: “ N o J udg e, no o bj ec ti o ns t o the f acts nor the gui del i ne cal cul ati on. W i th one ex cepti on w hi ch Ibe liev e, i n any eve nt, wil l be tak en car e o fby th e c areero f f ender sta tus. ” The di str i ct c ourtj ud ge then t ur ne d t o Wi nt e r s ’ s c o un s e l wh o s t a t e d: U nfo rtunatel y, M r. W i nter s i s a c ar eero ff ender so a l ot ofthe enhancem ents th at we w oul d obj ect to re al l y don’ t m ake a d iffer ence because he f al l s under th e ca r ee r o f f en derc at eg o r y [
. ]
. . . [ T] ha t i sn ’ t g o i ng to m ake any d iffer ence i n the ove ra l l r ange4 N o. 11

- 3527 M r. W i nter s f al l s i n beca use o fthe car eer o ff ender statu s in l ight of U .S. v. Sy k es . The dis tr i ct c ourtthe n in quir ed w hetherW i nter s was wi th dr awi nghi s o bj ec ti o n t o t he c ar ee r o ff en ders ta tu s in l ight of Sy k es , but hi s counsel prese rv ed th e obj ecti on w i thout furtherar gum ent. Th e cour t then ov er rul ed W i nter s’ s o bj ecti on a nd hel d that he was a c ar eer offen d er, and ad op ted the P SR ’s calculat ion of a fi na l offen se level of 37. W ith W inters’s crim inal history cate gor y o fVI, the Gu i del i ne r ange w as 26 2 t o 327 m ont h s. The go ver nm ent r eco m m ended a se ntence of17 0 m onths pu rs uant to a m oti on f orsubst anti alas si stance. W i nter s, wh i l e a cknowle dgi ng his car eero ff ender st atus , s tr es se d tha t th e g uidel i ne s wer e adv i so r y a nd as k e d f o r a 7 2

- mo n th s e n t e n c e . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t se nten ced him to 165 m on t h s ’ im p risonm en t. W inters appeal s, a rg uingso l el y that the go ver nm ent b re ached i ts ple a a gr eem ent b y no t a rg uingf oran o ff ense l eve l o f32
.
II. A t the s e nt e nc i ngh e a r i ngb e f o r e the di s t r i c tc o ur t, W i nter s di d not a rg ue t h at the g ove rnm ent had br eached th e p lea ag re em en t. A c c or d in gly , th is c ou rt ’s r e v i ew is f or p lain err or . U nite d State s v. B rodie, 5 0 7 F
. 3 d 527, 53 0 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07)
. Fo r ther e t o be pl ai n er ro r, ther e m ust be er ro r, t he e r r o r mus t b e c l e a r o r o b v i o us , a nd the er ro r m u st affe c t t h e d efe n d an t’s su b st an tia l righ ts
. U nited Sta tes v. Sta tes , 65 2 F .3d 73 4, 7 4 0 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 11 ). O n ly then does thi s co urt have the di scr eti on t o re m edy that er ro r

— a d isc re tio n w h ich ou gh t t o b e e x er c ise d on ly ifN o. 11

- 3527 5

The go vernm ent argues that i t did not breac h the p le a 1 ag r e e me n tb e c a u s e th a ta g r e e me n to n l y r e q u i r e d i tt o a r g ue f or a base off en s e l eve l of32
. Acc or di ng t o the g ov ern m en t, the ca re er o f f ender prov is ions do no t s et the base off en s e l eve l , but rath er e st ablis h an adjust ed offense l evel. Conv ers el y, W int ers (co n tin u ed ...) the e rr orse ri ousl y a ff ects the i ntegr i ty of the j ud i ci al p ro c ee d in gs . Id. W i nter s ca nnot establ i sh pl ai n er ro r because hi s s ubsta nti alr i ghts w er e no t a ff ecte d. W i nter s’ s a tto rney ackn ow ledge d at the sen ten cing h e a ring tha t W inters w as a car eer off ender and o n appeal W i nter s d oe s not ar g ue tha t he i s no t a c areer o ff en dera s defi ne d b y the Gui del i ne s. Ra th er, W i nt er s as se r ts th at ev en th ou gh he i s a car eero f f ender, the dist ri ct c ourtwas n ot re quir ed to sen ten ce h im as suc h be cau se th e G uid eli n e s are m er el y a dvis or y. “A l though aj ud ge i s no lo ngerrequi re d to gi ve a g uideli ne s sen ten ce, he is requ ired to m ake a correct de term i nati on o fthe gui delin es sentenci ng r ange as the fi rs t s t e p i n de c i di ngwh a ts e nt e nc e t o i mpo s e . ” U n ited S ta tes v. Vrdo lyak, 593 F.3d 67 6, 67 8 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ). Th u s, in deter m i ni ng W i nter s’ s s entence , the d istri ct c ourtwas r equi r ed to fi r stp ro per l y a sc er ta i n h i s Gui del i ne s en ten cing r a n g e. A nd a prop er calcu lation ofW inters’s Gu i del i ne ra nge i ncl ud ed the off ense l eve l of 3 7 based on hi s undis pu te d s ta tus a s a car eero ff ender. A cco r di ng l y , e ve n i fthe g o ve r nm entha d a r g ue d tha t W i nter s’ s o f f ense l eve l sho uld be 32 , the dist ri ct cou rt i s no t 16 N o. 11

- 3527

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 m aint ains that the car e e r of f ender prov is ions , w hen a ppl i c a bl e , e s t a bl i s h a n e w ba s e o f f e ns e l e ve l a nd thu s by agr ee i ng wi t h the c ar ee r off en der off en s e l eve l of37, the gove rn m en tvi ol at ed the pl ea ag re em en t
. W e ne ed n ot res olve this dispute, how ever, because, as ex plained abov e, an y b rea ch of the p lea a g reem en t w ou ld b e ha rm less.

8- 29- 12 b ou n d by th e p lea ag re em en t. U nite d State s v. M ank ie w icz , 12 2 F. 3d 399, 40 3 n. 1 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. I t i s a l so hi gh ly un li k el y the j udg e woul d ha ve i g no r ed th e l aw a nd ac ce pte d tha t ar g um en t. Ra th er, i n l i g hto fthe u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t wo u l d h a v e se t W i nter s’s o ff ense l eve l at37bas ed on hi s s tatus as a car eer off ender and sentence d him exact l y as i t di d. Give n th e s en t e n c i n gr a n g e o f2 6 2 t o 3 2 7mo n th s ’ i mpr i s o n me nt an d th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s r e q u e s to f1 7 0 mo n th s ’ i mpr i so nm e n t, th e im p os ed se n te n c e o f 16 5 m on th s w as ce rt ain ly fair an d ap p ro p ria te , a n d to so m e e x te n t fa vo ra b le to W i nter s. W e A FFIRM .