FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 67 6

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 02 6- CR-B AE-6 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us CHARLES W ILLIS, a.k .a. Mo nt e, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st17 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, W ILSON an d S EYMOUR, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble Stephanie K. Sey

mour, United States Circuit J udg e for the Tenth Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.TJOFLAT, Cir cu itJu dg e:

Ch arl es W il li s ap pe al s s ub st an ti ve an d p ro cedur al asp ect s o f hi s 1 51 -m on th se nt en ce. Aft er i ni ti al ly recei vi ng a m uc h l on ge r te rm

of i m pr is on m en t, Will is
m ov edto va cat e h is sen te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 55 , rai si ng si x c la im s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. The di st ric t co urt fo un d m eri t i n o ne of t ho se cl ai m s—th atco un se l s ho ul d h av e ch al le ng edth e im po si ti on of acare er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t— an d o rd ereda res en te nc in g h eari ng to sen te nc e h im free of t ha t en ha nc em en t. At t he res en te nc in g h eari ng , W il li s at te m pt edto ch al le ng e o th er inpu ts in to hi s s en te nc e—the qu an ti ty of drug s at tri bu tabl e to hi m an d afir earm en ha nc em en t—th athi s § 22 55 m ot io n a ls o a ll eg edha d b eenha nd le d in co m pe te nt ly by

tri al co un se l. The di st ric t co urt re fu se d t o c on si de r th es e arg um en ts an d i m

po se d t he sen te nc e ch al le ng edinth is ap pe al . Becau se we fin d no ba si s t o d is turb th is rul in g, o r an y of t he ot he r de ci si on s Will is ch al le ng es , we affi rm . I. A. W il li s was in di ct edinOcto be r 20 06 of c on sp iri ng to “po ss es s wi th th e in te ntto di st rib ut e, an d t o d is tri bu te , 50 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se (cra ck ) an d 5 k il og ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne hydro ch lo rid e (p owd er),” invi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. 2§§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 6, an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2. InSep te m be r 20 07 , W il li s p le d g ui lty to th e le ss er-i nc lu de d o ffen se of c on sp ira cy to di st rib ut e anun sp eci fie d qua nt it y of b ot h id en ti fie d dru gs , andpro ceed edto sen te nc in g. The di stric t co urt’s Pro ba ti on Offic e p rep areda pr e-s en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep ort (“ PSR” ), as requi redby Feder al Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2. Th e PSR de te rm in eda to ta l o ffen se lev el of 3 3, wh ic h i nc lu de d a n e st im at eddru g qua nt it y of 32 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne hydro ch lo rid e, Uni te d S ta te s Se nt en ci ng Co m m is si on , Gui de li ne s M anua l, § 2D1 .1(c )(3 ), an d atwo -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si ng a fir earm inco nn ect io n wi th th e o ffen se , id . § 2 D1.1 (b )(1 ). The PS R al so 1 de te rm in edth atW il li s’s p rio r fel on y co nv ic ti on s m ad e h im

eli gi bl e fo r th e car eer of fen de r en ha nc em en t u nd er § 4B 1.1 , gi vi ng W il li s a c riminal hi st ory cat eg ory of VI. Thes e inpu ts y ie ld eda pr is on ran ge of 2 35 to 24 0 m on th s. Re co gn iz in g W il li s’s as si st an ce i n o th er p ro se cu ti on s, the Gov ern m en t fi le d am ot io n fo r a do wnwar d d ep artur e und er § 5K1 .1. The di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n a nd se nt en cedW il li s t o 1 92 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. W il li s ap pe al edhi s s en te nc e, co nt en di ng , am on g o th er thi ng s, tha t the di st ric t co urt erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d t he fir earm

en ha nc em en t. Thi s co urt af firm ed These two inputs provided Willis with an adjusted of fense level of 36. H is total 1 offe nse leve l was re duced to 33 a fter a 3-leve l reduc tion for ac cepta nce of responsibility . United States SentencingCommi ssion, Guidelines Manual, § 3E1.1. 3W il li s’s s en te nc e, fi nd in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t err by app lying th e fi rearm

en ha nc em en t “ be cau se law en fo rcem en t fo un d t he fir earm at i ss ue inW il li s’s ho m e al on g wi th subs tant ia l ev id en ce o f drug tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it y .” Uni te d S ta te s v. Will is , 28 4 F . App ’x 68 7, 6 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). B. InDecem be r 20 08 , W il li s fi le d am ot io n t o v acat e h is sen te nc e und er 2 8 U.S.C. § 2 25 5. The m ot io n a rg ue d t ha t Will is ’s cou ns el ha d b eenin effe ct iv e fo r: 2 (1 ) fai li ng to ch al le ng e th e car eer o ffen de r en hanc em en t; (2) fai li ng to co nt es t the fir earm en ha nc em en t; (3) fai li ng to ob ject t o t he dru g am ou nt s at tri bu te d t o h im in th e PSR ; (4 ) in effe ct iv el y ha nd li ng a m ot io n t o s up pr es s ev id en ce, i nc lu di ng th e fir earm ; (5 ) fai li ng to ob

