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

### Ju ly9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH 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. WAYNE J AC KS ON, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2079

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt for t he D i s t ri ct of

N ew M exi co ( D . C . N o. C R - 05- 1088- JA P - 2) H o w a rd L . A n d e rso n , L a s C ru c e s, N e w M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. G r egoryB . W or m uth, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( D avi d C . I gl es i as , U ni t ed St at es A t t orney , w i th hi m on the br i ef) , L as C ruces , N ew M exi co, forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , B RI S CO E , and GORS UCH , C irc u it Judg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge.

W a yn e Ja c k so n c o n ten d s th a t th e fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt c h a rg e d w ith a ss e ss in g a n a p p ro p ria te s e n ten c e fo r h is p a rticip a tio n in a c o n sp ira c yto di s tr i but e coc ai ne err ed bycons i der i ng hi s pr i oruncouns el ed s t at e mi s demeanor- 2-

se n ten c e s fo r d o m e stic v io len c e a n d th e n e g lig e n t u se o f a fire a rm , an d th a t th is err ori m pl i cat es hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o couns el . O urcas e l aw and r epea t ed gui dance fr om t he Supr eme C our t , how ever , i ns tructthata fe der al se n ten c in g c o u rt m a y , co n sis ten t w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, t a k e in to a c c o u n t a defe ndant ’ s pr evi ous uncouns el ed mi s demeanorconvi ct i ons , t ogetherw i th any se n ten c e th a t d o e s n o t re su lt i n a c tu a l im p riso n m e n t. T h o u g h c o n stra in e d to di s r egar d the port i on of hi s uncouns el ed mi s demeanors ent ence r es ul t i ng i n a pr i s on t erm , t he di s tr i ctcourtw as ther efor e fr ee t o devi s e a s ent ence t aki ng a c c o u n t o f

M r. J a c k s o n ’s p ri o r m is d e m e a n o r c o n v ic tio n s a n d a s s o c ia te d fin e . P ro c e e d in g a s it d id o n ju s t th is c o u rs e , w e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. I O n Sept ember14, 2005, M r . J acks on pl ed gui l tyt o s i x count s of i l l egal d ru g d i s tr i b u t i o n a n d o n e c o u n to f c o n s p i r a c yi n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § § 8 4 1 (a)(1), 84 1 (b)(1 )(C ), an d 8 4 6 , an d 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 , b ase d o n the fac t th at M r. J acks on and a c ohor ts ol d appr oxi m at el y7. 36 gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne and a n addi t i onal 2. 63 gr ams of coc ai ne t o under coveroffi cer s on s i x di ffe r entocca s i ons i n R os w el l , N ew M exi co, dur i ng ear l y2005. I n the us ual cour s e, a pr es ent ence rep o rt(“P S R ”) w as p rep are d fo r th e d istri ct co u rtan aly zing M r. Jac k so n ’s b a c k g ro u n d a n d p rio r c rim in a l h isto ry . T h e P S R in th is c a se to o k n o te o f a p a ir o f p ri o r co n v ict ion s an d thu s ass esse d M r. Jac k so n w ith tw o crim inal h ist o ry poi nt s . O ne of thes e poi nt s der i ved fr om M r . J acks on’ s convi ct i on fordr i vi ngM r . J acks on cont ends that$350 of hi s fi ne w as s us pended i n connec t i on 1 w ith h is o b ta in in g d ru g c o u n s e lin g . See T r. R . V o l. 1 , D o c . 3 3 , ¶ 1 . U S S G § 5 C 1. 2(b) pr ov i des t hat a s afet yvalve r eci pientw ho se offen se 2 w ou l d o therw i se carrya st atutorym and at orym i nim um of at l eastfi ve y ears m ust be s ent ence d atan adj us t ed offens e l evel of atl eas t17, w hi ch has a r ecomm ended s ent enci ng r ange of

24 t o 30 m onths forcr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryI . I n thi s cas e, M r . J acks on had an a dj us t ed offens e l evel of 23, PSR at8, w hi ch w oul d have b e e n re d u c e d to 2 1 if h e q u a lifie d fo r t h e s a fe ty v a lv e , s ee U S S G § 2 D 1 . 1 (b)(7 ), r es ul t i ng i n a r ecomm ended s ent enci ng r ange of 37 t o 46 m onths forcr i m i nal h ist o ryca tego ryI.

