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

### Ju ly26,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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. N o. 04- 4179 JO R G E M A R T IN E Z , a/k/a A N T O N IO Z AM OR A- P E RE Z , a / k / a J OR GE M A RT I N EZ- CE RV A N TES,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF UT AH ( D. C. NO. 0 4 - CR- 3 4 - 0 2 - P GC) G . F re d M e to s, A tto rn e ya t L a w , S a lt L a k e C ity , U tah , fo r D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. W ayne T. D ance , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( Paul M . W arner , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on t he br i ef) , Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ffA ppel l ee. B efo re HENR Y , HA RTZ , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge. J or ge M art i nez a ppeal s hi s convi ct i on and s ent ence forpos s es s i ng m etha m p h etam ine w ith the in tent to d istri b u te. M arti n ez claim s the d istri ct co u rt-2-

s houl d have gr ant ed a mi s t r i al bas ed on the governm ent ’ s fai l ur e t o di s cl os e the subst ance o f M art i nez’s pretri al st at em ents t o a g ov ernm ent agent. H e al so cl ai m s t he di s t r i ctcourti m pr oper l ys ent ence d hi m underthe Feder al Sent enci ng G uidel i nes. W e con cl ud e t hat the d i stri ctcou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng the requ est fo ra mi s t r i a l a n d t h a tM a r t i n e z ’ s s e n t e n c e wa s r e a s o n a b l e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e t h e r e fo r e A F F I R M. I . Backg r ound U t ah H i ghw ayPat r ol offi cer s arr es t ed A l ej andr o C ervant es and J or ge M ar t i nez i n J uab C ount y , U t ah, aft erdi s cover i ng thr ee pounds of m e th a m p h e tam in e in th e sp a re tire o f th e ir c a r. W ith C e rv a n tes d riv in g , the p a ir cl ai m ed theyw er e on a r oad tr i p fr om Phoeni x, A r i zona, t o O gden, U t ah. Fo l l o wi n g t h e i ra r r e s t , Ce r v a n t e s a n d M a r t i n e z wer e i n t e r v i e wed b yDEA A g e n t Je ff

re yC lar k a n d A g e n t C ra ig H ick e n o f th e U tah D e p a rtm e n t o f P u b lic Safety . C ervant es , i nt ervi ew ed fi r s t , t ol d the age nt s t he ca rw as hi s butt hathe di d notknow drugs w er e i n t he s par e t i r e unt i l t heyhad bee n s t opped nea r F lag sta ff, A riz o n a . A t th a t ti m e M a rtin e z w a rn e d h im to d riv e m o re c a re f u lly b ec au se th ere w ere d rug s in the ca r. C erv an tes fu rth er stated that the d rug s w ere t o be del i ver ed t o a per s on know n as “El G r ande” i n O gden, U t ah. T he age nt s t hen i nt ervi ew ed M ar t i nez. H e r ever s ed the fi nger - poi nt i ng, s t at i ng t hat( 1) C ervant es ow ned the drugs and ( 2) C ervant es i nform ed hi m of the-3-

d ru g s in th e c a r o n lya f ter th e yh a d b e e n sto p p e d fo r a tra ffic v io latio n in Fl ags t aff. C e rv a n tes w a s th e n in ter v iew e d a g a in . W h e n to ld o f th e se rio u sn e ss o f

h is cas e, C ervant es begged the off i cer s t o br i ng M ar t i nez i nt o the r oom t o gi ve them E l G ran d e’s p h o n e n u m b er. T he off i cer s br oughtM ar t i nez ba ck, and C ervant es cont i nued t o beg hi m t o gi ve the age nt s E l G r ande’ s num ber . Pr om pt ed by C ervant es ’ pl eadi ng, M art i nez w r ot e dow n a number , w hi ch l at erpr oved t o be fal s e. A f