ject t o i m pr op er v enue ; an d (6 ) advi si ng hi m to acce ptth e pl ea ag reem en t. The Gov ern m en t co nc ed edth atW il li s was no t el ig ib le forth e care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t, b utarg ue d t ha t the rem ai ni ng cla im s wer e m eri tl es s. W il li s’s m ot io n was refe rredto a m ag is tra te jud ge , who is su eda Rep ort an d Rec omm en da ti on inMay 200 9. Th e Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti onacce pt edth e Gov ern m en t’s co nc es si on an d c on cl ud edth atW il li s “ sh ou ldbe res en te nc edun de r In J une 2008, Willi s filed a motion with the district court pursua nt to 18 U.S.C . 2 § 3582(c) (2), se ekingto reduc e his sentenc e on the ground that he w as not elig ible for the c are er offe nder e nhance ment. In response , the Gover nment conce ded that the e nhance ment should not have be en applied to Willis , but argued that this err or ca n only be cor rec ted through a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The district court agree d with the Gover nment and instructed Willis t o re- file his motion as a § 2255 motion, along w ith any other c laim he had a g ainst his conviction or sentenc e. 4th e ap pr op ria te sen te nc in g g ui de li ne pro vi si on s.” Will is ’s rem ai ni ng in effe ct iv e

as si st an ce cl ai m s wer e reject edwitho utanev id en ti ary he ari ng . On Ju ne 22 , 20 09 , th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he Rep ort an d R eco m m en da ti onan d o rd ered res en te nc in g. Th e rel ev an t p orti on of t he ord er re ad s: 

### Mov ant Charles Willi s is enti tled to be resentence d absentthe ca reer offend er e nh ance m ent appli ed at his in itial sent encing. Acc or din gly, the United St ates Prob ationOffice is DIRE CTE D to p repare a

new presentence inv estig ationreport reflecting the fact that Willis is no t a c aree r of fend er und er the sentencing gu idelin es. The C ourt will appoi nt n ew coun sel to repr esent m ov ant at the resentencing h earin g, and th e C lerk is therefo re DIREC TED to pr epare the appr op riate a pp oin tm ent papers ( CJA20 ) fo rth with. The C ourt will schedul e the c ase fo r resententencin g on ce the revised p resentence investi gatio n repo rt has been prepared andreviewe d by coun sel. The ne w PSR, wh ic h Wil li s re cei ve d o n J ul y 7, 2 00 9, ag ai n s etW il li s’s t ot al of fen se lev el at 3 3. Th is cal cu la ti on ag ai n i nc lu de d t he fir earm en ha nc em en t an d th e es ti m at ed32 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne hydro ch lo rid e. W it ho utth e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t, Will is ’s cri m in al hi st ory de crea se d t o l ev el II. Thi s p ro fil e p ro vi de d a se nt en ci ng ran ge of 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. W il li s fi le d o bjec ti on s t o the PSR o n Oct ob er 7 , 20 09 . He con te st edth e fir earm en ha nc em en t an d t he dru g qua nt it y , it em s tha t h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n faul te d hi s tria l co un se l fo r ne gl ect in g. Re ga rd in g t he dru g qua nt it y , W il li s ar gu edth athe actua ll y di st rib ut ed14 .75 ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne ; thi s n ew qu an ti ty w ou ldreduc e 5hi s b as e o ffen se lev el fro m 34 to 32 , andhi s t ot al off en se lev el fro m

33 to 31 . He di d n otrai se an y

ob jecti on s t o h is ne w cri m in al hi st ory cal cu lati on . The Pro ba ti on Offic e res po nd edto W il li s’s o bjec ti on s o n Oct ob er 2 0, 2 00 9, whi chW il li s’s at to rn ey

rece iv edon Octo be r 21 , 20 09 . The Pro ba ti on Offic e reco m m en de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt “ en ga ge inno furth er an al y si s” of b ot h t he fir earm en ha nc em en t an d t he dru g qua nt it y be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt h adno t gr an te d Wil li s’s § 22 55 cla im s re ga rd in g t ho se two is su es . The same day