- 3- w hil e i ntoxi cat ed in 199 6. T he o ther point , and the fo nt of this l i t i gati on , arose f ro m M r. Ja c k so n ’s 1 9 9 5 N e w M e x ico sta te c o n v ictio n s fo r b a ttery, d o m e stic v iolen ce , an d the n eg li g en t use o f a firearm . F o r th ese lat ter offe n ses, M r. J acks on w as s ent ence d t o 90 day s i n cus t ody , al l of w hi ch w as s us pended, and or der ed t o pay a fi ne of $528. 1 B yvi r tue of thei rcompar at i vel y“cl ean” r ecor ds , C ongr es s has i ns truct ed thati ndi vi dual s w i th buta s i ngl e cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi ntm aybe el i gi bl e fort he s oc a lled “ sa fe tyv a lv e ” re d u c tio n c o d ified in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f); u n d e r th is p r o v i s i o n , i n d i v i d u a l s m a y e s c a p e t h e n o r m a l o p e r a t i o n o f C o n g r e s s ’ s m a n d a t o r ym i ni m um fi ve- y ears ent ence forconvi ct i ons under21 U . S. C . §§ 841( b) ( 1) ( C ) and 8 4 6 an d , instead , o b tai n sen tenc es a s low as 2 4 m o n ths u n d er the ad v isory g u id e lin e s , s ee 2 0 0 5 U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines (“U S S G ”) § § 5 C 1 . 2 (b), 5 A (T a b le) . M r. Ja c k so n u rg e d th e d istric t co u rt in th is c a se to d isre g a rd e n tirely

2 h is 19 9 5 co n v ict ion s an d sen tenc e fo r pu rpo ses o f tall y ing h is cri m inal h ist o ry sc o re (a n d th u s e lig ib ili tyfo r th e sa fe tyv a lv e re d u c tio n ), co n ten d in g th a t th e sta te- 4-

of N ew M exi co vi ol at ed hi s Si xth A m endmentr i ght s i n hi s 1995 pr ocee di ng by fai l i ng t o affor d hi m the as s i s t ance of couns el orthe oppor tuni tyt o w ai ve s uch as s i s t ance know i ngl y . T he di s tr i ctcour thel d tw o s ent enci ng hear i ngs on the m a tte r a n d o rd e re d s u p p le m e n ta l b ri e fin g . B efor e the di s tr i ctcourt , t he governm entconce ded thatM r . J acks on fai l ed t o r ece i ve couns el i n hi s 1995 s t at e courtcas e, thathe w as ent i t l ed t o s uch as s i s t ance , and, thus , thatthe condi t i onal pr i s on s ent ence he r ece i ved vi ol at ed the Si xth A m endment . St i l l , t he governm ents ubm i t t ed, the convi ct i on i t s el f, t ogether w i th the port i on of the s ent ence i m pos i ng a fi ne, w as both cons t i tut i onal and s uffi ci entt o s us t ai n the as s es s m entof a c r i m i nal hi s t or ypoi ntunderext ant S u p re m e C o u rt a n d T e n th C irc u it p re c e d e n t. T h e d istric t co u rt u lti m a tely c o n c u rre d , h o ld in g th a t, ev e n a f ter e x c isin g th e p o rtio n o f th e se n ten c e re latin g to im p ri so n m en t derive d in v iolati o n o f h is Six th A m en d m en t r igh t t o co u n sel, M r. J acks on’ s 1995 convi ct i ons and fi ne mer i t ed the as s es s m entof the cont es t ed cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt ; on the bas i s of thi s s econd poi nt , the di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed appl i cat i on of the s t atut orys afe tyval ve and i m pos ed the mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence of fi ve y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . M r . J acks on appea l ed.- 5- II A T he Si xth A m endments peaks of a de fenda nt ’ s r i ght“[i ] n al l cr i m i nal p ro s e c u tio n s ” to “ h a v e th e [ a ]s s is ta n c e o f [ c ]o u n s e l.” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V I. T hatthi s l anguage affor ds notm er el ythe r i ghtt o r et ai n couns el butthe as s oci at ed r i ghtof i ndi gentper s ons t o r ece i ve as s i s t ance fr om appoi nt ed couns el has l ong fo u n d v o ic e in o u r j u ri s p ru d e n c e . See, e. g. , Joh nson v Zerbst , 304 U . S. 458 (1 9 3 8 ); G i deon v Wai nw r ight , 3 7 2 U .S . 3 3 5 (1 9 6 3 ). B u t th e q u e stio n e x a c tly w hen couns el oughtt o be appoi nt ed has pr oven l es s eas yt o r es ol ve. Fora per i od, s om e thoughtt he r i ghtt o r ece i ve the as s i s t ance of appoi nt ed couns el par al l el ed the j urytr i al r i ght , w hi ch al s o fl ow s fr om the Si xth A m endment , and thus p e rta in e d o n lyto fe lo n ytrials o r th e ir e q u iv a len t. See A rg e rs in g e r v . Ha m lin , 407 U . S. 25, 26- 27 n. 1 ( 1972) . I n A rgers i nger , how ever , the Supr eme C our ts ever ed anys uch l i nkage t o the j urytr i al r i ghtand ext ended the r i ghtt o r ece i ve appoi nt ed c o u n se l to m isd e m e a n o r tria ls. E v e n so , the C o u rt sto p p e d sh o rt o f re a d in g th is rig h t as p e rta in in g to “ a ll crim in a l p ro c e e d in g s,” h o ld in g in ste a d th a t th e S ix th A m endment ’ s purpos es ar e s erved i f couns el i s appoi nt ed i n anytr i al i nvol vi ng a s ent ence of “a ctual depr i vat i on of a pe r s on’ s l i berty . ” Id. at40 . W hatever el se m i ghtbe s ai d of the i m por t ance of r ece i vi ng the as s i s t ance of an a t t orney , the C our texpl ai ned thatt he “gui di ng hand of c ouns el ” i s an i ndi s pens abl e i m per at i ve “w hen one’ s l i bertyi s i n j eopar dy . ” Id . a t 4 0 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n o m itt e d ); s ee- 6-