ter th e in ter v iew s, A g e n t H ick e n p re p a re d a re p o rt o f w h a t h a d b e e n sa id d u rin g th e m . M a rtin e z re c e iv e d th is re p o rt b e fo re trial, p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re 1 6 (a )(1 )(A ). A g e n t C lar k d id n o t p re p a re a se p a ra te r e p o rt. A t tr ia l, th e g o v e rn m e n t d is c u s s e d th e s e in te rv ie w s in s e v e ra l c o n te x ts . Fi r s t , dur i ng hi s openi ng s t at ement , t he pr os ecut ort ol d the j uryt heyw oul d hear th a t M a rtin e z “ a d m itt e d th a t h e h a d k n o w n E l G ra n d e a n d h a d c o n tac ts w ith h im i n t he pas ti n a s i m i l art ype of s i tuat i on. ” V ol . I V , Pg. 32–33. Second, t he governm entcal l ed the i nt ervi ew i ng agent s as w i tnes s es . A gentC l ark t ook the s t and and t es t i fi ed thatM art i nez a dm i t t ed s ever al i ncr i m i nat i ng poi nt s : ( 1) t he d ru g s b e l o n g e d t o M a r t i n e z , ( 2 ) h e h a d p r e v i o u s l yt r a n s p o r t e d d ru g s fo rEl G r ande, ( 3) he des cr i bed El G r ande’ s phy s i cal appea r ance , and ( 4) he det ai l ed the p roc ed u re fo r de li v ering the d rug s to U tah. O n cro ss ex am ination , A g en t C lark a d m itt e d th a t n o n e o f th is in fo rm a tio n w a s c o n tain e d in A g e n t H ick e n ’s r e p o rt.-4-

M a rtin e z , h o w e v e r, lo d g e d n o o bjec tio n to A g e n t C lar k ’s te stim o n yo n th e b a sis of s urpr i s e ornondi s cl os ur e underR ul e 16. A g en t H icke n test ifi ed af ter A g en t C lark. N o n e o f A g en t H icke n ’s t es t i m onyi s i n di s put e, and M art i nez di d notcr os s - exami ne A gentH i cken a bout t h e i n fo r m a t i o n r e v e a l e d i n A g e n tC l a r k ’ s t e s t i m o n y. F oll ow i ng A gen tH i cken ’s t est i m on y , the p rosecut i on res t ed. T he d efen se al s o r es t ed w i t houtcal l i ng anyw i tnes s es buti m m edi at el ym oved fora mi s tr i al bas ed on the t es t i m onyof A gentC l ark, ar gui ng i ts how ed the governm enthad fai l ed t o di s cl os e the s ubs t ance of M ar t i nez’ s admi s s i ons t o A gentC l ark dur i ng d isco v ery , as re q u ir ed b yR u le 16 (a)(1)(A ). T he courtdeni ed the mot i on, rul i ng th a t th e su b sta n c e o f

th e tes tim o n yh a d b e e n p ro v id e d b yA g e n t H ick e n ’s r e p o rt, w hi ch s um m ar i zed hi s and A gentC l ark’ s i nt ervi ew s w i th M ar t i nez a nd C ervant es att he jai l . T he co urtfurther hel d thata m i stri al w as i nap propri at e beca use M a rt in e z c o u ld h a v e o bje c te d a s e a rl ya s th e o p e n in g s ta te m e n t b u t c h o s e n o t to . T h e ju ry re tu rn e d a g u ilty v e rd ic t. B ythe tim e o f se n tenc ing , the S u p rem e C o u rth ad issue d it s lan d m ark rul i ng i n B l akel

y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) , w hi ch ca s tdoubton the c o n s titu tio n a lity o f

th e fe d e ra l s e n te n c in g s c h e m e u n d e r t h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t. A deci s i on w as pendi ng i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , i n w hi ch t h e S u p r e m e C o u r tw o u l d u l t i m a t e l y a p p l y B la ke ly to h o ld tha t m an d atory a p p lica tio n o f

th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s a lso v io late d th e S ix th-5-