th atth e Pro ba ti on Offic e is su edit s re sp on se s, the di st ric t co urt s etOcto be r 22 , 20 09 , as the da te forW il li s’s re se nt en ci ng he ari ng . Not in g th at18 U.S.C. § 3 55 2( d) requi res th atde fen da nt s b e g iv enat l eas t t enda y s t o rev ie w th e PSR , W il li s fi le d am ot io n o n Oct ob er 2 0 t o p os tp on e th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng . The sen te nc in g h eari ng was h el d a s s ch edul edonOcto be r 22 . At th at he ari ng , th e d is tri ctco urt s umm ari ly den ie d Wil li s’s m ot io n fo r a p os tp on em en t. The co urt s ta te d t ha t i t o nl y pl an ne d t o a dd res s Will is ’s caree r of fen de r st atus . It wou ldno t al lo w W il li s t o re li ti ga te th e fi rearm en ha nc em en t an d t he dru g qua nt it y be cau se (1) th e is su es ha d b eenpre vi ou sl y li ti ga te d dur in g Wil li s’s o rig in al se nt en ci ng an d app eal , and(2) th e co urt d idno t g ran t Will is ’s § 2 25 5 i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce cl ai m s re ga rd in g t ho se is su es . Havi ng li mit edth e h eari ng ’s sco pe , th e 6co urt n ot edth atW il li s an d h is att orne y bo th ha d a cces s t o h is ol d P SR fro m 20 07 —wh ic h was id en ti cal to th e 2 00 9 P SR ex cep t fo r th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t— an d d idno t o bjec t t o any sta te m en ts reg ard in g t he PSR’s re vi se d cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory . Afte r ad dr es si ng th e p os tp on em en t i ss ue , th e co urt ac cep te d t he PSR’s cal cu la ti on s an d d et erm in edth atth e g ui de li ne ran ge su gg es te d 1 51 to 18 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The Gov ern m en t the n re -as se rte d i ts m ot io n fo r a d own ward de pa rtu re u nd er § 5K1 .1 fo r W il li s’s as si st an ce i n s ecu rin g t wo o th er co nv ic ti on s. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he Gov ern m en t’s m ot io n. Aft er re vi ewin g Wil li s’s cri m in al hi st ory , th e co urt d et erm in edth atW il li s was a “ li fel on g m ajor dru g de al er” wh o h adbe en“ ve ry su cces sf ul ” at“us [in g] th e syst em by say in g ‘I wil l pr ov id e subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce’” ev ery ti m e h e was cau gh t i n t he act . At the co nc lu si on of t he he ari ng , th e co urt s en te nc edW il li s t o 1 51 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, a $ 10 ,00 0 fi ne , a $1 00 sp eci al ass es sm en t, an d fi ve y ears of supe rv is edrel eas e. C. W il li s fi le d ati m el y

no ti ce o f ap pe al of h is ne w sen te nc e. His bri ef ra is ed th ree i ss ue s: (1) whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e p os tp on edth e Oct ob er 2 2 he ari ng ; (2 ) whe th er the di st ric t co urt co rrec tl y li m it edth e sc op e o f th e se nt en ci ng 7he ari ng ; an d (3 ) whe th er the di st ric t co urt i m po se d a n u nr eas on ab le sen te nc e b y de nyin g t he Gov ern m en t’s § 5K1 .1 m ot io n. A pan el of t hi s co urt i nt erp ret edth is ap pe al as c ha ll en gi ng “bo th th e d is tri ct co urt’s p art ia l d en ia l o f hi s § 22 55 m ot io n a ndth e n ew se nt en ce the co urt i m po se d aft er g ran ti ng hi s § 22 55 m ot io n i n p art .” Not in g t ha t the di st ric t co urt d idno t pr ov id e Will is a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e rem ai ni ng in effe ct iv eas si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m s, as requi redby 28 U.S.C. § 22 53 (c), the pa ne l’s Ap ril 29 , 20 10 op in io n re ta in edjuri sd ic ti on ov er Will is ’s cas e, bu t i ss ue d ali m it ed rem an d t o t he di stric t co urt t o ru le on th e certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y is su e. On rem an d, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d Wil li s a c ert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th e in effe ct iv en es s cl ai m

reg ard in g t he fir earm

en ha nc em en t, b utde ni edcert ifi cat es of ap pe al ab il ity

on th e o th er fo urcla im s. W e o rd eredW il li s an d t he Gov ern m en t t o 3 fil e n ew br ie fs inli gh t o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er. II. Fl oa ti ng inth is cas e are two co m pe ti ng no ti on s o f wha t, ex act ly, W il li s i s ch al le ng in g. Th e d is tri ctco urt’s Jun e 2 2, 2 00 9 o rd er d en ie d i n p artW il li s’s

Wil lis’s § 2255 moti on raised six grounds. O ne ground, involving the car eer offe nder 3 enhanc ement, pre vailed at the district c ourt and ser ved as the basis for his re sentenc ing. T he district court re

jected the other five grounds, but grante d a ce rtificate of appe alability as described above . 8§ 2 25 5 m ot io n, i n wh ic h h e arg ue d t ha t h is tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r,

am on g o th er thi ng s, (1 ) fai li ng to ch al le ng e ad equa te ly the fir earm en ha nc em en t; (2 ) fai li ng to ch al le ng e th e dru g qua nt it y ; an d (3 ) fai li ng to ad dr es s ad equa te ly a
m ot io n t o s up pr es s the fir earm th atledto th e se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en t. At t he Octo be r 22 , 20 09 res en te nc in g h eari ng , th e tr ia l co urt p ro hi bi te d Wil li s fr om rel it ig at in g e it he r th e fi rearm en ha nc em en t o r th e dru g qua nt it y . To the ex te ntth atW il li s s eek s t o app eal th e d en ia l o f cl ai m s fr om hi s § 2 25 5 m ot io n, the di st ric t co urt g ran te d Wil li s a c ert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y on ly on th e in effe ct iv en es s cl ai m reg ard in g t he fir earm

en ha nc em en t, an d i t d oe s n ot ap pe ar tha t Will is ask s thi s co urt fo r a certi fic at e o n t he rem ai ni ng cla im s o r ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s s ub st an ti ve rul in gs on th os e cl ai m s. See pa rt I V, in fra. With ou t a c ert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity , W il li s m ay no t ch al le ng e th e d en ia l o f hi s o th er § 22 55 cla im s. 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 53 (c)( 1) (B). Altho ug h Wil li s h adth e ri gh t t o app eal th e d en ia l o f hi s fi rearm en ha nc em en t i ne ffec ti ve ne ss cla im , W il li s ap pe ars to ha ve ab an do ne d t ha t cl ai m .