als o G i deon , 372 U . S. at345 ( defe ndi ng the r i ghtt o couns el w her e “the fundament al hum an r i ght s of l i fe a nd l i berty ” ar e i m pl i cat ed ( i nt ernal quot at i on o m itted)). S e v e n y e a rs la ter , the C o u rt c o n tem p late d liftin g its m a n d a te th a t a v io la tio n o f

th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t d e p e n d s o n th e s o rt o f s a n c tio n im p o s e d . Sc o tt v . Ill in o is , 440 U . S. 367 ( 1979) , pr es ent ed the C our tw i th a defendantw ho cont ended thathi s m i s demeanorconvi ct i on and s ent ence of a f i ne al one, w i th no as s oci at ed j ai l t i m e, s houl d be vac at ed. T he C our tdemurr ed. I tdi d s o expl ai ni ng thatther e i s “cons i der abl e doubtthatthe Si xth A m endment , as or i gi nal l ydr aft ed bythe Fr amer s of the B i l l of R i ght s , cont empl at ed anyguar ant ee otherthan the r i ghtof an a ccus ed . . . t o empl oya l aw y ert o as s i s ti n hi s defe ns e, ” i d. at370, and that , though t he r i ghtt o r ece i ve the as s i s t ance of appoi nt ed couns el w as devel oped thr ough a s er i es of ca s es befor e the C our t , “cons t i tut i onal l i ne dr aw i ng [bec ame] m or e di ffi cul t , ” i d. at372, es peci al l yas the Si xth A m endmentw as in c o rp o ra ted in to th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t an d a p p lied a g a in st th e sta tes : T he r ange of

hum an conduc tr egul at ed bys t at e cr i m i nal l aw s i s m uch br oadert han thatof the fe der al cr i m i nal l aw s , part i cul ar l yon the “petty ” offens e partof the s pectrum . A s a mat t erof cons t i tut i onal adj udi cat i on, w e ar e, t her efor e, l es s w i l l i ng t o extr apol at e an a l r eady e x ten d e d lin e w h e n , alth o u g h th e g e n e ra l n a tu re o f th e p rin c ip le s oughtt o be appl i ed i s cl ear , i t s pr eci s e l i m i t s and thei rr ami fi cat i ons b e c o m e le s s s o . Id. E m p h a siz in g th a t G i deon , A rgers i nger , and othercas es devel opi ng the r i ght t o r ece i ve the as s i s t ance of couns el focus ed on the uni que har ds hi ps as s oci at ed- 7-

w ith a se n ten c e o f

im p riso n m e n t an d th e d e p riv a tio n o f th e f u n d a m e n tal rig h t to lib e rt ys u c h a s e n te n c e e n ta ils , i d. at372- 73, the C our tdeci ded t o “del i m i t ” the co n sti tuti o n al l ine th ere . “E v en w ere the m att er r es nova , ” the C our ti ndi cat ed, “the ce ntr al pr emi s e of A rgers i nger– th a t ac tu a l im p riso n m e n t is a p e n a lty d iffe re n t in k in d f

ro m fin e s o r th e m e re th re a t o f im p riso n m e n t – is e m in e n tly s ound and w arr ant s adopt i on of ac tual i m pr i s onm entas the l i ne def i ni ng the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o appoi nt m entof couns el . ” Id. ; s ee als o G l overv. Uni t ed Stat es , 5 3 1 U .S . 1 9 8 , 2 0 3 (2 0 0 1 ) (in d ica tin g th a t a s e n ten c e “ h a s S ix th A m e n d m e n t sig n ifica n c e ” w h e n , b u t o n lyw h e n , itin v o lv e s “ a n ya m o u n t o f jail tim e ” ). T h u s w en t th ing s fo r ne arlya q u arter of a c en turyu n ti l th e S u p rem e C o u rt confr ont ed a s ent ence nei therfi s h norfow l y ethi ghl ycomm on – a s us pended t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . W i th l ow ercour t s s pl i ton the ques t i on w hethers uch s e n t e n c e s a r e c o n tr o l l e d b y A rgersi ng er o r Sc o tt , the C our tgr ant ed ce r t i or ar i i n a c a se f ro m th e A lab a m a S u p re m e C o u rt to re so lv e th e d isp u te a n d u lti m a tely c o n c lu d e d th a t A rgers i ngercontr ol l ed. H ol di ng thata s us pended s ent ence of i m pr i s onm enti s m or e aki n t o a “s ent ence of ac tual i m pr i s onm ent ” than a f i ne, t he C our tobs erved that , “[o] nce the [s us pended] pr i s on t erm i s tr i gger ed, the defe ndanti s i ncar cer at ed notforthe pr obat i on vi ol at i on, butforthe under l y i ng offe ns e, ” and thus ends up havi ng hi s orherl i bertydepr i ved as a r es ul tof an uncouns el ed convi ct i on – “pr eci s el yw hatthe Si xth A m endment , as i nt erpr et ed by- 8-