A m en d m en t. P resc iently , the d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed the G u idelines w ere i ncons i s t entw i t h B la ke ly and thati tw as notbound bythem i n s ent enci ng M arti n ez . A cc o rdin g ly , itim p o sed a d iscreti o n arysen tenc e o f 2 1 0 m o n ths. I t al s o i m pos ed an i dent i cal al t ernat i ve s ent ence thatw oul d t ake e ffe cti n the eve nt t he co urtw as r equ i red t o fo l l ow the G uidel i nes. II . A n a ly sis M art i nez r ai s es t w o i s s ues forus t o cons i der . Fi r s the cl ai m s t he di s tr i ct co u rtsh o u ld h av e g ran ted h is m o ti o n fo r a m istri al be ca u se th e g o v ern m en t’ s r epor tdi d notcont ai n al l t he s t at ement s he made i n the i nt ervi ew . Second, he cl ai m s t he di s t r i ctcour ti m pr oper l yfai l ed t o cons i dert he fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) w hen i m po si ng sent ence. W e rej ectbo th clai m s. A . R ul e 16 Mis tr i alMot i on M art i nez a r gues t hatt he us e of hi s admi s s i ons att r i al vi ol at ed R ul e 16 and that the o n lyad eq u ate rem ed yw as a m istri al. “W e re v iew a d istri ct co u rt ’s refusal t o g ranta m i stri al for abu se of d i scr et i on , ” w hich m eans w e w i l l rever se onl yi f the dec i s i on “w as bas ed on a c l ear l yerr oneous fi ndi ng of fa ctoran err oneous concl us i on of l aw orm ani fes t s a cl earerr orof j udgm ent . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. St iger , 413 F. 3d 1185, 1194 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . “I n det erm i ni ng w hether t o gr anta mi s t r i al , a di s t r i ctj udge mustfi r s tdet erm i ne w hetheran err orhas occurr ed and, i f s o, w hethert haterr ori m pai r ed the ‘ defe ndant ’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rand im p arti al tri al. ’” Id
. H er e, w e fi nd no abus e of di s cr et i on.R u le 1 6 (a )(1 )(A ), b yits ter m s, a p p lies o n lyw h e re th e d e fe n d a n t re q u e sts 1 d isc lo su re . H e re , h o w e v e r, th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s p ro c e e d in g u n d e r a n o p e n file pol i cyand ac know l edges t he rul e appl i ed i n thi s cas e. -6- R ul e 16( a) ( 1) ( A ) r equi r es the governm entt o “di s cl os e t o the defendantt he su b sta n c e o f

a n yre lev a n t o ra l sta tem e n t m a d e b yth e d e fe n d a n t . . . in r e sp o n se to i nt err ogat i on bya per s on t he defendantknew w as a governm entagenti f the g o v e rn m e n t in ten d s to u se th e sta tem e n t a t trial.” T h is ru le “ is d e sig n e d to 1 pr ovi de the defendantw i t h s uffi ci enti nform at i on t o m ake a n i nform ed dec i s i on a b o u t a p lea , to a llo w th e c o u rt to ru le o n a d m iss ib ili tym o tio n s b e fo re trial, to m i ni m i ze pr ej udi ci al s urpr i s e attr i al , and t o gener al l yi ncr eas e the effi ci encyof l i t i gat i on. ” Un itedS ta tes v . He rn a n d ez-Mu n iz , 1 7 0 F . 3 d 1 0 0 7 , 1 0 1 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Shoul d t he governm entfai l t o compl yw i th thi s rul e, R ul e 16( d) ( 2) pr ovi des a numberof opt i ons fort he court : “( A ) or dert hatpartyt o perm i tt he di s coveryor i ns pect i on; s peci fyi t s t i m e, pl ace , and manner ; and pr es cr i be otherj us tt erm s and condi t i ons ; ( B ) gr anta cont i nuance ; ( C ) pr ohi bi tt hatpartyfr om i ntr oduci ng t he undi s cl os ed evi dence ; or( D ) ent eranyotheror dert hati s j us tundert he ci r cumst ance s . ” D ependi ng on t he ci r cumst ance s , even a m i s tr i al coul d be a p p ro p ri a te u n d e r R u le 1 6 (d )( 2 )( D ). See, e. g. , United S tates v. C routhers , 669 F . 2 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 2 ) (sug g esti n g that d efen d an t cou ld h av e m o v ed fo r a m istri al).A m i s t r i al i s a dr as t i c s anct i on, and any“mot i on fora mi s tr i al s houl d be 2 m ade pr om pt l y . ” Un itedS ta tes v . O rtiz-A rr ig o iti a , 9 9 6 F . 2 d 4 3 6 , 4 4 2 (1st C ir . 1993) ( ci t i ng Savi l l e v. Uni t ed Stat es , 400 F. 2d 397, 400 ( 1s tC i r . 1968) ( concl udi ng t hatm ot i on form i s tr i al w as unt i m el yw her e defendantfai l ed t o actat t he ea r l i es tpos s i bl e oppor tuni t y ) ) . T hi s doctr i ne i s part i cul ar l yr el evanti n the c o n te x t o f

