FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT OCTOB ER 2, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11124 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 0 0 0 9 0 - CR- FTM - 2 9 - SPC U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A M I E L E O N J O H N S O N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 2, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

J a m ie L e o n J o h n s o n ap p e a ls h is 1 5 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e im p o s e d f o llo w in g h is gu i l ty pl eat o p osse ss i on w i th the i nt entt o d i stri bu t e f i ve gram s or m ore of c ra ck c o c a in e , in v io la tio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( iii) . A ft eragent s f

rom the C om bi ned L aw E nforcement A gai nstN ar cot i cs (“ C L E A N ”) T as kforce r ec ei ved i nform at i on thatJohn son w as di stri bu t i ng cr ac k c oc a i ne , the y e xe c ut e d as e a r c h w a rr a nton J ohns on’ s r e s i de nc e i n D e c e m be r2002 a nd f ound c r a c k c oc a i ne , c oc a i ne pow de r , e c s t a c y , m a r i j ua na , a nd f

i r e a rm s a nd am m un i t i on . In M ay20 03 , a c on fi dent i al i nform ant(“ C I” ) f or C L E A N m ade a c ontr ol l e d pur c ha s e of

45 pi e c e s of

c r a c k c oc a i ne f

r om J ohns on. I n A pr i l 2004, C L E A N a ge nt s a rr e s t e d J ohns on, w ho w a s af ugi t i ve , and, w he n he w a s a rr e s t e d, th e a g e n ts f

o u n d m a r iju a n a , e c s ta s y , c o c a in e p o w d e r , a n d c r a c kc o c a in e in J o h n s o n ’s d u f

f e l b a g . J o h n s o n w a s s e n te n c e d to 1 5 1 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, a n d h e ap p e a le d h is s e nt e nc e . W e va c a t e d J ohns on’ s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nde d f orr e s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), because the di stri ctcourthad app l i ed the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes a s m a n d a to ry . A tJo h n so n ’ s resen t en ci n g h eari n g , Jo h n so n req u est ed th atth e co u rti m p o se as e n te n c e b e lo w th e g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s b e c au s e ( 1 ) h is p a r e n ts3

w e r e drug a ddi c t s ; ( 2) hi s f a the rdi e d of

A I D S w he n J ohns on w a s 13 y e a r s ’ ol d; ( 3) he ha d w i tne s s e d vi ol e nc e thr oughouthi s c hi l dhood; a nd ( 4) he qui ts c hool be c aus e he w a nt e d t o he l p s upporthi s f a m i l y . T he di s tr i c tc ourtnot e d tha tJ ohns on w a s c o n v ic te d in 2 0 0 2 f o rac o c a in e o f

f e n s e , b u t J o h n s o n d id n o t le a rn f r o m h is m i st ake a nd w as no thelpi ng hi s f am i l y by s el l i ng drug s. T he di stri ctcourtst at ed th a ti th a d c o n s i d e r e d J o h n s o n ’ s a r g u me n t s a n d th e f a c t o r s s e tf

o rth i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 (a) an d i m p o sed a sen t en ce o f 1 5 1 m o n th s. O n ap p eal , Jo h n so n arg u es th atth e d i stri ctco u rtd i d n o tad eq u at el y ad d ress h is h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s , in c lu d in g h is d ru g u s e a n d d if f ic u lt u p b r in g in g w ith a n abus i ve f

a the r . J ohns on c ont e nds tha thi s c a s e i s c om pa r abl e t o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C u n n in g h a m , 4 2 9 F .3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 9 - 8 0 ( 7 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , in w h ic h th e S e v e n th C ir c u it va c a t e d ade f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e w he n the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d nota ddr e s s the defe nd ant ’ s pri nci pal ar gu m entfor m i t i gat i on . H e a l so ar gu es thatthe se nt ence w a s gr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ry t o c om pl y w i th the purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng i n § 35 53 (a ). W e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ i ] n r e vi e w i ng the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s , w e c o n s id e rth e f in a l s e n te n c e , in its e n tir e ty , in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s .” U n ite d S ta te s v . M a rtin , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 2 2 7 , 1 2 3 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 06 ). In det erm i ni ng w hether ase nt ence i s r ea sonabl e, the di stri ctcourt shou l d b e gui ded b y the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at26 1, 12 5 S . C t . at4