A rgers i ngerand Sc o tt , does notal l ow . ” A labam a v. Shel t on , 535 U . S. 654, 662 ( 2002) . A ccor di ngl y , though t he C our tperhaps ext ended w hatqual i fi es as im p riso n m e n t, i t co n firm e d th a t th e p re se n c e o f a S ix th A m e n d m e n t v io latio n still turns on the natur e of the s ent ence i m pos ed and, m or e s peci fi cal l y , on the p re se n c e o f

a ter m o f

im p riso n m e n t. C l ar i fy i ng anothercr i t i cal poi ntof conf us i on overthe y ear s , i n Ni chols v. Uni t ed Stat es , 511 U . S. 738 ( 1994) , the Supr eme C our ti ns truct ed that“an u n co u n seled m isde m ea n o r co n v ict ion , v ali d u n d er Sc o tt b ec au se n o p ri so n term w as i m pos ed, i s al s o val i d w hen us ed t o enhanc e puni s hm entata s ubs equent convi ct i on, ” i d. at749, s uch as underthe advi s or yfede r al s ent enci ng gui del i nes thatas s i gn cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s , and corr es pondi ng pr i s on t erm s , bas ed on the n u m b e r a n d s e ri o u s n e s s o f a d e fe n d a n t’ s p ri o r s e n te n c e s . S e e a ls o id . at746- 47 (“[ A ]n u n co u n seled co n v ict ion v ali d u n d er Sc o tt m aybe r el i ed upon t o enhanc e th e se n ten c e fo r a su b se q u e n t o ffe n se , ev e n th o u g h th a t se n ten c e e n tails im p ri so n m en t. E n h an ce m en t st atutes, w h ethe r i n the n ature o f c ri m inal h ist o ry pr ovi s i ons s uch as t hos e cont ai ned i n the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . . . do not c h a n g e th e p e n a lty im p o s e d fo r t h e e a rl ie r c o n v ic tio n .” ). B M r. Ja c k so n ’s 1 9 9 5 m isd e m e a n o r se n ten c e in v o lv e s a sp e c ts o f b o th A rgers i ngerand Sc o tt/ Nich o ls . O n the one ha nd, i ti ncl udes a condi t i onal pr i s on s ent ence , s om ethi ng t hatfal l s on t he “a ctual i m pr i s onm ent ” s i de of the l edger- 9-

af ter Shel t on . O n the otherhand, i ti nvol ves the paym entof a f i ne, s om ethi ng that, u n d er Sc o tt , pos es no Si xth A m endmentpr obl ems and, pur s uantt o Nich o ls , m aybe em ploy ed as a sentenci ng enh ancem ent. F urther com pli cat i ng m at t ers , M r . J acks on cont ends , the fi ne and the condi t i onal pr i s on s ent ence entw i ne s uch th a t h e w a s s u bje c t to p o te n tia l ja il tim e if h e fa ile d to p a yth e re q u is ite fin e . A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 5 . 1. U nfor tunat el yforM r . J acks on, w e addr es s ed much t hi s s ame si tuat i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. R ei l l ey , 9 4 8 F . 2 d 6 4 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). T h e re , the d e fe n d a n t, char ged i n fede r al courtw i th the mi s demeanorof l eavi ng pr opertyunat t ended i n a nat i onal park, w as tr i ed w i thoutcouns el , convi ct ed, and s ubj ect ed t o a s ent ence of thi r tyday s ’ i m pr i s onm entand a f i ne of $500, al l of w hi ch w as s us pended on the c o n d itio n th a t h e p a y$ 1 0 0 . Id. at650. R atherthan quas h the convi ct i on or s ent ence ent i r el y , on appea l w e det erm i ned thatthe appr opr i at e r emedyi n s uch cas es i s t o s tr i ke dow n the s us pended s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entbutaff i r m the c o n v ic tio n a n d th e “ re m a in d e r o f th e s e n te n c e ” – n a m e ly, th e f in e . Id . a t 6 5 4 . W e to o k th is c o u rs e o n th e im p lic it b a s is th a t th e re m e d yo u g h t to fit th e ri g h t. A s d e fi n e d a tl e a s ts o fa rb y A rgers i ngerand Sc o tt , and r ece nt l yr eaffi r m ed by Shel t on , the Si xth A m endmentr i ghtati s s ue pr ot ect s i ndi vi dual s agai ns tbei ng s e n t e n c e d t o a d e p r i v a t i o n o f l i b e r ty w i th o u tth e b e n e fi to f c o u n s e l ; a c c o r d i n g l y, w e h e ld , the p ro p e r re m e d yw a s to v a c a te th a t p o rtio n o f th e se n ten c e o ffe n siv e to the Si xth A m endmentw i thoutdoi ng harm t o the defendant ’ s convi ct i on orthe- 10-

re m a in in g , co n stitu tio n a llyin o ffe n siv e , p o rtio n s o f h is s e n ten c e . T o g o f u rth e r, to hol d the convi ct i on and fi ne port i on of a s ent ence i nfi r m , w oul d be t o r el i eve the d e fe n d a n tf