“ [A] party

see ki ng to rai se a cl ai m

or i ss ue on ap pe al m

us t p la in ly andpro m in en tl y so in di cat e.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Jerni ga n, 3 41 F.3d12 73 , 12 83 n.8 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Thi s co m m on -s en se rul e se ek s t o “ av oi d c on fu si on as t o the is su es th atare i n p la y an d t ho se th atare n ot .” Id . Whe re a p arty fai ls to ab id e b y

th is si m pl e 9requi rem en t, h e h as waiv edhi s ri gh t t o h av e th e co urt co ns id er tha t ar gu m en t.

Fed . Sav . & Loan Ins . Cor p. v . Haral so n, 8 13 F.2d37 0, 3 73 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). W il li s’s b rie f do es no t ap pe ar t o c on te stth e d is tri ctco urt’s s ub st an ti ve ru li ng —tha t h is fir earm -en ha nc em en t i ne ffec ti ve ne ss cla im ha d n o m eri t. Rat he r, he arg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby notgra nt in g h im anev id en ti ary he ari ng to pr ov e h is cla im . A bri ef p eru sa l o f th e rel ev an t s ect io n o f W il li s’s b rie f il lu st rat es th is po in t. Fi rs t, the he ad in g t o thi s s ect io n re ad s: “ The di st ric t co urt erredinli mit in g ob jecti on s t o t he rev is edpre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti onrep ort t o m erel y th e is su e o f care er o ffen de r.” App el la ntBr. at14 . Seco nd , W il li s d oe s n otcit e an y cas es insupp ort o f hi s l at en t i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce cl ai m . In fa ct , W il li s’s b rie f do es no t ev enm en ti on th e fam il ia r two pa rt t es t fo r in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s: (1) “ co un se l’s re pr es en tati on fel l b el ow anob jecti ve st an dardof r eas on ab le ne ss ”; an d (2 ) co un se l’s d efi ci en t p erfo rm an ce pr ejud ic edhi m

su chth at“ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty tha t, b utfor co un se l’s unpr of es si on al erro rs , th e res ul t o f th e p ro ceed in g wo ul d h av e b eendi ffer en t.” See S tri ck la ndv. Wash in gt on , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 68 7– 88 , 69 4, 1 04 S. Ct. 2 05 2, 2 06 4, 20 68 , 80 L. Ed. 2d67 4 (1 98 4) . The o nl y cas e h e ci te s, Sa la zar v . Uni te d S ta te s, 31 9 F . App ’x 81 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) , he d oe s s o t o fu rth er h is arg um en t tha t the 10di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e h el d a n e vi de nt iary he ari ng , no t fo r th e p ro po si ti on th at hi s at to rn ey

was c on st itut io na ll y

de fic ie ntan d tha t p reju di ce en su ed . App el la nt Br. at15 –1 6. Mo reo ve r, Sal azaris unpubl is he d a ndth eref or e n on -b in di ng ; s ur el y W il li s co ul d h av e co bb le d t og ethe r anarg um en t fr om th is cir cu it ’s pl etho ra o f pr eced en t o n i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l. 4 Fi na ll y , W il li s’s d is cu ss io n o f th e fac ts rel ev an t t o h is in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m are s pa rs e en ou gh to su gg es t tha t h e was no t ch al le ng in g t he di st ric t co urt’s de ni al of h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Will is ’s bri ef faul ts hi s tria l co un se l fo r no t

“ m a[k in g] ap pr op ria te ob jecti on s t o the [fi rs t PS R] andcal l[i ng ] witne ss es to supp ort tho se ob

jecti on s.” Id . at 1 6. Bu t n owh ere i n h is bri ef d oe s h e su gg es t wh y th es e co m

m is si on s wer e err or s, l etalo ne ob jecti ve ly unr eas on ab le . The fo ll owi ng ex cerp t fr om

hi s b rie f is th e ex te ntof h is sp eci fic it y onth e to pi c: Tha t ev id en ce [o f drug tra ffi ck in g a ct iv it y rel ie d upo n b y

th e co urt o f ap pe al s i n a ffi rm in g app li cat io n o f th e fi rearm en ha nc em en t] wou ld ha ve be enm

uc h l es s tha n “ subs ta nt ia l” if the witne ss es su chas t he real est at e cl os in g a tt orne y an d fi an cé cl ai m in g o wne rs hi p o f th e fir earm kn ownto pri orco un se l h adap pe aredor t he ir a ffi da vi ts an d bu si ne ss reco rd s h adbe enpre se nt edalo ng with t he go ve rn m en t’s own ev id en ce tha t [Wil li s] hadbe enab se ntfro m th e res id en ce fo r th e pr io r m on th . Although Willis’s ini tial § 2255 motion was prepar ed without counsel, we note that 4 Wil lis was repr esente d by counsel on a

ppeal a nd our forg iving posturetowards pr o se brief s there fore does not apply . Cf. United States v. Ly , No. 09-12515, slip op. at 18–20 (11th Cir. July 20, 2011) (de scribingprotec tions afforde d to pro se litiga nts). 11Id . at 1 7. An d l at er i n t ha t s am e p arag rap h, Will is su gg es ts th atth is in fo rm at io n