a R u le 1 6 v io la tio n , fo r w h ic h le s s s e v e re re m e d ie s a re p re fe rr e d . A defe ndants houl d notw ai tt o obj ectunt i l t he onl ym eani ngful r emedyw oul d be a m istria l. R a th e r, a d e fe n d a n t sh o u ld o bjec t at th e first re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto al l ow t he co urtt o ex plor e l ess dr ast i c rem edies . -7- W e h a v e id e n tifie d se v e ra l co n sid e ra tio n s a d istric t co u rt sh o u ld m a k e in det erm i ni ng w hi ch s anct i on i s appr opr i at e forfai l ur e t o compl yw i th R ul e 16: ( 1) t he r eas ons t he governm entdel ay ed pr oduci ng the r eques t ed mat er i al s , i ncl udi ng w h e th e r o r n o t th e g o v e rn m e n t ac ted in b a d fa ith w h e n it fa iled to c o m p lyw ith t he di s coveryor der ; ( 2) t he ext entof pr ej udi ce t o the defendantas a r es ul tof the governm ent ’ s del ay ; and ( 3) t he fe as i bi l i tyof cur i ng the pr ej udi ce w i th a c o n tin u a n c e . Un itedS ta tes v . Mu e ss ig , 427 F. 3d 856, 864 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. G onz al es , 1 6 4 F .3 d 1 2 8 5 , 1 2 9 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 )); Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi cke r , 848 F. 2d 1059, 1061 ( 10th C i r . 1988) . A ppl y i ng thes e fa ct or s , the dis t ri ctcou rtshou l d im po se “the leas tsevere sanct i on that w i l l accom pli sh p ro m p t . . . a n d f

u ll c o m p lia n c e w ith th e c o u rt ’s d is c o v e ry o rd e rs .” Wi cke r , 848 2 F. 2d at1061. I n ar gui ng fora mi s t r i al underR ul e 16, M ar t i nez c l ai m ed thatA gent H i cken’ s r eport“w as es s ent i al l yan exc ul pat or ys t at ement ” thats ai d nothi ng aboutanydeal i ngs w i t h E l G r ande. H e ar gued thats t at ement s aboutM ar t i nez w or ki ng w i t h E l G r ande w er e “w el l bey ond w hatw as i n the di s covery[he] w as-8-

pr ovi ded. ” I n r es pons e, t he courtfi r s tconcl uded thatthe governm enthad “s ubs t ant i al l ycompl i ed” w i t h i t s di s cl os ur e obl i gat i ons bypr ovi di ng the “s ubs t ance ” of the di s cl os ur e pr i ort o tr i al . V ol . V , Pg. 235. I n addi t i on, the di s t r i ctcourtfound thatM art i nez kne w fr om the governm ent ’ s openi ng s t at ement th e b a sis o f

th e p ro p o se d tes tim o n yb u t fa iled to tim e lyo bjec t: [ T h e p ro se c u to r], I re m e m b e r in h is o p e n in g a rg u m e n t, l a id o u t all th is stuff t hat w as com i ng i n. If for s om e reas on y o u th o u g h t thatw as a s urpr i s e, w e coul d have di s cus s ed i tthen and s o for th. I thi nk ev eryb o d yk n o w s tha t th ere w ere incrim inating stat em e n ts tha t w ere m a d e , so I’m g o in g to d e n yth e m o tio n fo r a m istria l. Id. W e re c o g n ize th a t d isc lo su re o f a d e fe n d a n t’s s tate m e n ts s h o u ld c e rta in ly be m ade p ri or t o tr i al . R ule 16(a) (1) (A ) cont em plat es p re tria l di s cl os ur e, and or di nar i l yt he pr oces s fol l ow ed bythe governm enther e— pr oduct i on of a w r i t t en r epor t

— w oul d s uffi ce. U nfor tunat el y , i n thi s appea l w e ar e hamper ed i n our asses sm ent of w hethert he d i scl osure ob l i gati on w as ful l ysat i sfi ed b ecause n e ith e r p a rt yh a s p ro v id e d th e w ri tte n re p o rt . T h e d istri ct co u rt , h o w ev er, w as ju sti fied in d en y ing the re q u est fo r a m i s t r i al bas ed on R ul e 16 bec aus e i tw as nott i m el y . Fi r s tof al l , as ear l yas the g o v ern m en t’ s o p en ing stat em en t, M arti n ez k n ew the b asis o f A g en t C lark’s t es t i m onyand w as on not i ce thatthe t es t i m onycoul d br oadl yi ncl ude di s cl os ur es t hatm aynothave be en cont ai ned i n the r eport . M ar t i nez ha d a s econd o p p o rtu n ityto o bjec t to th e tes tim o n yw h e n A g e n t C lar k to o k th e sta n d b u t ag a in-9-