r o m any c o n s e q u e n c e o f h i s o rh e ra c t i o n s d e s p i t e g u i d a n c e f r o m Sc o tt and Nich o ls a n d n o w Shel t on t hatuncouns el ed mi s demeanorconvi ct i ons and nonp riso n se n ten c e s m a yb e g iv e n re sp e c t an d e ffe c t co n sis ten t w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’ s re m e d ia l p u rp o s e s . W e fol l ow ed thi s s ame cour s e ni ne y ear s l at er , i n Sh ay e ste h v . C ity o f So u th Sal tLake , 217 F. 3d 1281 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . T her e, m uch l i ke her e, the defendant a r g u e d th a th i s fi n e a n d j a i l t i me we r e l i n k e d a n d i n s e p a r a b l e . I n r e s p o n s e , we r ecogni zed thati tm aybe “i m pos s i bl e t o r econs t i tut e the mi nd of the tr i al j udge, ma k i n g i ti mp o s s i b l e t o d i s a g g r e g a t e ” a s e n t e n c e i n v o l v i n g p r o b a t i o n a n d j a i l t i me su sp e n d e d u p o n p a ym e n t o f a fin e , b u t n o n e th e les s re c o g n ize d th a t th e S ix th A m endment ’ s purpos es , as el uci dat ed bythe Supr eme C our t , w er e s at i s fi ed by vaca t i ng the s ent ence of pr obat i on and s us pended j ai l t i m e and r et ai ni ng as

“ v a lid ” th e u n d e rl y in g c o n v ic tio n a n d fin e . Id. a t 1 2 8 5 . T he path R ei l l ey and Shayes t eh fo llo w e d h a s b e e n tra v e led b ym a n yc o u rts i n m a n y j u r i s d i c t i o n s a n d e v e n b y Shel t on i t s el f. I n Shel t on , the A lab a m a sta te trial c o u rt im p o se d a th irtyd a yjail se n ten c e b u t su sp e n d e d th a t se n ten c e sh o u ld the defendants at i s fycert ai n condi t i ons – s peci fi cal l y , tw o y ear s ’ uns upervi s ed pr obat i on and the paym entof courtcos t s , a $500 fi ne, r epar at i ons of $25, and r es t i tut i on i n exce s s of $500. E xpr es s l yfol l ow i ng ourdeci s i on i n R ei l l ey , theT he C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Shel t on l eftunr es ol ved onl yw hats houl d happen 3 to th e p o rt io n o f

th e s e n te n c e im p o s in g a te rm o f p ro b a tio n , s ee i d. a t 6 7 3 , a q u e s tio n th a t s o m e c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls h a v e m o re re c e n tly c o n f ro n te d , see i nfr a at 12- 13.

- 11- A l abama Supr eme C our taff i r m ed the convi ct i on and the monet arypor t i ons of the s ent ence butr ever s ed thatas pectof the defendant ’ s s ent ence i m pos i ng a s u s p e n d e d ja il s e n te n c e . See Ex par t e Shel t on , 851 So. 2d 96, 101- 02 ( A l a. 2000) ( “A ppl y i ng the r at i onal e of R ei l l ey , A rgers i nger , and Sc o tt , w e hol d thatthe defe ndanti n thi s cas e w as ent i t l ed t o r epr es ent at i on bycouns el beca us e he w as se n ten c e d to a ter m o f im p riso n m e n t, alb e it su sp e n d e d . . . . H a v in g h e ld th a t a defe nd ant w ho recei ves a suspen ded or probated sent ence to i m pri sonm ent has a cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o couns el , . . . w e affi r m Shel t on’ s convi ct i on butr ever s e that as pectof hi s s ent ence i m pos i ng 30 day s of s us pended j ai l t i m e. ”) . O n r evi ew , t he U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt a ffirm e d th e A lab a m a ’s S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in a ll res p e c ts – b o th w ith re sp e c t to its v a c a tu r o f th e su sp e n d e d jail te rm a n d its d e c is io n to u p h o ld th e c o n v ic tio n , fin e , a n d re s titu tio n . See She l t on , 535 U . S. at 658, 673. 3 M uch befor e Shel t on , the Second Ci r cui ti n Uni t ed Stat es v. O r t ega , 94 F. 3d 764 ( 2d C i r . 1996) , confr ont ed an unc ouns el ed s t at e courtm i s demeanort hat the governm ent , as her e, s oughtt o us e as a s ent enci ng enhanc ementi n a s ubs equentfede r al pr ocee di ng. A l s o notunl i ke her e, t he s t at e s ent ence ati s s ue in v o lv e d a v a rie tyo f

e lem e n ts, in c lu d in g a su sp e n d e d se n ten c e , p ro b a tio n , as w e ll- 12-

as a fi ne and s ur char ge, al l of w hi ch exc eptthe fi ne w er e s ubs equent l yvaca t ed, appar ent l yaft ert he defendants at i s fi ed the monet arypor t i on of hi s s ent ence . T he S ec o n d C ir cu itco n side red , b u t r ejec ted, th e d efen d an t’ s claim that the s tat e c o u rt convi ct i on ati s s ue w as i nval i d, emphasi zi ng thatthe Si xth A m endmentr i ght , as d e v e l o p e d b y A rgers i nger , Sc o tt , and Nich o ls , pr ot ect s an uncouns el ed m i s demeanordefe ndantnotfr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on butfr om anys ent ence in v o lv in g th e d e p ri v a tio n o f h is o r h e r l ib e rt y . Id. at769. T he courtthen pr ocee ded t o ci t e R ei l l ey and expl ai n thatthe “appr opr i at e r emedy ” i s “vac aturof the i nval i d por t i on of the s ent ence , and notr ever s al of the convi ct i on i t s el f”; on th is b a sis , ith e ld , the d e fe n d a n t’s “ c o n v ictio n a n d th e m o n e tar yp o rtio n o f h is sen tenc e w ere clea rl yv ali d u n d er Sc o tt , a n d w e re p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d in h is cr i m i nal hi s t orypur s uantt o Nich o ls . ” Id. T he Ei ghth C i r cui thas r eac hed much th is s a m e c o n c lu s io n , se e Un itedS ta tes v . W h ite , 5 2 9 F .2 d 1 3 9 0 , 1 3 9 4 n .4 (8 th C i r . 1976) ( “the A rgers i ngerdoctr i ne r el i eves an uncouns el ed defendant convi ct ed fora mi s demeanoronl yfr om the pena l tyof i ncar cer at i on, ” ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n o m itte d )) , a s h a s th e T h ir d C ir c u it, s ee Un itedS ta tes v . Mo sk o v its , 86 F .3 d 1 3 0 3 , 1 3 0 9 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). A ft ert he Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Shel t on , m o re o v e r, th e F if th C irc u it h a d o c c a s io n to c o n s id e r w h e th e r, c o n s is te n t w ith th a t d e c is io n , s ee supra a t n o te 3, an uncouns el ed convi ct i on r es ul t i ng i n a s t and al one s ent ence of pr obat i on for ill e g a llyre e n ter in g th is c o u n trym a yb e e m p lo y e d a s a se n ten c in g e n h a n c e m e n t inSee a lso Uni t ed Stat es v Ri os - C r uz , 376 F. 3d 303, 304- 05 ( 5th C i r . 2004) 4 (to sim ilar e ffe c t); Uni t ed Stat es v. Fos t er , 904 F. 2d 20, 21 ( 9th C i r . 1990) (ho lding that the re m ed yu n d er A rgers i ngeri s t hat“w hen pr obat i on i s r evoked, (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 13- a s ubs equentcas e, even though a vi ol at i on of the t erm s of the or i gi nal probati on arysent ence m i gh tres ulti n a p ri son term . T ho ug h the i ssue i s of co urse one w e nee d notdeci de t oday , the Fi fth C i r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng i l l us tr at es the cont i nui ng uni form i tyof ci r cui tvi ew s r egar di ng the foc us of the r i ghtand r emedy affor ded bythe Si xth A m endment . T he Fi fth C i r cui texpl ai ned thatthe im p o sitio n o f

p ro b a tio n itse lf, w ith o u t m o re , d o e s n o t trigg e r th e S ix th A m endmentbeca us e, as i tputi t , “[i ] f a de fenda ntr ece i ves onl ya s ent ence of pr obat i on, he i s s ent ence d t o comm uni tyr el eas e w i th condi t i ons ; he does not r ece i ve a s ent ence of i m pr i s onm ent . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. P er ez - Maci as , 335 F. 3d 421, 426- 27 ( 5th C i r . 2003) ( K i ng, C . J . ) . A cknow l edgi ng thatthe r evoca t i on of pr obat i on, l i ke the s us pended s ent ence ati s s ue i n Shel t on , ca n so m e tim e s le a d to i m pr i s onm ent , t he courtemphasi zed thata defendanti n s uch a s i tuat i on m ay r ece i ve onl ya s ent ence “thatw as or i gi nal l yavai l abl e ats ent enci ng, ” thus i nt i m at i ng, i f nothol di ng, that , i f a j ai l s ent ence w oul d have be en unl aw ful under the Si xth A m endmentatthe out s et , s o w i l l i tbe i f i nvoked i n a pr obat i on re v o c a tio n h e a ri n g . Id. at427. Y et , w hi l e a s ent ence of pr obat i on m i ghtl at er b e c o m e in v a lid , the c o u rt h e ld it i s n o t so u n til a n d u n les s it, in c o n fo rm ityw ith A rgers i ngerand Shel t on , re su lts in a se n ten c e o f a c tu a l im p riso n m e n t. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 the ca s e r evert s t o i t s s t atus atthe t i m e pr obat i on w as gr ant ed[, and, s ] i nce im p riso n m e n t co u ld n o t h a v e b e e n im p o se d o n F o ste r a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f h is trial, im p riso n m e n t co u ld n o t b e im p o se d o n F o ste r fo llo w in g re v o c a tio n o f h is p rob ati o n ” (intern al qu o tat ion s an d cit ati o n s o m itted)).