7 6 5 - 6 6 ; U n ite d S ta te s v . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . S e c t i on 3553( a ) pr ovi de s tha tdi s tr i c tc ourt s m us tc ons i de r , i nt e ra l i a , ( 1) the appl i c abl e gui de l i ne r a nge ; ( 2) the na tur e and c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e ; ( 3) the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ; (4) the need for the se nt ence i m po se d to r e f le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f o rth e la w , a n d to prov i de j ustpu ni shm entfor the offens e; (5) the need for adequat e det erre nce; ( 6) pr ot e c t i on of

the publ i c ; a nd ( 7) the ne e d t o a voi d unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc i ng d i sp ari t i es. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). A l th o u g h th e co u rtm u stb e g u i d ed b y th ese fa ct ors, w e have hel d that“ no thi ng i n B oo ker or e l se w here re qu i re s the di stri ct courtt o st at e on the re cord thati thas e xp l i ci t l y c on si dere d eac h o f the § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s ort o di s c us s e a c h of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). “ [A ] n ackno w l edgm entby the di stri ctcourtthat it h a s c o n s id e r e d th e d e f e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n ts a n d th e f a c to r s in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) is suff i ci entun der B oo ker. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A l th o u g h a sen t en ce w i th i n th e ad v i so ry g u i d el i n es ran g e i s n o tp er se r e a s o n ab le , w e o r d in a r ily e x p e c t s u c h as e n te n c e to b e r e a s o n ab le . I d . a t 7 8 7 - 7 8 8 . W e r e c e nt l y he l d tha t“ adi s tr i c tc ourtm a y de t e rm i ne , on ac a s e - by - c a s e ba s i s , the w ei gh tt o g i ve the G ui del i nes, so l on g as thatdet erm i nat i on i s m ade w i th ref er ence to th e r e m a in in g s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s th a t th e c o u rt m u s t a ls o c o n s id e rin5

c a l c ul a t i ng the de f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt , N o. 05- 11671, m a nus c r i ptop. a t12 ( 11th C i r . A ug. 10, 2006) . T he bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f th e r e c o r d a n d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s lie s w ith th e p a rty c h a lle n g in g th e s e n te n c e . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 . H e r e , th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a d e q u a te ly a n d p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) s e n te n c in g f a c to r s a n d th e a d v is o ry g u id e lin e r a n g e in s e n te n c in g J o h n s o n . T h e 1 5 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le f o rs e v e r a l r e a s o n s . F i r s t , a s i n S c ott , the di s tr i c tc ourte xpl i c i t l y s t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t n e e d to s ta te o n th e r e c o r d its e x p lic it c ons i de r a t i on of

e ve ry § 3553( a ) f

a c t or , nordi d i tne e d t o a ddr e s s e ve ry a r gum e nt f orava r i a nc e . S e e S c ott , 426 F . 3d a t1329. S e c ond, a f t e rhe a r i ng about J ohns on’ s f

a m i l y c i r c um s t a nc e s , the di s tr i c tc ourta c know l e dge d i t s c ons i de r a t i on of thos e c i r c um s t a nc e s butde t e rm i ne d tha tthe s e nt e nc e w a s s uf f i c i e nt , butnot g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry , to c o m p ly w ith th e s ta tu to ry p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g . T h ir d , J o h n s o n a r g u e s th a t th e g u id e lin e s d o n o t ta k e in to a c c o u n t c e rta in fa cto rs th at § 3 5 5 3 (a ) r eq u ires th e c o u rt to co n sid er , sp ec ifically Jo h n so n ’s d is a d v a n ta g e d u p b r in g in g a n d d ru g a d d ic tio n , s u g g e s tin g th a t th e c o u rt s h o u ld have gi ven m ore w ei gh tt o tho se § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors than the gu i del i ne ra ng e. In H u n t, w e h e ld th a t “a n a c r o s s - th e - b o a r d p r e s c r ip tio n r e g a r d in g th e ap p r o p r ia te6