was in fo rm at io n t ha t the di st ric t co urt s ho ul d h av e co ns id ereddu rin g Wil li s’s Octo be r 22 res en te nc in g h eari ng , no t tha t the co urt erredby den y in g h is § 2 25 5 m ot io n. Se e id . at 1 7 (“ [Will is ] or al ly atte m pt edto pre se ntth is ev id en ce h im se lf an d re qu es te d a dd it io na l t im e to cal l tho se witne ss es bu t the co urt d en ie d h is reque stch oo si ng to rel y

onth e in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d i n t he [PSR] . . . .”). W e th eref

or e co nc lu de th atW il li s h as waiv edhi s ri gh t t o c ha ll en ge th e di st ric t co urt’s ad ve rs e ru li ng on hi s § 22 55 m ot io n. III. W il li s n ex t co nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt i napp ro pr ia te ly lim it edth e sc op e of th e res en te nc in g h eari ng to so le ly the care er o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s tha t h e sh ou ldha ve be enab le to pre se ntev id en ce co nt es ti ng th e fi rearm

en ha nc em en t an d t he PSR’s dru g- qu an ti ty esti m at e. Thi s arg um en t i s n ota cl ev er way to ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f hi s i ne ffec ti ve as si st an ce cl ai m s. Ra th er, Will is ap pe ars to arg ue th atwhena di st ric t co urt o rd ers

“ res en te nc in g,” itm

us t re li ti ga te all is su es rel at edto th e d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e. The di stric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng W il li s’s re se nt en ci ng di rect edth e Pro ba ti on Offic e “ to pre pa re a n ew pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt r efl ect in g t he factth atW il li s i s n ota care er o ffen de r un de r th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ,” bu t 12ot he rwis e d idno t i nd ic at e th atW il li s was barredfro m ch al le ng in g o th er as pe ct s o f th e n ew PSR. Atth e Oct ob er 2 2 h eari ng , ho wev er, the di st ric t co urt m ad e cl ear i ts in te nt io n o nl y

to res en te nc e Will is ab se ntth e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t be cau se on ly tha t cl ai m

m eri te d § 22 55 rel ie f. The co urt n ot edth atitha d re jecte d th e rem ai ni ng in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m s, an d t ha t i t wo ul d a dh ere f ul ly to the way th e und erl y in g i ss ue s—th e fi rearm en ha nc em en t an d t he dru g qua nt it y —wer e de te rm in edinW il li s’s fi rs t ro un d o f se nt en ci ng . The di stric t co urt’s l im it at io n was no t i m pr op er. A si m il ar s itua ti on aro se in Uni te d S tate s v . Rog ers , 84 8 F .2d16 6 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 8) (pe r cu ria m). In R og ers , th e d efen da nt , who ha d p le d g ui lt y , st at edat h is sen te nc in g h eari ng th athe ha d n o factua l ch al le ng es to th e PSR . Id. at16 7. Aft er the co urt s en te nc edth e d efen da nt to 25 y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t, the de fen da nt“ m ov edforres en te nc in g b ecau se he ha d no t b eengi ve n a n o pp ortu ni ty to al lo cu te be fo re s en te nc e was im po se d” as requi redby Feder al Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2. Id . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d th e d efen da nt ’s m ot io n a ndord ereda res en te nc in g h eari ng to all ow the de fen da nt

“ ‘to s ay an yth in g h e wan ts to say.’ ” Id . At th e h eari ng , th e d efen da ntatt em pt edto rai se ob jecti on s t o fa ctua l re pr es en ta ti on s i n t he PSR. Id . The co urt s to pp edhi m an d s tate d t ha t the he ari ng ’s so le pu rp os e was to pe rm itall oc ut io n; th e o th er i ss ue s

13ha d b eenres ol ve d a t the fir stsen te nc in g h eari ng . Id. Aft er h eari ng th e

de fen da nt ’s sp eech , th e co urt i m po se d t he same sen te nc e. Id . at 1 68 . On ap pe al , th e d efen dantarg ue d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby not ad dr es si ng hi s n ew ob

jecti on s t o t he PSR. Id . at 1 69 . In p art ic ul ar, h e n ot edth at

“ th e co urt’s o rd er s ch edul in g re se nt en ci ng di d n otli m itth e sc op e o f th e h eari ng , an d t he co urt d idno t an no un ce the li m it at io n unt il hi s fa ctua l ch al le ng es were rai se d.” Id. W e reject edth is arg um en t. Inlan gu ag e p erfe ct ly sui te d t o Wil li s’s arg um en t, we ex pl ai ne d, [A]lth ou gh th e co urt d idno t ex pr es sl y st at e p rio r to th e h eari ng th atit was li mit in g t he he ari ng to all oc ut io n o nl y , itm ad e th atpo in t cl ear a t th e h eari ng it se lf. Th ere was no th in g i m pr op er ab ou t tha t l im it at io n as itwas i n t he in te res t o f jud ic ia l ec on omy forth e co urt n otto red o th atwhi chha d b eendo ne co rrec tl y at t he fir sthe ari ng . Id . Lik e th e o rd er i n R og ers , th e d is tri ctco urt’s J un e 2 2 o rd er d idno t sp eci fic al ly lim itsen te nc in g t o t he care er o ffen de r is su e. Bu t, l ik e th e Ro ge rs co urt, the di stric t co urt m ad e th is li m it at io n p la in when W il li s ra is edhi s o bjec ti on s to th e fi rearm

en ha nc em en t an d t he dru g quant it y . The d is tri ctco urt re jecte d W il li s’s i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce cl ai m s re gard in g t ho se is su es an d h adno reas on to