- 14- 2 . In a d d it ion to the w all o f p rec ed en t bloc k ing it s p ath, M r. Jac k so n ’s ar gum ental s o negl ect s t o t ake a ccountof fa ct or s uni que t o the fe der al s ent enci ng pr oces s thatatl eas tm i t i gat e conc erns aboutthe r el i ance on pr i oruncouns el ed m i s demeanorconvi ct i ons and mi s demeanors ent ence s i n s ubs equents ent enci ng proceed i ng s. I n the fi r s tpl ace , t he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on w as w el l aw ar e of the p re v a len c e o f

u n c o u n se led m isd e m e a n o r c o n v ictio n s a n d so u g h t to m o d u late th e ir e ffe c t o n fe d e ra l se n ten c e s w ith in th e m e c h a n ism s o f th e G u id e lin e s. W h ile i m pos i ng m or e cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s – and al l ow i ng them t o acc um ul at e w i thout l i m i t at i on – form or e s er i ous offe ns es , the G ui del i nes i m pos e buta s i ngl e poi nt forpr i ors ent ence s r es ul t i ng i n l es s than s i xtyday s ’ i m pr i s onm entand cap the n u m b e r o f

s u c h s e n te n c e s th a t m a yb e c o u n te d a t fo u r. See U S S G § 4 A 1 .1 (c ); s ee als o U SSG § 4A 1. 2 A ppl i cat i on N ot es ( “B ackgr ound: Pr i ors ent ence s , not otherw i s e exc l uded, ar e t o be count ed i n the cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e, i ncl udi ng u n co u n seled m isde m ea n o r sen tenc es w h ere im p ri so n m en t w as n o t i m p o sed . ”); U S S G § 4 A 1 .1 A p p lic a tio n N o te s (“ S u b d iv is io n s (a ), ( b ), a n d (c ) o f § 4 A 1 .1 di s t i ngui s h confi nements ent ence s l ongerthan one y earand one mont h, s hor t erT h e p arti es sp ea k in term s o f u sing a “ co n v ict ion ” to c alcu lat e M r. 5 J acks on’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s ; how ever , as not ed above , U SSG § 4A 1. 1, though not18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , pr ovi des t hatcr i m i nal hi s t or ys houl d be cal cul at ed bas ed on “s ent ence s . ”

- 15- confi nements ent ence s of atl eas ts i xtyday s , and al l others ent ence s , s uch as confi nements ent ence s of l es s than s i xtyday s , pr obat i on, fi nes , and r es i dencyi n a h alfw ay h o u se.”). 5 F u rth er, of

co u rse, un d er the G u idelines them selv es th e d istri ct co u rt r emai ns fr ee t o fi nd thata defendant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e i ncorpor at i ng an uncouns el ed mi s demeanors ent ence “over - r epr es ent s t he s er i ous nes s of [hi s or her ] cr i m i nal hi s t oryorthe l i kel i hood t hatt he defendantw i l l comm i tfur ther cr i m es ” and, on t hatbas i s , departfr om t he G ui del i nes ’ s ugges t ed s ent enci ng ra n g e a s th e c o u rt se e s fit. U S S G § 4 A 1 .3 (b )(1 ). A s J u stic e S o u ter o b se rv e d in Nich o ls , “[b] eca us e the G ui del i nes al l ow a defendantt o r ebutt he nega t i ve im p li ca ti o n to w h ich a p ri o r un co u n seled co n v ict ion g ives ri se, th eyd o n o t i g n o re the r i s k of unr el i abi l i tyas s oci at ed w i th s uch a c onvi ct i on. ” 511 U . S. at752 (S o u ter, J. , co n cu rri n g ). F inally , alon g thes e sa m e li n es, af ter B o o ke r, e t a l. , t he G u idelines them selv es a re o f c o u rse n o lon g er a p p li ed b yrote a n d a d istri ct co u rt i s fr ee, i n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , t o i s s ue an e nt i r el ydi ffe r ents ent ence bas ed o n the fac tors d eli n ea ted b yC o n g ress in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). 3 . M r. Ja c k so n re sp o n d s to a ll th is b yd ire c tin g u s to o u r d e c isio n in Uni t ed Stat es v. C ous i ns , 4 5 5 F . 3 d 1 1 1 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h ere , a state c o u rt- 16-