d eferen ce t o g i v e th e G u i d el i n es” w as n o ti n o rd er, an d “ [t ] h ere are m an y reaso n s a di stri ctcourtm aychoo se t o fol l ow the G ui del i nes i n a part i cul arca se - nam el y that the G ui del i nes are an ac cum ul at i on of kn ow l edge and exp er i ence and w er e p r o m u lg a te d o v e rtim e b y th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n , a n a g e n c y in s tru c te d to consi der the se ct i on 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors. ” H un t , N o. 05 -116 7, m anuscr i ptop . at9. In H unt , the di s tr i c tc ourtm a de s t a t e m e nt s tha tc oul d be i nt e rpr e t e d a s pr e s um pt i ons in fa v o r o f th e g u id elin es , b u t w e a ff irm ed th e d istrict co u rt b ec au se th e c o u rt’s de c i s i on t o de f

e rt o the gui de l i ne s w a s c a s e - s pe c i f i c a nd ba s e d on c ons i de r a t i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. Id. at12 -13. In thi s c as e, as i n H un t , the courtm ade aca se s p e c if ic a n a ly s is , b a s e d o n its c o n s id e r a tio n o f J o h n s o n ’s a r g u m e n ts , b u t u ltim a te ly f o u n d th a t J o h n s o n ’s b e h a v io rd e m o n s tr a te d th a t h e h a d n o t le a rn e d f r o m h is m i s t a ke s a nd w a s nothe l pi ng hi s f a m i l y . T he r e f

or e , J ohns on’ s s e nt e nc e w a s not th e r e s u lt o f

a n im p r o p e rs e n te n c in g p r o c e d u r e b e c au s e th e c o u rt’s d e c is io n to defe r t o the gu i del i nes w as ca se -s peci fi c and t oo k i nt o acc ou ntthe § 3 55 3(a) f a c to r s . S e e H u n t, N o . 0 5 - 1 1 7 1 m a n u s c r ip t o p . a t 1 3 . F o u rth , th e st atu t o ry m ax i m u m sen t en ce i n th i s case w as 4 0 years’ i m pr i s onm e nt , a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtw a s bound onl y by the c e i l i ng i m pos e d by s t a tut e . S e e 21 U . S . C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F . 3d 1297, 1308 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 126 S . C t . 432 ( 2005) ( r e c ogni z i ng tha tthe7

st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence , no tthe gu i del i ne se nt ence , i s the m axi m um se nt ence perm i tt ed by l aw ). A cc ordi ng l y, John son’ s 151 -m on th sent ence w as ap p r o x im a te ly o n e f

o u rth o f th e m a x im u m s e n te n c e a llo w ab le b y la w , a n d it c a nnotbe s a i d tha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e . S e e , e . g. , W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1246 ( a f

f i rm i ng the de f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e a s r e a s onabl e w he r e i tw a s one - t e nth of the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence ). Fi f th , J o h n s o n ’ s r e l i a n c e o n Cu n n i n g h a m i s mi s p l a c e d . I n Cu n n i n g h a m, C unni ngha m ’ s a tt orne y a r gue d tha te ve n the m i ni m um s e nt e nc e unde rthe g u i d el i n es w o u l d b e u n reaso n ab l e b ased o n C u n n i n g h am ’ s ex t en si v el ydoc um e nt e d hi s t ory of

ps y c hi a tr i c i l l ne s s . C unni ngha m , 429 F . 3d a t676- 77. T he S ev en th C ircu itfo u n d th at th e d istrict co u rt h ad “b ru sh ed as id e” C u n n in g h am ’s a r gum e nt s , l e a vi ng the C ourti n doubta s t o w he the rthe di s tr i c tc ourtj udge

“ conn ec t ed the fa ct s r el at i ng t o the st atut ory f ac t ors t o the se nt ence he i m po se d. ” I d . a t 6 7 6 . T he C ourtf

ound tw o m a

j orpr obl e m s w i th the s e nt e nc i ng de c i s i on: ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s ta te d th a t C u n n in g h a m h a d “d e c id e d n o t to c o o p e r a te a g a in s t” hi s c o- c ons pi r a t or , e ve n though thi s f i ndi ng w a s noti n the r e c or d; a nd ( 2) the di stri ctcourtfa i l ed t o m ent i on C un ni ng ham ’ s psy chi atri c probl em s and subst ance ab u s e . I d . a t 6 7 7 - 7 8 . H er e, un l i ke i n C un ni ng ham , the di stri ctcourtdi d n ot“ brush asi de”8