14rel it ig at e wha t h ad , init s v ie w, bee n d eci de d wi th ou t erro r. W e d o n otsee erro r in

it s d eci si on . IV. Ina rel at edarg um en t, Will is arg ue s tha t the di stric t co urt erredby fail in g t o m ak e “ anin di vi du al iz edfin di ng , supp ortabl e b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, as to th e dru g qua nt it y

for es eeab le ” b y

W il li s, as requi redby Uni te d S ta te s v . Bac on , 59 8 F .3d77 2, 7 77 –7 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (pe r cu riam). Ins te ad , W il li s arg ue s, the di st ric t co urt m ad e fi nd in gs whi chwere “ jus t an est im at e,” an d i t sh ou ldha ve pe rm it te d Wil li s t o p res en t ev id en ce re ga rd in g t he dru g qua nt it y at h is 20 09 res en te nc in g h eari ng . Ourdi sc us si on inpa rt I II, s up ra, d is po se s o f th is arg um en t. Durin g Wil li s’s 20 07 sen te nc in g a nd20 08 ap pe al , he d idno t ch al le ng e th e PSR ’s dru g quant it y . His § 2 25 5 m ot io n a ll eg edth athi s co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to rai se th is is su e, bu t the di stric t co urt re jecte d t hi s cl ai m

an d d en ie d h im

a cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il ity

on th atis su e. His bri ef d oe s n otaskfora cert ifi cat e o f ap pe al ab il it y fro m th is co urt, n or

do es itch al le ng e th e d is tri ctco urt’s s ub st an ti ve rul in g o n h is in effe ct iv en es s cl ai m . There fo re, i t ap pe ars th athe fau lt s the di st ric t co urt fo r no t pe rm it ti ng hi m

to rel it ig at e th e dru g- qu an ti ty iss ue , or, al te rn at iv el y , forno t m ak in g p art ic ul ar fi nd in gs requi redby Baco n. As we di sc us se d abo ve , th e d is tri ct 15co urt d idno t err by lim it in g Wil li s’s re se nt en ci ng he ari ng to th e car eer o ffen de r

is su e. W il li s’s ar gu m en t h ere i s s im pl y an ot he r at te m

ptto re-o pe n d eci si on s m ad e in 20 07 th atth e d is tri ctco urt d et erm in editwou ldno t re vi ew. V. The ne xtis su e rev ol ve s ar ou ndth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to ho ldW il li s’s res en te nc in g h eari ng on Octo be r 22 . Alth ou ghW il li s an d h is att orne y rece iv ed th e n ew PSR o n J ul y

7, the y rece iv edth e Pro ba ti on Offic e’s res po ns es to W il li s’s ob jecti on s o n Oct ob er 2 1, o ne da y be fo re the res en te nc in g h eari ng . W il li s ar gu es th atth is act io n v io la te d h is st atut ory rig htto rece iv e th e PSR

“ atlea stten da y s pr io r to th e d at e se ntforsen te nc in g, u nl es s thi s m in im um pe rio d i s wai ve d b y

th e de fen da nt .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 2( d) . W e ev al ua te a di st ric t co urt’s co m pl ia nc e wit h § 3 55 2( d) de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . Dave np ort, 1 51 F.3d13 25 , 13 27 –2 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 19 98 ).

“ [T]he p ur

po se of t he ten -d ay

requi rem en t i s t o e ns ur e acc ur acy andfai rn es s in sen te nc in g b y

all owi ng th e d efen da ntad equa te ti m e to rev ie w andve rif y th e in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth e [PSR ] pr io r to sen te nc in g.” Id. at13 28 . W il li s cl ai m s tha t Dav enpo rt c on tro ls th is is su e. Ther e, th e d efen da ntesc ap edfro m cu st od y be fo re the pro ba ti on off

ic e d is tri bu te d t he PSR. Id . at 1 32 7. Th e d is tri ct co urt s ch edul edsen te nc in g fo r th e d ay aft er the de fen dantwas app reh en de d, 16whi chga ve hi m on ly thre e h ou rs to rev ie w th e PSR on th e d ay

of h is sen te nc in g he ari ng . Id. We hel d tha t the fai lu re t o g ran t a c on ti nu an ce was im pr op er; th e de fen da nt ’s esc ap e d idno t p ro vi de a “ kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry ” wai ve r of hi s § 3 55 2( d) rig htto ten da y s’ no ti ce. Id . at 1 32 8– 29 . Butsee Uni te d S tate s v . Jo rd an , 21 6 F .3d12 48 , 12 49 –5 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (ho ld in g t ha t Dav enpo rt d oe s no t p rev en t a d is tri ctco urt fr om sen te nc in g ade fen da ntinab se nt iapu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 4 3) . The Gov ern m en t co un te rs th at , ass um in g t he re was erro r, an y erro r was ha rm le ss . Its arg um en t fi rs t n ot es th atth e Oct ob er 2 2 h eari ng ’s pu rp os e was li mit edto res en te nc in g Wil li s ab se ntth e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t, an d t ha t W il li s ra is edno ob

