## 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. 08

- 3240 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L ARRY S. G OO DEN , J R ., 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 . 3:07- cr-30015-DRH -1

—David R. H ern don, Chief Judge.
A RGUED A PRI L 21, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AY 7, 2009

Befo re B AUER, E V AN S an d W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P ER C UR I AM . La r r y Good en pl ea ded g ui l tyt o c o nspi ring to ki dn ap and usi ng a fi re ar m duri ng a c rim e of vi ol ence. In a pr offerag re em ent, Gooden adm i tte d to parti ci pati ng i n a si x-day cri m e spree that in vol ved ro b b in g s ev er al p eo p le a t g u n p oin t, ab d u c tin g a vic t im and hol din g h im capti ve i n the tr unk ofhi s ca r f or se ve ra l d ay s, an d at te m p tin g t o ra p e a n ot h er vic tim . A proba ti on offi cer cal cul ate d the gui del i nes ra nge to be 444 to 525 m on t h s ’ im p risonm en t, an d the d istri ct cou rt sente nced hi m t o 600 m onths base d on the bruta l i ty of2 N o. 08

- 3240 hi s o ffen se a nd hi s r ec i di vi sm . Go o dena ppea l s, a r g ui ng th a t h i s s e n t e n c e i s u n r e a s o n ab l y h i g h

. B e c a u s e th e s en t e n c e i s r e a s o n ab l e , w e a ffi r m. Gooden and his co - conspi ra tor, Barr y W i l l i am s, beg an thei r c ri m e s pree by robbi ng a l aund ro m at i n Cahoki a, I l l i noi s. A rm ed w ith a sa w ed-o ffsho tgun, theyente re d the l aund ro m at and fo rce d a patr on at gunp oi nt i nto th e b at h ro om an d rob b e d h im . A fte r h itt in g t h e v ict im an d thre ate ni ng to ki l lhi m , theyabducted hi m and stole hi s ca r, f or ci ng hi m to r i de an d s l eep in the tr unk f or fou r d ay s. T h ey p er iod ica lly w ith d re w m on ey from h is bank account usi ng his A TM card, and , at one poi nt, f or ced hi m ag ai n at gunpoi nt to go to a d ri ve- thro ugh te l l er w i nd ow at a bankand w i thdraw $2, 000. The vi cti m was hel d i n the tr unk w hi l e Goo de n and W i l l i am s dro ve ar o und Mi ss o ur ia nd I l l i no i s, a nd the y a l l o wed hi m o ut o fthe t r unko nl y t o ea t a nd to us e th e ba th r o o m . On o ne occa si on, afterh e w as a l l owed o ut o fthe trunk, Gooden to l d hi m , “ Iwantt o k i l ly o u s o b ad m y di cki s h ard. ” The v i c t i m wo ul d s o met i mes u s e an e mer g e nc y l a t c h i ns i de the t runk t o l oo k outsi de f oran o pp or tuni ty to esca pe, butfea r ed th ati fthe y c au ghthi m t r y i ng, Go o dena nd W i l l i am s w oul d k i l lh i m. T he v i c t i m fi na l l y f o un d a fortuitou s m om en t w he n h e recogn ized h is surro und i ngs and m anage d t o fl ee on f oo t to h is p ar en ts’ hom e. Goo dena nd W i l l i ams the n dr o ve the v i ct i m ’ s ca ro nwa r d s t o S t
. L o u i s, M i ss o u r i, wh e r e th e y h e l d u p t wo tr u c k d riv er s o u ts id e a res ta u ra n t a t g u n p oin t; ina sc u ffle tha te ns ue d, the dr i v e r s we r e b o th i nj ur e d.N o. 08

- 3240 3 La t e rtha tda y, Go o de n a nd Wi l l i a ms a pp r o a che d a w om an w h o w as e x itin g a res ta u ra n t in B er ke ley , M iss ou ri, pu t a sa w ed-o ffsho tgun t o h er back, and f or ced her in to h er ca r. W illiam s d ro ve , w h ile G oo d en follow ed in the c artheyst ol e fro m the Cahoki a vi cti m . They dr ove to th e b ac k of a larg e p a r k i n g lotw h er e W illiam s t old Goo den t o “ wa t c h hi s b a c k ” wh i l e h e a t t e mpt e d t o r a pe th e wom an . The v i ct i m s trug g l ed w i thW i l l i ams, who thre ate ned to hit h er w i th the sa w ed-o ffsho tgun, wh i ch i n tu r nd i s c h a r g e d i n t o t h e da s hb o a r d o fh e rc a r . Wi l l i a ms th e n t r i e d t o s t a r tth e c a rb u ti two u l d n o ts t a r t, a n d t he two men dr agged the v i ct i m o uto fhe rc art o war ds th e oth er car. A p o l i c e o ffi c e rth e n s h o we d u p o n th e s c e n e , a nd Gooden and W i l l i am s fl ed on foo t. Gooden so on r etur ned to the s to l enc arhe ha d b ee n dr i ving. He s ped o ff, a nd th e po li ce ch ased him a t s p eed s over 100 m il es p er hou r. The chase ended w i th Gooden cras hi ng the car, appropri ate l y, neara pol i ce s tat i on in Sa uget, I l l i noi s. The pol i ce a r r e s t e d G o o d e n a n d f o u n d e v i d e n c e fr o m th e c r i me spre e: the sawed

- offsho tgun; a w or k s hi rt( w or n by G o o de n ) b e a r i n gth e C a h o k i a v i c t i m’ s n a me e mbroid er ed o n the fro nt; and the w al l et ofo ne o fthe tr uckdri vervi cti m s. Gooden ente re d a pro fferag re em ent a nd pl ea agr eemen ta nd p l e a de d gui l ty t o c o ns pi r a c y t o c o mm i tk i dnapp i ng, 18 U
. S. C. § 1 201( a) ( 1) and ( c) , and posse ssi on ofa fi re ar m i n further ance o fa cri m e of v i ol ence, 18 U
. S. C. § 9 24( c) ( 1) ( A ) and ( c) ( 1) ( B)( I )

. The pl ea ag re em ent r equi re d that Goo den gi ve com ple te in for m ati on about cr i m es com m i tte d du ring the cr i m e s pree. A pro ba-4 N o. 08

- 3240 ti o n o ffi ce rc al cul at ed Goo den ’ s g ui del i ne s ra ng e f o rthe k i dna ppi ngc o untt o b e 32 4 to 4 05 months ’ i m pr i son m en t and, add i ng the fi re ar m co unt’s r equi re d consec uti ve m i nim u m o f12 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent, a tot algui delin es ran ge of 44 4 t o 5 25 m on th s. See U
. S. S. G. § 5 G1. 2. G ood en asked f or a psyc hological exam ination to d eterm i ne wh etherhe was co m petent to s ta n d tri al

. Bureau o f Pri sons psychol ogi sts di agno sed hi m wit h a “M oo d Di s o r de r No t Othe r wi s e S peci f i ed, ” fi nd i ng tha t, although he di d not m eetthe fullcr i ter i a fordepres si ve or bipolar di sord er, he ex hibited som e sym p tom s of a m oo d diso rderi ncl ud i ng m i l d dep re ssi on , i rr i tabi l i ty, “r acing thou gh ts at ti m es, ” a nd m i l d sl eep di sturbances ; they concl ud ed that h e d i d not hav e a m entaldefect n or w as h e in c om p et en t t o s ta n d tria l. A bout a we ek befo re the dist ri ct j ud ge w as to sente nce Gooden, the gov er nm ent s ought a fi nd i ng tha t Goo den had bre ached the ple a a gr ee m en t byf ai l i ng to pro v i d e c o mp l e t e i n f o r mat i o n ab o u tth e c r i me s h e h a d c o mm itt ed . I t t u rn ed ou t t h at G o o d e n ’ s D N A m at c h ed ev ide nc e f o un d d ur i ng ani nv e s t i g a t i o n o fa n un s o l v e d r a pe of a 16-year-old girlthat had occu rred du ring G ood en ’s si x-day cri m e s pree, and the vi cti m had i denti fi ed Gooden and W i l l i am s in a photog ra phic l i neup. Gooden chose not to conte st the g ove rnm ent’ s m oti on a nd ente re d a guil ty ple a without a pl ea agr eem ent. At the s en te nc i nghe ar i ng, Go o dena r g ue d tha t he had been m ani pu l ate d b y W i l l i am s, and that he nee ded m entalheal th ca re and shoul d rec ei ve a re du ced se ntence because o fdi m i ni shed capaci ty. Gooden al so ar gued that he was no m or e cul pabl e than W i l l i am s, wh o had rec ei vedN o. 08