John son’ s argum entabou thi s f am i l y bac kg roun d. In expl ai ni ng thatJohn son h ad notl e a rne d f

r om hi s m i s t a ke s , a nd hi s drug de a l i ng w a s nothe l pi ng hi s f a m i l y , the c o u rt d e m o n s tr a te d th a t it h a d c o n s id e r e d J o h n s o n ’s “h is to ry a n d c h a r a c te r is tic s ,” s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) . F u rth e r , in d is c u s s in g th a t J o h n s o n w a s a rr e s te d in 2002 a nd 2003, a nd num e r ous drugs w e r e f ound, af a c ttha tJ ohns on doe s not c ont e s t , the c ourts how e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the ne e d t o “ pr om ot e r e s pe c tf or the l a w , ” s e e 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ; the ne e d “ t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f u rth e rc r im e s ,” s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( C ) ; a n d th e n e e d “to a f f o r d a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e to c r im in a l c o n d u c t,” s e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . M o r e o v e r , in not i ng tha tonl y the c r a c k c oc a i ne c ount e d i n the gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i on, but m ar i j uana, po w der c ocai ne, and ecs t as y w er e a l so foun d, the courtshow ed thathad consi dere d the “ nature a nd ci rc um st ance s” of the offens e, 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1). A dd i t i on al l y, i n d i sc ussi ng thatthe 15 1-m on th sent ence w as suff i ci entt o serve as det erre nce, the courtshow ed thati tconsi dere d the need for the se nt ence “ t o aff ord ad eq u at e d et erren ce t o cri m i n al co n d u ct , ” see 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2 )(B ). F i n al l y, the courti m pl i ci t l y dem on stra t ed thati thad con si dere d the other § 35 53 (a ) s e nt e nc i ng f

a c t or s w he n i ts t a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the a r gum e nt s of the p a rtie s . F i nal l y, the courti m po se d a se nt ence atthe l ow end o f the gu i del i ne ra ng e,9

a n d , f o rth e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d ab o v e , n o th i n g i n th e r e c o r d s u g g e s t s th a tth e l o wend sent ence w as un re as on abl e. S ee T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at78 8 (af fi rm i ng se nt ence w here no thi ng i n the re cord sugg es t ed thatthe l ow -e nd se nt ence w as u n r e a s o n ab le ) . T h u s , J o h n s o n f a ile d to c a rry h is b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t h is se nt ence w as un re as on abl e. J ohns on a l s o a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d a s am a tt e rof l a w i n f a i l i ng t o a ddr e s s hi s pr i nc i pa l a r gum e ntr e ga r di ng hi s di f f i c ul tupbr i ngi ng, i n vi ol a t i on of F e d .R .C r im .P . 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) . W e “ re vi ew qu es t i on s i nv ol vi ng the l egal i ty of ase nt ence de no vo . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. V i nc e nt , 121 F . 3d 1451, 1453 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T ay l or, 11 F . 3d 14 9, 15 1 (11 th C i r. 19 94 )) . W here a def endantfa i l ed t o rai se an i ss ue i n the di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , w e r evi ew on l y f or pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es v. P et er s, 40 3 F . 3d 12 63 , 12 70 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erpl ai n err or re vi ew , w e, at ou r di sc re t i on , m aycorr ec tan error w here (1) a n err or occurre d; (2) the error w as pl a i n; ( 3) the e rr ora f

f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s ; a nd ( 4) “ the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. O l a no, 507 U . S . 725, 732- 36, 113 S . C t . 1770, 1777- 79, 123 L . E d. 2d 508 ( 1993) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . H e r e , J o h n s o n r a is e s h is R u le 3 2 (i)( 3 )( B ) a rg u m en t fo r th e f irst ti m e o n ap p ea l. N ev er th eles s, Jo h n so n ’sThis former version of Rule 32 provided: 1 I f the c omments of the def endant and the defendant’s counsel or testimony or other information by them alleg e any factual inaccuracy in the [ PSI ] or the summary of the repor t or part thereof, thecourt shall, as to e ach matter contro v erte d, make ( i) a findingas to the alleg ation, or (ii) a deter mination that no such finding is ne cessa ry b ec au s e th e m att er

co ntro v ert edwi l ln o tb e t ak enint o ac co untins ent en ci n g. See F ed.R.Crim.P. 32(c)(3) (D) ( 1992). 10 a r g u m e n t f

a ils u n d e re ith e rs ta n d a r d o f r e v ie w f o rth e r e a s o n s d is c u s s e d b e lo w . R u l e 3 2 p ro v i d es as fo l l o w s: A ts e nt e nc i ng, the c ourtm us t