jecti on s t o t ha t p orti on of t he PSR. The Gov ern m en t al so as se rts th atth e d oc um en t Will is rece iv edon Octo be r 21 —o ne da y be fo re h is se nt en ci ng he ari ng —co nt ai ne d n o n ew m at eri al . The Oct ob er 2 1 d oc um en t si m pl y en cl os edth e Pro ba ti on Offic e’s res po ns es to W il li s’s o bjec ti on s, wh ic h were at ta ch edto th e b ackof t he PSR tha t Will is rece iv edon Ju ly 7. Andth atPSR, th e Gov ern m en t m ai nt ai ns , was v irtua ll y id en ti cal to th e PSR

us edto sen te nc e W il li s i n 2 00 7, the on ly diff eren ce b ei ng th e car eer o ffen de r en ha nc em en t. Whe th er h arm le ss erro r ap pl ie s t o avi ol at io n o f § 3 55 2( d) is a qu es ti on of fir stim pr es si on for

th is cir cu it . Upo n e xa m in at io n, we ag ree wi th th e Gov ern m en t 17th at§ 3 55 2( d) is su sc ep ti bl e to ha rm le ss -err oran al y si s. Fi rs t, Dav enpo rt wa s

si le nton th is is su e; itsi m pl y he ldth ata de fen da nt ’s esc ap e d oe s n otwaiv e th e te nda y no ti ce re qu ire m en t. 1 51 F.3dat 1 32 9. Se co nd , at l eas t two o th er co urts of ap pe al s h av e ap pl ie d h arm le ss erro r to un ti m el y di sc lo su re o f a PSR . See Un it ed St at es v. Taylor, 7 2 F .3d53 3, 5 50 (7t h C ir. 1 99 5) (“ Howev er, we d o n otbe li ev e th atth e p ro ba ti on off

ic e’s el ev en th -h ou r fi li ng of t he am en de d P SR s ig ni fic an tl y affe ct ed[th e d efen da nt ’s] rig htto a fai r se nt en ci ng he ari ng .”); Uni te d S ta te s v . Barry , 93 8 F .2d13 27 , 13 38 –3 9, 1 33 8 n .12 (D.C. Cir . 19 91 ) (ap pl y in g h arm le ss erro r to a si m il ar re qu ire m en t und er Fe de ral Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2( c), b ut in di cat in g tha t thi s an al y si s al so ap pl ie d t o the de fen da nt ’s § 3 55 2( d) ch al le ng e). Fi na ll y , fed eral st atut es an d c riminal -p ro cedur e ru le s l ay a ba ck gr ou ndass um

pt io n of ha rm le ss -err oran al y si s. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 11 1 (“ On the he ari ng of a ny app eal . . . the co urt s ha ll gi ve jud gm en t af te r anex am in at io n o f th e rec or d wi th ou t re ga rd to erro rs or d efec ts whi chdo no t af fectth e subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts of the parti es .”); Fed . R. Cri m . P. 52 (a) (“ Any error , def ect , irre gu la rit y , or v ari an ce tha t d oe s n otaffe ct subs ta nt ia l ri gh ts m

us t b e d is reg ard ed .”).

18W e al so ag ree wi thth e Gov ern m en t tha t, as su m in g t he di st ric t co urt

vi ol at ed§ 3 55 2( d) , any erro r was ha rm le ss . W il li s’s b rie f m en ti on s o nl y on e 5 fo rm of p reju di ce: “ W it h l es s than t wen ty-fou r ho urno ti ce as to th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng itwas i m

po ss ib le for[W il li s] to subp oe nath e wit ne ss es ne ces sa ry to supp ort h is ob

jecti on s t o t he [PSR].” App el lantBr. at13 . But , as d is cu ss edin pa rt I II, s up ra, the di st ric t co urt d idno t err by lim it in g re se nt en ci ng to th e car eer of fen de r en ha nc em en t. Bec au se W il li s d idno t o bjec t t o t he PSR’s an al y si s o f hi s
We observe that § 3552(d)’s ten- day period might not have bee n violated in this case. 5 Wil lis rece ived the re vised PSRon J uly 7, 2009; the response s rec eived on Oc tober 21, 2009 did not alter a ny portion of that PSR . There fore , one might argue—though the Gover nment does not—that the ten-da

y window had be en satisfied. See United States v. J ackson, 186 F .3d 836, 838–39 (7th Cir. 1999) (findingno § 3552(d) violation duringthe def endant’ s 1997 rese ntencing beca use the de fenda

nt had re viewed a

1995 PSR

—which wa s identical to the 1997 PSR—during his origina l sentencingin 1995). Fur thermore , the Rules of Criminal Procedur e sug g est that the ten-da y period a pplies only to the initial P SR release d by the Probation Off

