T hi sorderand j udgm enti s notbinding prece dentexceptunderthe doctrinesof * law o f th ec a s e , res ju dica ta and coll aterales toppel . T he courtgeneral lydi s favors the citati on of ordersand j udgm ents ; neverthel es s , an orderand j udgm entm aybe cited under the term s and conditi onsof 10th C ir . R . 36. 3. 

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

### S e p t e m b e r8,2006 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. C H A R L E S S H A R I F I N G R A M, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 6081 ( W . D . O kl ahoma) ( D. Ct . No . CR- 0 4 - 9 5 - 1 - R)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , O’ BRI EN , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. O n M ay19, 2004, C har l es Shar i f I ngr am w as char ged i n a s i ngl e count i n d i c t me n tfo rb e i n g a fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C.- 2-

§ 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). O n O ctob er 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , Ing ram p led g u il tyto the ind ict m en t. T h ere w as no pl ea a gr eement . A pr es ent ence r eport( PSR ) w as pr epar ed w hi ch re c o m m e n d e d In g ra m ’s g u id e lin e ra n g e sh o u ld b e in c re a se d b ytw o lev e ls pur s uantt o U SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) beca us e the fi r earm pos s es s ed byI ngr am w as s t ol en. I ngr am obj ect ed t o t he s ent enci ng enhanc ement . O n M ar ch 3, 2005, t he di s t r i ctcour tconduct ed a s ent enci ng hear i ng atw hi ch the governm entpr es ent ed evi dence t o t he j udge thatt he fi r earm had bee n s t ol en. A tthe conc l us i on of the he a r i ng , t he di s t r i c tc ou r ti mpos e d the t w o- l e ve l e nh a nc e mentun de rU SSG §2K 2. 1( b) ( 4) and s ent ence d I ngr am t o ni nety - t w o m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . I ngr am appea l s fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on, ar gui ng Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , pr ecl uded the di s t r i ctcour tfr om enhanc i ng hi s s ent ence b a se d o n fa c ts n o t p re se n ted to a ju rya n d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e fa iled to a d e q u a t e l ye s t a b l i s h t h e g u n wa s s t o l e n . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d AFF I RM . B oo ker err or , ei t hercons t i tut i onal ornon- cons t i tut i onal , i s pr edi cat ed on th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s tr e a tm e n t o f th e g u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry. Uni t ed Stat es v. G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F .3 d 7 2 7 (1 0 th C ir .) ( e n b a n c ), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 495 (2 0 0 5 ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Law r ence , 405 F. 3d 888, 907 ( 10t h C i r . ) ( “[T] he Supr eme C our t ’ s hol di ng i n B ookerw o u ld n o t hav e p roh ibit ed the d istri ct co u rt fr om m aki ng t he s ame factual fi ndi ngs and appl y i ng t he s ame enhance m ent s and adj us t m ent s t o [the defendant ' s ] s ent ence as l ong as i tdi d notappl yt he- 3-

G u id e lin e s in a m a n d a to ry fa s h io n .” ), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 468 ( 2005) . A ft er B ooker , “d istri ct co u rt s are sti ll req u ir ed to co n side r G u ideline ra n g es, w h ich a re d eterm ined thro u g h ap p li ca ti o n o f th e p rep o n d era n ce stan d ard , just as the yw ere befor e. T he onl ydi ffe r ence i s t hatt he courthas l at i tude . . . t o departfr om t he r es ul t i ng G ui del i ne r anges . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal l anez , 408 F. 3d 672, 685 (1 0 th C ir .) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 46 8 (2 0 0 5 ). “I n th is re sp e c t, t he pr i orG ui del i nes s cheme i s unchange d byt he s eemi ng r evol ut i on of B oo ker. ” Id . A cc o rdin g ly , d istri ct co u rt s sti ll m aintain th e a b il ityto d ep art do w n w ard or upw ar d f

ro m th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e , so lo n g a s th e se n ten c e im p o se d is re a s o n a b le w ith re g a rd to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). United S tates v. Mon tgo m ery , 439 F .3 d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); see also United S tates v. C raw f ord , 407 F. 3d 11 74 , 11 79 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( “A ft er i thas m ade [ t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes] cal cul at i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tm ayi m pos e a mor e s ever e orm or e l eni ents ent ence as lo n g as th e se n tenc e is reas o n ab le. ”). T h u s, w h en co n side ri n g sen tenc e e n h an ce m en ts i m p o sed af ter B ooker , we s t i l l “r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ' s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand ques t i ons of l a w de novo. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Moz ee , 4 0 5 F .3 d 1 0 8 2 , 1 0 8 8 (1 0 th C ir .), c e rt. deni ed , 126 S. C t . 253 ( 2005) . W e w i l l notdi s turb a fa ctual fi ndi ng unl es s i thas n o b a s is in th e re c o rd . Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i n, 1 6 3 F . 3 d 1 2 1 2 , 1 2 1 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y, w h e n r e v i e w i n g a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a p p l y a s ent ence enhanc ement , w e vi ew t he evi dence and i nfer ence s t her efr om i n t he l i ght- 4-

m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. B r ow n, 314 F . 3 d 1 2 1 6 , 1 2 2 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T o es t abl i s h t he fi r earm w as s t ol en, t he governm entcal l ed Speci al A gent K a re n H e ss o f

th e B u re a u o f

A lco h o l, T o b a c c o , F ire a rm s a n d E x p lo siv e s to t es t i fy . A gentH es s t es t i fi ed thatatt he t i m e of I ngr am’s arr es t , pol i ce di s pat ch chec ked N C I C r ecor ds and conf i r m ed the gun w as s t ol en bas ed on a 2003 O k lah o m a C ityP o lice c rim e re p o rt. S h e a lso tes tifie d th a t sh e p e rso n a lly cont act ed the vi ct i m of the bur gl aryw ho confi r m ed thata fi r earm m at chi ng t he br and, t ype and c al i berof the gun pos s es s ed byI ngr am w as s t ol en. A l t hough t he vi ct i m coul d notr eca l l t he s er i al num berof the gun, he di d r eca l l t hathe pr ovi ded t h e s e r i a l n u mb e ro f

t h e g u n t o t h e p o l i c e i n a wr i t t e n l i s to f p r o p e r t ya tt h e t i me of the bur gl ary . V i ew i ng t he evi dence and i nfer ence s t her efr om , w e fi nd t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s det erm i nat i on has an ade quat e bas i s i n t he r ecor d and w as not cl earl yerr on eou s. W e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge