# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 15 87

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tho m as W hi tl ow

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 20 , 20 15
Fil ed : M arch 7, 2 01 6

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Fo ll owi n g a th ree- da y tri al

, a jury co nv ic te d Tho m as W hi tl ow of co ns pi racy

to co m m it wire frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 49

, an d fo ur co un ts of wire frau d

in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 43 an d 2. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en c e d Wh i t l o w t o 1

The Hon or ab le Jo hn M. Gerra rd

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Nebr as ka

.fiv e co nc ur ren t te rm s of im pr is on m en t of 10 8 m on th s. W hi tl ow ap pe al s, cl ai m in g th e

ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy an d th at th e

co ur t erre d in ad m it ti ng hi s co -co ns pi rat or s’ te st imo n y. H e al so ch al le ng es th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e in di ct m en t an d th e su b s t a nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of hi s se nt en ce.

Hav in g ju ris di ct io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Usi ng fam il y in fo rm at io n he ob ta in ed fro m ne wsp ap er ob it ua rie s, W hi tl ow
cal le d el de rly pe op le cl ai m in g to be a rel at iv e in ne ed of im m ed ia te fu nd s to co ve r an

em erg en cy , su ch as an arre st or car acci de nt

. The pe op le cal le d were di rect ed to wire

th e m on ey to Tem

pe st Am ers on , Is y s Jo rd an , or Ro sl an d St ark s, who th en fo rward ed

th e m on ey to W hi tl ow’s wife

, Yol a n d a Cl em on s. Am ers on , Jo rd an , an d St ark s

rece iv ed a sm al l p or ti on of t he wire d m on ey for th ei r pa rt i n t he sch em e.

A 12 -co un t in di ct m en t was ent ered ag ai ns t W hi tl ow and th e ot he rs , ch arg in g

th em wit h co ns pi racy to co m m it wire frau d an d el ev en co un ts of wire frau d. W hi tl ow pl ead ed no t gu il ty. Cl em on s, Am ers on , Jo rd an , an d St ark s pl ead ed gu il ty an d

te st ifi ed at th e tri al

. W hi tl ow ob jecte d to a po rti on of th ei r te st im on y as in ad m is si bl e
he ars ay

. Afte r co nd it io na ll y al lo win g th e te st im on y , th e co ur t de te rm in ed at th e cl os e

of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e th at th e di sp ut ed st at em en ts were ad m is si bl e co -co ns pi rat or

st at em en ts

.

Fo ll owi ng th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce, W hi tl ow m ov ed fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al on al l co un ts

. The go ve rn m en t ag reed on se ve n of th e wire

frau d co un ts an d th e co ur t di sm is se d th os e co un t s

. The co ur t de ni ed W hi tl ow’s

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al on th e rem ai ni ng co un ts

.

At th e cl os e of al l th e ev id en ce, W hi tl ow ren ewed hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al on th e rem ai ni ng fiv e co un ts

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n. The jury

-2
-fo un d W hi tl ow gu il ty on al l co un ts

. W hi tl ow ag ai n mo v e d fo r a jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al , whi ch was a ga in de ni ed by the di st ric t co ur t.

At W hi tl ow’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed W hi tl ow’s

of fen se le ve l was 17 an d hi s cri m in al hi st or y c a t e g o r y was VI, res ul ti ng in an
ad vi so ry Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s ran ge of 51 to 63 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t

co ur t va rie d up ward fro m th e cal cu la te d ran ge ba se d on W hi tl ow’s th i r t y- f i ve y ear

hi st or y of co m

m it ti ng la rcen y , b ur gl ary, an d sh op li fti ng —wh ic h in cl ud ed pr ev io us

co nv ic ti on s fo r co m

m it ti ng wire frau d ag ai ns t th e el de rly—an d th e fact th at W hi tl ow

was un de r fed eral su pe rv is io n whe n he co m m it te d th e of

fen se s in th is cas e. The co ur t

se nt en ced W hi tl ow to a te rm of im pr is on m en t of 10 8 m on th s o n e a c h c ou nt

, to be

se rv ed co nc ur ren tl y

.

II . Disc us si on

On ap pe al , W hi tl ow ra is es sev eral is su es . W e ad dr es s ea ch in tu rn

.