convi ct ed M r . C ous i ns i n 1996 forr ece i vi ng s t ol en goods and s ent ence d hi m t o a $500 fi ne or , al t ernat i vel y , 30 day s i n j ai l . T he courti n C ou si ns not ed thatthe cas e w as “ana l ogous t o Shel t on i n the s ens e thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed bythe [s t at e] courtw as es s ent i al l ya s us pended [j ai l ] s ent ence . ” Id. at1126. U nder Shel t on ’ s hol di ng t hats us pended s ent ence s of i m pr i s onm entar e as pr obl emat i c as thos e i m m edi at el yi m pos ed, the courtfound a Si xth A m endmentvi ol at i on and, fr om ther e, pr ocee ded t o hol d that “havi ng concl uded thatt he South C ar ol i na c o n v ictio n v io late d K u rt’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts, w e m u st a lso c o n c lu d e th a t it w as err orforthe di s tr i ctcourtt o us e thi s convi ct i on i n cal cul at i ng K ur t ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egory . ” Id. at1127. M r . J acks on s eeks t o r ead i nt o thi s a s ugges t i on th a t an ytim e a n u n c o u n se led m isd e m e a n o r se n ten c e in ter tw in e s fin e s w ith jail tim e (o r s u s p e n d e d ja il tim e ) w e m u s t v a c a te th e e n tir e s e n te n c e . O u r de cisi o n ca n n o t bea r th e w eigh t he s ee k s to im p o se u p o n it . In C ous i ns , w e r ej ect ed the governm ent ’ s ar gum ent“thati ti s i m pr operfor[a d efen d an t] to ch all en g e the co n sti tuti o n ali tyo f h is prior sta te c o u rt c o n v ictio n in a f eder als ent enci ng pr ocee di ng” bec aus e a de fenda nts houl d l odge s uch a c h a lle n g e in th e s ta te c o u rt s y s te m in s te a d . Id. a t1 1 2 4 - 2 5 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . We h eld th at a d efen d an t “m aych all en g e the co n sti tuti o n ali tyo f h is st ate c o u rt convi ct i on on Si xth A m endmentgr ounds i n a fe der al s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng w her e the purpos e of the cha l l enge i s t o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyfors afe tyval ve cons i der at i on under§ 3553( f) . ” Id. at1125. T he cont i nui ng vi t al i tyof the- 17-

d e fe n d a n t’s u n c o u n se led sta te c o n v ictio n a n d fin e a n d th e p ro p rie tyo f th e ir u se in s ubs equentfede r al s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs s i m pl yw as notati s s ue i n, and thus re s o lv e d b y , C ous i ns . I ndeed, the governm enti n C ou si ns fai l ed t o ar gue, as i thas her e, thatan uncouns el ed s t at e mi s demeanorconvi ct i on and as s oci at ed fi ne may b e c o n sid e re d b ya fe d e ra l se n ten c in g c o u rt in a m a n n e r c o n sis ten t w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’ s g u a ra n te e o f th e ri g h t to c o u n s e l. See ge ner al l y i d. at1125- 27 (a rg u in g m e re lyth a t Shel t on d id n o t a p p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly o n a p p e a l) . T o r ead C ous i ns a s M r. Ja c k so n su g g e sts w o u ld re q u ire u s to a ttribu te to it a h o ld in g o n a leg a l q u e stio n o n w h ich th e p a rties n e v e r e n g a g e d , an d it w o u ld requi re us t o o verl oo k the l on gst and i ng rul e t hat the g ov ernm ent’ s fai l ure t o rai se an arg u m en t i n o n e c ase d o es n o t prec lud e it s co n side rati o n b yco u rt s in f u ture c a s e s . See United S tates v. Mend oza , 4 6 4 U . S . 1 5 4 , 1 6 2 (19 8 4 ). E v en m o re pr obl emat i cal l y , i tw oul d r equi r e us t o overrul e ourpr i ordeci s i ons i n R ei l l ey and Shayes t eh , so m ethin g w e, as a p an el of this co u rt , are p o w erless to d o ; disrega rd the Supr eme C our t ’ s gui dance i n A rgers i nger , Sc o tt , Nich o ls , and Shel t on , s om ethi ng w e ar e neve ratl i bertyt o do; s hrug off the G ui del i nes ’ nuance d res po nse t o the con cerns ass ociat ed w i th rel i ance o n u nco un sel ed m i sdem eano rs ; and bypas s the uni form t eac hi ng of ours i s t erci r cui t s w hi ch have r ecogni zed, even i n the pr es ence of a pr i s on s ent ence vi ol at i ng the Si xth A m endment , the per s i s t entvi t al i tyof a mi s demeanorconvi ct i on as w el l as anynon- i m pr i s onm ent- 18-

sen tenc ing term s. S u ch co n seq u en ce s, all d ir ec tl yflo w ing fro m M r. Jac k so n ’s p o s itio n , illu s tr a te v iv id ly w h yw e d e c lin e to a d o p t h is a rg u m e n t a s o u r o w n . * * * T h e rig h t to re c e iv e th e a ss ista n c e o f a p p o in ted c o u n se l, as d e v e lo p e d to dat e, ext ends t o cas es i nvol vi ng a s ent ence of ac tual i m pr i s onm ent , and the r emedycomm ens ur at e t o thatr i ghtext ends t o the i nval i dat i on of anys uch se n ten c e im p o se d w h e n th e rig h t to c o u n se l w a s n o t affo rd e d . A c c o rd in g ly , w h ile obl i ged t o di s r egar d M r . J acks on’ s 1995 s t at e mi s demeanorj ai l s ent ence , the d istric t co u rt w a s f

re e to c o n sid e r th e c o n v ictio n itse lf a n d a c c o m p a n y in g fin e in a s s e s s in g a n a p p ro p ri a te ly ta ilo re d s e n te n c e in th is c a s e . A f f i r m ed.