l odged no obj ect i on. A tt hatt i m e, underR ul e 16 and ourcas e l aw , M ar t i nez coul d have a l l ow ed the courtt o cur e the nondi s cl os ur e, ei thert o s tr i ke the t es t i m onyorcont i nue tr i al bas ed on the vi ol at i on. E i therr emedyw oul d have s a tis fie d R u le 1 6 a n d w o u ld n o t h a v e re q u ir e d th e d ra s tic re m e d yo f m is tr ia l. See Wi cke r , 8 4 8 F . 2 d at 10 6 1 (st ati n g that a c o u rtsh o u ld im p o se th e “ least sev ere s anct i on”) . R ul e 16 and ourcas es s peci fi cal l ym ent i on cont i nuance orexcl us i on o f th e e v id e n c e a s p re fe rre d re m e d ies . F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 6 (d )(2 )(B ), (C ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Ivy , 8 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 6 , 1 2 8 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (a ffirm in g d e c isio n to a d m it ev iden ce o ffere d in v iolati o n o f R u le 16 af ter givin g d efen d an t t im e to re v iew it ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Wi cke r , 848 F. 2d 1059, 1062 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( aff i r m i ng deci s i on to su p p re ss e v id e n c e b a se d o n a R u le 1 6 v io latio n ); United S tates v. C routhers , 669 F. 2d 635, 640–41 ( 10th C i r . 1982) ( aff i r m i ng deci s i on t o s uppr es s evi dence o ffere d in v iolati o n o f R u le 16 b u t den y ing d efen d an t’ s m o ti o n fo r m istri al); Un itedS ta tes v . Mitch e ll , 613 F. 2d 779, 781 ( 10th C i r . 1980) ( not i ng that d efen d an t cou ld h av e re q u ested a c au ti o n aryinstruction ). T he othercons i der at i ons r el evantt o a R ul e 16 vi ol at i on al s o s ugges ts uch a dr as t i c r emedyw as notappr opr i at e i n thi s cas e. M ar t i nez doe s notcl ai m the governm entact ed i n bad fa i t h. N orhas he s how n anypr ej udi ce bythe governm ent ’ s del ayi n di s cl os i ng the s t at ement s ; the r ecor d r efl ect s thathe w as a b l e t o c r o s s - e x a m i n e A g e n tC l a r k e ffe c t i v e l y.F o r e x a m p le, M a rtin e z c o u ld h a v e a sk e d fo r a sh o rt c o n tin u a n c e to 3 eval uat e hi s cas e i n l i ghtof the new i nform at i on. B as ed on thi s i nform at i on, t he d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d h i m t o c h a n g e h i s p l e a w i th o u ta n y p e n a l ty. -10- A tor al ar gum ent , M art i nez’ s couns el s ugges t ed thatthe l at e r evel at i on of t hi s evi dence underm i ned the ent i r e theoryof hi s defe ns e and thathad he s een the e v id e n c e so o n e r, h e m ig h t n o t h a v e tak e n th e c a se to trial. W h ile it is tru e R u le 16 w as “des i gned t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th s uffi ci enti nform at i on t o m ake a n i nform ed dec i s i on abouta pl ea, ” He rn a n d ez-Mu n iz , 1 7 0 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 0 , an ye rro r in t his regar d cou l d hav e been rem edied w i tho ut a m i stri al . In l i gh tof these 3 ci r cumst ance s , w e ca nnots ayt he di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n decl i ni ng to g ra n t a m istria l. B . Sent enci ng M arti n ez also claim s the d istri ct co u rterred b yissuing a d iscreti o n ary s e n t e n c e t h a td i d n o ts p e c i fi c a l l yc o n s i d e rt h e fa c t o r s d e s c r i b e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) . Si nce Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w e r evi ew s e n te n c e s fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) . I n Kris tl w e expl ai ned thats ent ence s m us tbe both s ubs t ant i vel yand p ro c e d u ra lly re a s o n a b le . Id. (“ [ T ]h e re a so n a b len e ss sta n d a rd o f re v iew se t fo rth i n B oo ker nece s s ar i l yencompas s es both the r eas onabl enes s of the l ength of the s e n te n c e , a s w e ll a s th e m e th o d b yw h ic h th e s e n te n c e w a s c a lc u la te d .” ). M ar t i nez r ai s es a pr ocedur al chal l enge, ar gui ng thatt he courterr ed bynot a d d re s s in g e a c h a s p e c t o f § 3 5 5 3 (a ).-11-