- 3240 5

a wi th i n - g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e o f4 0 ye ar s . Wi l l i a ms , h o weve r, as Gooden ackno w l edged, enter ed hi s ple a a greem ent b ef or e th e rape o fthe 16- yea r- ol d had been di sco ver ed ; th u s t h e g ov er n m en t d id n o t le ar n u n til aft er h is sente nci n g th at W i l l i am s had br eached the pl ea agr eem ent b y no t di scl osing tha t cr i m e. The j ud ge rej ecte d G oo den’s ar gum ent that he had dim i ni shed capaci ty, not i ng that the p sycho l ogi calev al uati o n co nc l ude d th at he di d no t ha ve a m en ta l defec t. The j ud ge al so note d that d i m i ni shed capaci ty w as not re fl ecte d b y the nature of Gooden’s thre ats to h is v icti m s, in c lu d in g h is e x p re ss ion of a p h y s i c al d es ire to kill his ki dn apping vi cti m . A nd ev en i fh e w er e t o concl ud e that G oo d en di d sufferfro m di m i ni shed capaci ty, the j ud ge add ed, he woul d n ot be el i gibl e fora re du cti on be cause th e g u id elin es d o n ot p ro vid e fo r on e w h en sp ec ific d et er re n c e is an ov er rid in g c on c er n . See U
. S. S. G. § 5 K 2. 13. The go ver nm ent, ci ti ng the brutal i ty ofGooden’ s cr i m es, th e m ul ti pl e ti m es tha t th e sh o tgun w as br an di sh ed, a nd the n umb e ro fv i c t i ms o fh i s v i o l e nc e , s o ughta n ab ove gu idelin es sen ten ce of 576 m ont hs

. Th e j ud ge, how ever, w ent furtherand sent en c ed Gooden to 60 0 m onths’ i m pr i s o n me n t, r e a s o n i n gth a tth e c r i me s p r e e , i n v o l v i ng ar m ed vi ol ence, r ob ber y, abducti on, and sexualas saul t, cal l ed f ora l onge r sente nce t o prot ect soc i etyfro m Goo den

. The j udg e po i nt ed o uttha t a 10

- y ea rmin i m um sente nce would be i m posed f oro ne use ofa fi re ar m ev en i fi t w er e ne ve rfi r ed, a nd Go o denha d b r an di sh ed th e sawed

- offsho tgun f our ti m es, and i t had be en di schar ged once. The j ud ge rej ecte d G oo den’s ar gu m ent that he w as si m plyl ed by othe rs , fi nd i ng i nstea d tha t G ooden w as a6 N o. 08

- 3240 “fullpartner i n a s i x-day cri m e s pree. ” The j ud ge al so no te d Go o den ’ s ex te ns i ve c r i m i na lhi st o r y, i nc l ud i ng cri m es that w er e no t r efl ecte d in G oo den’s cri m i nal hi sto rysco re . The di st r i ctjud ge f o l l o wed up hi s ex empl ary s en te nc i ngdi sc us si o n wi tha 2 2- p ag e se nt en cingmem o r an du m thatdetai l ed hi s r eas ons f ori m posin g the 5 0- yea r sen ten ce, and referr ed to al l of the factors in § 3553(a). On a ppea l, Go o dena r g ue s tha t hi s s en te nc e i s unr ea so nab l e. He mai nt ains tha t th e d istri ctj udg e f ai l ed “t o po i nt out how thes e cr i m es and the defendant’s r ol e were not adequately taken into consi derat i on” by the guidel i nes, and that a var i ance with the gui del i ne s was notj usti fi ed wi th r e fe r e nc e t o 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a nd the g r o un ds f ori ncre ase s l i ste d i n U
. S. S. G. § 5 K 2.0
. H e a l so ar gues th athi s 50

- y ea rs en te nc e cr ea te s anunwa r r an ted se nte nc i ngdi spa r i tywi thW i l l i am s’ s 40

- y ea rs en te nc e an d th us strays afoul of § 3553 (a)( 6). Sen ten ces th at are out side the gu idelines ran ge a re re as on ab le if th ey co n for m to th e s en te n c in g f a c t o r s in 18 U .S.C . § 35 53 (a), U ni t e d S t at e s v. Si m m ons , 485 F

. 3d 951, 9 5 3 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) , a nd a s e nt e nc i ngj ud g e s ho ul d s up po r t anabo ve - g ui deli ne s se nt en ce wi th“ co m pel l i ng j usti fi cati ons, ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gor don , 51 3 F
. 3d 659, 66 6 ( 7thCi r . 2 0 0 8 )

. He r e , the j ud g e g a v e e xt e ns i v e j us t i fi cati o ns f o ri m po singa 50- y ea rs en te nc e o n Go o den

. The j u d ge n ot ed G oo d en ’s e x te n siv e c rim in al h ist or y, see 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) ( 1) , speci fi cal l y pointi ng o u t that Goo denha d c o m m itte d c r i m es s ho r tly a fte rb eing r e l e a s e d fr o m pr i s o n, a nd c o nc l ud e d tha tGo o de n wa s a r ec al ci tr an t “b r ut alc r i m i na l” w ho was t r y i ngt o mani pu-N o. 08

- 3240 7 lat e t h e s ys te m “b y re lyin g on so m e sor t of m en ta l issu e,” the sam e w ay he m ani pu l ate s hi s vi cti m s. The j ud ge als o p oin te d ou t t h e n e e d to p ro te c t s oc iet y fro m G oo d en , see 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) ( 2) ( C), r eas onin g th at Gooden w as an “e x t r a o r d i n a r y d a n g e r t o s o c i e t y ” wh o h a d s h o wn no re m or se. The j ud ge consi de re d the need f orge nera l d et er re n c e, see 18 U

. S. C

. § 3553 (a)( 2)(B), noting th e im p ortance ofwarni ng “per sons l i ke the defendant” t hat “ they w i l lbe re m ove d fr om so ci etyf ora very l ong peri od of tim e if th ey p u rs u e t h is kin d of ac tiv ity .” Goo denc ha r ac te r i ze s th e di st r i ctj udg e’ s j us ti fi ca ti o ns f o rinc r ea singhi s se nt en ce o n the b as i s o fhi s r o l e i n the off e n s e, see 1 8 U. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 )

- ( 2 ) , a s “ c o n c l u s o r y . ” He ar gue s th ati t was W i l l i ams, no t Goo den, w ho p utthe shot gun to the backo fthe w om an wh om h e th en at
te m pte d t o r ape , a nd tha t i t i s unc l ea rw ho inj ure d the tr uc k d river s. W e di sag re e. The j ud ge note d that Goo den was a ful lpa r tn eri n W i l l i ams’ s cr i m es , a nd tha t th e g ui del i ne s r an g e f o rthe fi r ea r m cha rge was the sta tutory m i ni m um , and did notta ke i nto consi derati on the m ult i p le tim es the s hotgun w as used, the f act th at i t was di schar ged, o r the o ver al lvi ol ent nature of the s i x-day cri m e s pree. G oo d en ’s a rg u m en t t h at h is s en te n c e is u n re as on ab le i n c o mpa r i s o n t o Wi l l i a ms ’ s 4 0

- y e a rs e n t e n c e i s s i milar ly u n p er su as ive
. See 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) ( 6)

. W e do not vi ew the “dis cre pancy between sente nces ofco - defe nd ants as a ba si s forchal l engi ng a sente nce” a nd w ill d isturb a sent ence onl y i fi t cr eat es an unw ar ra nted sent ence dispari ty between si m i l ar defendants nati onw i de. See U nited State s v. O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d 691, 700 (7 th C i r. 20 08)

. Gooden8 N o. 08

- 3240 does not poi nt to any si m il arse ntences i n other case s that w oul d show thathi s s entence cr eat es an “unj usti fi ed d i ffer ence acr oss j ud ges ( ordi str i cts)

. ” Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Bosc ar i no , 43 7 F
. 3d 634, 63 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)

. M or eov er, as the g ove rnm en t p oints out, W i l l i am s was se ntenced (by th e sa m e j ud ge) unde rthe t er m s o fa pl ea a g r ee m en t w here the gov er nm ent r eco m m ended t he l ow-end of W i l l i ams’ s 48 0- m o nths to l i fe- i m pr i so nm en t r an g e. As the j u d ge n ot ed , W illiam s b e n efit te d from th e fa c t t h at h is involvem en t in th e rap e of th e sixtee n-year- o ld girl w as u n kn ow n at the t i m e o fhi s s entencing, and the gov ernm en t was una war e th atW i l l i ams h ad br ea ch ed th e ter m s o fthe ple a a gr eem ent. F i na l l y, Go o dena r g ue s th athe was no t no ti fi ed o fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s intenti on t o gi ve an abo ve- gui de l i nes sente nce, i n vi ol ati on o fFe deralRule o f Cri m i nalPro

c e du r e 3 2 ( h)

. We ha v e cast do ub to n the c o nt i nu e d a ppli cabi l i ty of R ule 32 ( h) post- B o o k er . Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Wa lk er, 447F.3d 99 9, 10 07(7 th C ir. 2 00 6). Ina n y ev en t, R u le 32( h) req u ire s no ti ce b ef or e a co urt can g i ve an abo vegu id elin es se n te n c e b as ed o n i n for m at ion th at is n otin the pr ese ntence re port, and Gooden had “ fu llkno w l edge ofal lthe fac ts on wh i ch the dist ri ct c ourtr el i ed f ori ts § 3 553( a) anal ysi s” because the j ud ge based the sente nce enti re l y o n i nfo rm ati on in the prese ntence re port. Id. at 1007

. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM Gooden’ s s entence
.

5- 7- 09