A. Suffi ci ency of t he I ndi ctment

Pri or to tri al

, W hi t l ow fil ed a pr o se m ot io n, whi ch th e co ur t co ns tru ed as a

m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t fo r la ck of su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. On ap pe al

, W hi tl ow

arg ue s th at th e in di ct m en t was s o de fic ie nt th at it fai le d to ch arg e th e of fen se s of

co ns p i r a c y t o co m

m it wire frau d an d wire frau d, an d th at th e gr an d jury la ck ed

su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to in di ct hi m

. Our rev ie w of a ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of an 2

In hi s rep ly br ie f, W hi tl ow al so as se rts

, in co nn ect io n wit h hi s su ffi ci en cy 2

arg um en t, t ha t “ th e Uni te d Stat es fai le d to es ta bl is h and pr ov e th e m at eri al fact th at

t h e f ed eral co ur t ha d fed eral cri m in al juri sd ic ti on of th e m at te r” be cau se t h e in di ct m en t fai le d to st at e th at th e fed eral co ur t ha d juri sd ic ti on ov er th e St at es whe re th e act s in fu rth eran ce of the co ns pi racy were com m it te d. Fi rs t, we do no t con si de r
arg um en ts rai se d fo r th e fir st ti m e in a rep ly b r i e f

. V i k i ng Su pp ly v . Na ti on al Cart

-3
-in di ct m en t i s d e n ov o. Un it ed Sta te s v . Tebe au , 71 3 F .3d 95 5, 9 62 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

.

An in di ct m en t is su ffi ci en t if it co nt ai ns th e el em en ts of th e of fen se ch arg ed

, le ts th e
de fen da nt kn ow wha t he ne ed s to do to de fen d hi m se lf, an d wou ld al lo w hi m to pl ead

a fo rm er acq ui tt al or co nv ic ti on if he were ch arg ed wit h a si m i la r of fen se

. Id

. Usu al ly an in di ct m en t t ha t t rack s t he st at ut or y lan gu ag e is su ffi ci en t. Id

.

W hi tl ow do es no t sp eci fic al ly id en ti fy ho w th e in di ct m en t is de fic ie nt

. In st ead

he ge ne ral ly ch al le ng es it as “ ba re bo ne s” an d “ wit ho ut an y fact ua l st at em en t of hi s

in vo lv em en t,” su ch th at no ne of th e “ el em en ts of co ns pi racy can be pr ov en .” To th e

ex te nt W hi tl ow’s arg um en t rel ie s on a la ck of pr oo f, we ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t

th at su ch a ch al le ng e to an in di ct m en t is no t al lo wed

. See Co st el lo v. Uni te d St at es , 35 0 U.S. 35 9, 36 3 (1 95 6) (“ An in di ct m en t ret ur ne d by a le ga ll y co ns ti tu t ed an d

un bi as ed gr an d jury, li ke an in fo rm at io n dr awn by th e pr os ecu to r, if va li d on it s face

, is en ou gh to cal l fo r tri al of th e ch arg e on th e m eri ts .”). Mo reo ve r, ou r rev ie w of th e

in di ct m en t sh ows it in cl ud es al l th e el em en ts of th e cri m es ch arg ed

. The di st ric t co ur t

di d n ot err i n d en y in g Whi tl ow’s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he in di ct m en t.

B. Adm is si on of Co -Co ns pi ra to r Sta tements

At t ria l, Cl em on s, Am ers on , Jo rd an , and St ark s te st ifi ed ab ou t co nv ers at io ns

th ey ha d wit h each ot he r an d wit h W hi tl ow ab ou t th e wire frau d sc he m e. W hi tl ow
cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in al lo win g th is te st im on y be cau se i n d e pe nd en t

ev id en ce di d n ot es ta bl is h th e ex is te nc e of a co ns pi racy. Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e

80 1( d) (2 )(E) al lo w s t h e a dm is si on of a st at em en t m ad e by a co -co ns pi rat or of a
de fen da nt if t he st at em en t was m ad e “ du rin g a nd in fur th eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy.”

In or de r fo r an ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en t of a co -co ns pi rat or to be a d mi ss ib le

, th e

C o

. , I n c

. , 31 0 F.3 d 10 92

, 10 99 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ). Seco nd

, W hi tl ow ci te s no le ga l

au th or it y to su pp or t hi s arg um en t. Id

. (“ [I]t is no t th is co ur t’s job to res earc h th e la w
to su pp or t an ap pe ll an t’s arg um en t.”) (q uo ti ng Lus by v. Uni on Paci fic R. Co

., 4 F.3 d
63 9, 6 42 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3) ).

-4
-go ve rn m en t m us t sh ow by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce “ (1 ) t ha t a co ns pi racy

ex is te d; (2 ) th at th e de fen da nt an d th e de cl aran t were m em be rs of th e co ns pi racy; an d
(3 ) th at th e de cl arat io n was m ad e d u r i n g t h e co ur se an d in fu rth eran ce of th e

co ns pi racy.” Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 57 3 F.2 d 10 40

, 10 43 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ). “ [A]lth ou gh

co ur ts m ay co ns id er t h e co nt en ts of th e st at em en ts

, th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr od uc e

in de pe nd en t ev id en ce ou ts id e of th e st at em en ts th em se lv es to es ta bl is h th e ex is te nc e

of th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d St at es v. You ng , 75 3 F.3 d 75 7, 77 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). The

in de pe nd en t ev id en ce ne ed ed to es ta bl is h th e ex is te nc e of a co ns pi racy m ay be

en ti rel y ci rcu m st an ti al

. Id

. W e rev ie w a d i s t r i c t co ur t’s ad m is si on of ou t-o f-co ur t

st at em en ts pu rs ua nt to Fed eral Ru le o f Evi de nc e 80 1( d) (2 )(E) fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n, reco gn iz in g th at a di st ric t co ur t’s di sc ret io n is br oa d in co ns pi racy tri al s.
Id

.