ice ( the J uly

2009 document) a

nd not to the Probation Offic e’s r esponses (the October 21 document). Rule 32( e)( 2) provides that “[t] he probation off

icer must give the prese ntence repor t to the defe ndant [and] the def endant’ s attorney . . . at least 35 da

y s befor e sente ncingunless the def endant waives this mini mum period.” F ed. R. Crim. P . 32(e) (2). This provision applies most rea dily to the revised PSR distribut ed in July 2009. Rule 32(g ), howe ver, only mandates a

seven- day

period be tween the sentenc ing he aring and re ceipt of the Probation Offic e’s r esponses to the de fenda nt’s objections: “At lea st 7 day s befor e sente ncing , the probation officer must submi t to the court and to the pa rties the prese ntence repor

t and an a ddendum containing any unresolved obje ctions, the grounds for those objections, and the pr obation office r’s c omments on them.” I d. 32(g ). This provision applies most readily

to the document re lease d on October 21. The district cour

t’s failure to grant a continuance cer

tainly violated this rule, but would be har mless for the r easons de scribed in the text . So, unless Rul e 32(g ) and § 3552( d) ar e in direc t conflict—bec ause Rule 32( g ) provides the def endant with less than ten da y s’ notice of

the adde ndum—the addendum, whic h was provided on Oc tober 21, is not cover ed by § 3552(d). The parties have not brief ed this issue, and the Gover nment does not cha lleng e Willi s’s premise that § 3552(d) applies to the a ddendum distributed on October

21. We theref

ore of fer this footnote as an obser

vation, and not a holding . 19cri m in al hi st ory , th es e wit ne ss es co ul d o nl y ha ve tes ti fie d t o a sp ect s o f th e PSR th atth e d is tri ctco urt s pe ci fic al ly barre d Wil li s fr om re-l it ig at in g—th e fi rearm en ha nc em en t an d the dru g qua nt it y . Furt he rm or e, W il li s’s at to rn ey ackno wled ge d atth e Oct ob er 2 2 h eari ng th atth e PSR di st rib ut edinJu ly 200 9 h adth e sa m e in fo rm at io n c on ta in edinth e PSR us edto sen te nc e Will is in20 07 ; Will is was th eref or e fu ll y aware o f th e Pro ba ti on Offic e’s po si ti on s. VI. Inad di ti on to th es e p ro cedur al is su es , W il li s ar gu es th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le . W e rev ie w sen te nc es forreas on ab le ne ss , Rit a v . Uni te d S tate s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 41 , 12 7 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 2 45 9, 1 68 L. Ed. 2d20 3 (2 00 7) , andth e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on foranab us e o f di sc ret io n, Gal l v . Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1, 1 28 S. Ct. 5 86 , 59 7, 1 69 L. Ed. 2d44 5 (2 00 7) . The p arty ch al le ng in g t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s un reas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). The on ly unr eas on ab le ne ss W il li s ci te s i s the di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f th e Gov ern m en t’s re qu es t fo r a d own wardde pa rtu re und er § 5K1 .1. At Wil li s’s 2 00 7 se nt en ci ng , th e g ov ern m en t m ad e a s im il ar m ot io n, an d t he di st ric t co urt s en te nc ed W il li s t o 1 92 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an 18 pe rcen t d ecre as e fro m th e lo w endof W il li s’s g ui de li ne ran ge of 2 35 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Will is arg ue s tha t, b ecau se 20no th in g h adch an ge d b etween20 07 an d 2 00 9, the di stric t co urt’s fa il ur e to gra nta

si mil ar 1 8 p erce ntde crea se fro m hi s 1 51 -m on th sen te nc e was un reas on ab le . W il li s ap pe ars to be m ak in g t wo ar gu m en ts he re: (1) th atth e d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldha ve gra nt edth e Gov ern m en t’s § 5K1 .1 m ot io n; an d (2 ) th athi s 1 51
- m on th sen te nc e is un reas on ab le . Reg ard in g t he fir st , a di st ric t co urt’s re fu sa l t o app ly a do wnwar d d ep artur e is withi n t he co urt’s d is cret io n a ndm ay no t b e ap pe al ed , pro vi de d t he co urt reco gn iz edth atitha d the po wer t o s o d ep artfro m th e g ui de li ne ran ge . Uni te d St at es v. Harn es s, 1 80 F.3d12 32 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Sub st an ti al -as si st an ce de pa rtu res un de r § 5 K1.1 fal l u nd er thi s ca te go ry . Id. The di st ric t co urt cl earl y un de rs to odth atitha d t he po wer t o d ep artfro m th e g ui de li ne ran ge an d we th eref or e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er the di st ric t co urt’s ru li ng on th is is su e. Reg ard in g t he sec on d, Will is pre se nt s n o o th er g ro un d t o fi ndhi s s en te nc e un reas on ab le . One h un dr edfif ty-on e m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t was th e lo wes t en d o f th e g ui de li ne ran ge , andth e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t 1 51 m on th s was ap pr op ria te pu ni sh m en t g iv enW il li s’s cr im e an d c riminal hi st ory . W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at hi s s en te nc e was reas on ab le . VII.

21Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, Will is ’s sen te nc e an d t he di st ric t co urt’s

res ol ut io n o f hi s § 22 55 m ot io n are AFFIRMED.

22