T h i s a r g u m e n ti s fo r e c l o s e d b y Uni t ed Stat es v. R i nes , 4 1 9 F .3 d 1 1 0 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), in w h ich w e c o n c lu d e d th e se n ten c in g c o u rt d o e s n o t ab u se its dis cret i on byfai l i ng t o m enti on each o f t he § 35 53 (a) fact ors: Itis tru e th a t th e d istri ct co u rtd id n o t m arc h thro u g h § 3 5 5 3 (a)’s s e n te n c in g fa c to rs , b u t w e h a v e n e v e r i m p o s e d s u c h a re q u ir e m e n t . . . . I ti s qui t e cl eart hatt he s ent enci ng court is n o t requi r ed t o cons i der i ndi vi dual l yeac h fac t or li st ed i n § 3553( a) befor e i s s ui ng a s ent ence . M o re o v e r, w e d o n o t d e m a n d th a t th e d istric t co u rt re c ite a n ym a g ic wor d s t o s h o w th a t i t f u l fi l l e d i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i ty t o b e mi ndful of t he fa ctors thatC ongr es s has i ns truct ed i tt o cons i der . H er e, the di s tr i ct c o u rt sta ted th a t it“ lo o k [ e d ] a t th e re c o rd in its e n tirety ,” a n d a f ter its r e v i e w i t c o n c l u d e d t h a t 7 0 mon th s was a n a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e. T he c o u rt h e a rd se v e ra l d iffe re n t ar g u m e n ts re g a rd in g th e a p p ro p ria te s ent enci ng r ange a nd w as obvi ous l yfami l i arw i th t he fa ct s of the ca s e. W e wi l l n o tma k e t h e u s e l e s s g e s tu r e o f r e ma n d i n g fo rr e c o n s i der at i on w h e n D e fe n d a n t w a s aw a re a t se n ten c in g th a t a ll re lev a n t fa c to rs w o u ld b e c o n sid e re d b yth e d istric t co u rt. Id
. at 11 0 7 (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). H ere , the d istri ct co u rtsen tenc ed M arti n ez p ri o r t o the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s rul i ng i n B ooker , w h ich m a d e th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s a d v iso ry . T h e c o u rt, how ever , di d notappl yt he gui del i nes i n a mandat oryfas hi on. I ns t ead, ant i ci pat i ng t he hol di ng i n B ooker , the d istric t co u rt sta ted th a t itw a s “ g o in g to s ent ence as an advi s or y— s ent ence u n d e rth e p r e ex is t i n gla w. H ow ever , i n doi ng t hat , I w i l l t ake a l ook att he gui del i nes as i ns truct i ve on the poi nt . ” V ol . V I , Pg. 4 ( emphasi s added) . T he courtfur thers t at ed, “I thi nk I s houl d have t o m ake a det erm i nat i on of the appr opr i at e s ent ence i n l ooki ng ateverythi ng. ” Id . a t 6

– 7 . B ased on t his revi ew of the case, the co urtcon cl ud ed: “[P]r oceed i ng as a-12-

d isc re tio n a rym a tter, th e d e fe n d a n t w ill b e se n ten c e d to 2 1 0 m o n th s, slig h tly d o w n f ro m th e 2 3 5 m o n th s u n d e r t h e g u id e lin e s . If I w e re u n d e r t h e g u id e lin e s , I w oul d gr ant[the] m ot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e . . . and s ent ence hi m t o 210 m ont hs undert he gui del i nes , s o ei therw ayI w oul d r eac h the s ame se nt ence of 210 m ont hs . ” Id
. a t 1 6 . A s i n R i nes , t he di s t r i ctcourthear d m ul t i pl e ar gum ent s r egar di ng the appr opr i at e s ent enci ng r ange a nd w as fami l i arw i th al l the r el evantfac t s of the cas e. T her efor e, w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noterrw hen s ent enci ng M arti n ez an d that h is sen tenc e is reas o n ab le un d er § 3 5 5 3 (a). I I I . C oncl usi on B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tdi d noterri n deny i ng a mi s tr i al , and bec aus e the d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d th e e n tire r e c o rd in a p p ly in g th e G u id e lin e s in a n a d v i s o r yfa s h i o n , we AFF I RM .