Here, th e di st ric t co ur t co nd it io na ll y al lo wed Cl em on s, Am ers on , Jo rd an , an d

St ark s t o t e s t ify ab ou t di sc us si on s th ey ha d wit h each ot he r an d wit h W hi tl ow

reg ard in g th e wire tra ns fers

. At th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e, th e co ur t fo un d

t ha t th e go ve rn m en t ha d pr ov en by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce al l t h e B e l l

pr ereq ui si te s. In do in g so , th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e co nt en ts of th e st at em en ts

th em se lv es bu t al so fo un d th ere was in de pe nd en t ev id en ce es ta bl is hi ng th e ex is te nc e

of th e co ns pi racy.

In cl u d e d i n th e st at em en ts th e di st ric t co ur t co nd it io na ll y ad m it te d was

te st im on y fro m Am ers on reco un ti ng ho w sh e ha d be en recr ui te d by he r au nt

, Yol an da

Cl em on s, in May 20 11 to pi ck up wire tra ns fers an d fo rward th em to C l e mo ns

. Am ers on te st ifi ed Cl em on s d i rect ed he r to pi ck up th e wire tra ns fers fro m on e
lo cat io n a nd for ward th e m on ey fro m a di ffer en t lo cat io n. Am ers on te st ifi ed it was

us ua ll y Cl em on s who ga ve he r th e in fo rm at io n ab ou t who w a s se nd in g th e wire

tra ns fers bu t th at on on e oc cas io n W hi tl ow ga ve he r th e in fo rm at io n. Am ers o n

te st ifi ed th at Cl em on s to ld he r sh e co ul d ke ep so m e of th e m on ey bu t no t to as k an y

qu es ti on s. Am ers on te st ifi ed reg ard in g rece iv in g wire tra ns fers fro m Keit h Rea so ne r

-5 -an d Edn a Ben ne tt

. At Cl em on s’s req ue st

, Am ers on recr ui te d Jo rd an to as si st wit h th e

wire tra ns fers

.

C l e mo ns co rro bo rat ed Am ers on ’s te st im on y , st at in g th at in earl y May 20 1 1

, W hi tl ow as ke d he r to lo ok up te le ph on e nu m be rs fro m ou t-o f-s ta te ob it ua rie s an d to

recr ui t o t he rs to pi ck up wire tra ns fers

. Cl em on s co nt act ed he r ni ece, Am ers on , to

as k he r to as si s t

, a nd Am ers on ag reed

. Cl em on s te st ifi ed sh e ga ve th e te le ph on e

nu m be rs sh e fo un d to W hi tl ow. W hi tl ow wou ld te ll he r th ere was go in g to be a wire

tra ns fer an d sh e wou ld th en co nt act Am ers on to pi ck up th e wire tra ns fers

. Cl em on s

te st ifi ed sh e wou ld ei th er sp en d th e m on e y sh e rece iv ed or gi ve it to W hi tl ow.
Cl em on s te st ifi ed sh e t o l d Am ers on th e pr oc ed ur e to fo ll ow in pi ck in g up th e wire

tra ns fers an d as ke d Am ers on if sh e kn ew an y on e el se who wou ld pi ck up wire

tra ns fers

.

Jo rd an te st i f

i e d Am ers on co nt act ed he r in Aug us t 20 11 as ki ng he r if sh e

ne ed ed ex tra m on ey an d wou ld pi ck up wire tra ns fers

. Jo rd an te st ifi ed sh e al so sp ok e
wit h Cl em on s an d W hi tl ow ab ou t ad di ti on al wire tra ns fers

. St ark s te st ifi ed sh e was

co nt act ed by Clem on s t o p ic k u p wi re t ran sf ers

.