— f ora ny di s put e d port i on of the pr e s e nt e nc e r e portorothe rc onve rt e d m a tt e r— rul e on the di s put e or d e te rm in e th a t aru lin g is u n n e c e s s a ry e ith e rb e c au s e th e m a tte rw ill no taf fe ctse nt enci ng , or becaus e the courtw i l l no tconsi der the m att er i n s e nt e nc i ng. F e d .R .C r im .P . 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) . I n in te rp r e tin g af o rm e r , b u t s im ila r , v e r s io n o f R u le 32 , w e det erm i ned that“ [t ] o d em on stra t e at ec hn i ca l transgres si on of [the form er 1 R ul e 32] , a l l tha ti s ne c e s s a ry i s tha ta n a l l e ga t i on of as pe c i f i c f a c tua l e rr ori n the [ P S I ] w a s be f

or e the di s tr i c tc ourta nd tha tthe [ ] j udge di d notm a ke e i the rof the al t ernat i ve fi nd i ng s. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B oatner, 96 6 F . 2d 15 75 , 15 81 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ) . W e , how e ve r , ha ve c l a r i f i e d tha t , a tl e a s tw i th r e s pe c tt o the f orm e rve r s i on of R ul e 32, the rul e i s app l i cabl e onl y t o o bj ec t i on s t o a prob at i on offi ce r’ s f ac tual f i ndi ngs , i ns t e a d of

hi s orhe rl e ga l opi ni ons orc onc l us i ons . S e e V i nc e nt , 121 F . 3d11

at14 53 . In V i ncent , w e det erm i ned thatthe defendant , i n chal l engi ng the l egal c o n c lu s io n th a t as e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n t w a s ap p lic ab le , h a d f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t h is P S I c o n ta in e d ac o n tr o v e rte d f a c tu a l a lle g a tio n . S e e id . S im ila r ly , in a r g u in g aR u le 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) v io la tio n , J o h n s o n h a s f a ile d to i de nt i f y unr e s ol ve d f

a c tua l a l l e ga t i ons . I nde e d, a tJ ohns on’ s r e s e nt e nc i ng, J ohns on c onc e de d tha the w a s notdi s put i ng e i the rthe f a c t s i n hi s P S I orthe gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i ons . T he gove rnm e nta nd the c ourtdi d notdi s put e tha tJ ohns on ha d a di ff i cul tup bri ng i ng or thathe w as addi ct ed t o d rugs. M oreover, as di sc usse d above , the r e c or d, a tl e a s ti m pl i c i t l y , s how s tha tthe c ourtc ons i de r e d a l l of § 3 55 3(a) ’ s s ent enci ng fa ct ors and the m i t i gat i ng fa ct s J oh nson offe re d as they re l at ed t o these fa ct ors. F i nal l y, John son’ s r el i ance on C un ni ng ham i s m i spl ac ed because, i n C un ni ng ham , the S eventh C i rc ui tno t ed thatR ul e 32(i )( 3)(B ) app eare d t o rel at e onl y t o fac tual di sput es , and there ar e no factual di sput es i n thi s c as e. S ee C unni ngha m , 429 F . 3d a t678. E ve n i f the c ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on of how the undi s put e d f

a c t s s houl d a f

f e c tJ ohns on’ s s e nt e nc e i s ac ontr ove rt e d m a tt e r , the c ourtr e s ol ve d the m a tt e rw he n i tf ound tha tJ ohns on’ s s e nt e nc e w a s s uf f i c i e nt , but n o t g r e a te rth a n n e c e s s a ry , to m e e t th e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g a f

te rc o n s id e r in g a ll th e s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s a n d J o h n s o n ’s a r g u m e n ts . T h u s , J o h n s o n ’s a r g u m e n t a s it r e la te s to R u le 3 2 ( i) ( 3 ) ( B ) is w ith o u t m e r it. A c c o r d in g ly , w e d is c e rn n o r e v e r s ib le12

e rr o ra n d a f

f irm J o h n s o n ’s s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.