The co ur t fo un d th e co nd it io na ll y ad m it te d te st im on y was in de pe nd en tl y

co rro bo rat ed by Edn a Ben ne tt

, Elv en a Eng li sh

, an d Keit h Rea so ne r, who te st ifi ed to

rece iv in g cal ls fro m a m al e cal le r who id en ti fie d hi m se lf by na m e as a ne ph ew. The

m al e cal le r th en ask ed each of t he m to wire m on ey

pu rp or te dl y

to he lp hi m

ou t i n a

ti m e of ne ed

, an d he ga ve th em wire tra ns fer in fo rm at io n, in cl ud in g th e na m e of th e

pe rs on who wou ld rece iv e th e m on ey

. Rea so ne r an d Ben ne tt were to ld to wire m on ey

to Am ers on , an d Eng li sh was to ld to wire m on ey to Jo rd an

. All th ree st at ed th ey di d

no t kn ow th e pe rs on to who m th ey were di rect ed to wire m on ey

. Eng li sh id en ti fie d

a p ie ce o f pa pe r on whi ch sh e ha d writ te n Jo rd an ’s n am e an d ad dr es s wh il e ta lk in g

to th e m al e cal le r. The na m e an d ad dr es s on th e pi ece of pa pe r m at ch ed th e na m e an d

-6
-a d d r e s s on th e rece ip t Eng li sh rece iv ed fro m W es te rn Uni on whe n sh e wire d th e

m on ey

.

All th ree vi ct im s al so te st ifi ed th at a rel at iv e ha d rece nt ly di ed

, th at th e ob it ua ry

was in th e ne wsp ap er, an d th at th e ob it ua ry co nt ai ne d th ei r own na m e as well as th e

na m e of t h e ir ne ph ew. Rea so ne r’s, Ben ne tt ’s, an d Eng li sh ’s real ne ph ews al so

te st ifi ed at tri al

. The ne ph ews te st ifi e d t h ey kn ew no th in g ab ou t th e wire tra ns fers

be in g se nt

, ha d no t req ue st e d t h e t r a n sf ers , an d di d no t kn ow Am ers on or Jo rd an

. Am ers o n te st ifi ed th at whi le st ay in g wit h Cl em on s, sh e sa w ob it ua rie s an d rel at ed

do cu m en ts at th e Cl em on s and W hi tl ow resi de nc e. The g ov ern m en t al so pr es en te d

bu si ne ss reco rd s fro m Mo ne y gr am an d W es te rn Uni on co rro bo rat in g Am ers on ’s an d

Jo rd an ’s te st im on y ab ou t rece iv in g an d se nd in g wire tra ns fers

. Fi na ll y , th e jury he ard

reco rd ed te le ph on e c a l l s be twee n Am ers on , Cl em on s, an d W hi tl ow di sc us si ng an

un su cces sf

ul wire tra ns fer. The ev id en ce pr es en te d was su ffi ci en t to in de pe nd en tl y

co rro bo rat e th e ex is te nc e of a co ns pi racy be twee n W hi tl ow an d Cl em on s, Am ers on , Jo rd an , an d St ark s, se e You ng , 75 3 F.3 d at 77 1– 72

, an d th e di st ric t c o u rt di d no t

ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e co -co ns pi rat or tes ti m on y

.

C. Suffi ci ency of t he Ev id ence

W hi tl ow co nt en ds th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on s fo r

co ns pi racy to co m

m it wire frau d an d wire frau d. In co ns id eri ng W hi tl ow’s ch al le ng e

to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, we rev ie w de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce to su st ai n th e

co nv ic ti on . Uni te d S ta te s v . Col e, 72 1 F .3d 10 16

, 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). “ W e v ie w
th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, dr awin g al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es in fav or of th e ve rd ic t an d rev ers in g ‘onl y whe re no reas on ab le jury co ul d

fin d a l l t h e el em en ts be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.

Lou pe r-M or ris

, 67 2 F.3 d 53 9, 55 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). W e do no t rewei gh th e ev id en ce

or as se ss th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es

. Uni te d St at es v. Dug an , 23 8 F.3 d 10 41

, 10 44 –4 5 (8 th Cir . 20 01 ).

-7 -Wh i t l o w as se rts th at th e on ly ev id en ce di rect ly co nn ect in g hi m to th e

co ns pi racy or an y

in di vi du al frau du le nt wire tra ns fers is th e te st im on y of Cle m on s,

Am ers on , an d Jo rd an

. W hi tl ow as se rts th is te st im on y m ay be su ffi ci en t to sh ow th es e

th ree in di vi du al s were en ga ge d in a wire frau d sc he m e. Bu t wit ho ut ad di ti on al

co rro bo rat in g ev id en ce, he arg ue s, it is in su ffi ci en t to li nk hi m to th ei r cri m in al

act iv i t y. In it ia ll y , we no te it is no t ne ces sa ry fo r acco m pl ic e te st im on y to be

co rro bo rat ed to up ho ld a co nv ic ti on

. See Uni te d St at es v. Fu ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 85 9, 86 3
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). To th e ex te nt W hi tl ow ar gu es th at Cle m on s, Am ers on , a nd Jo rd an

were no t cred ib le wit n e s s e s be cau se th ey al l te st ifi ed pu rs ua nt to be ne fic ia l pl ea

ag reem en ts

, th es e are m at te rs fo r th e jury. “ W e ha ve rep eat ed ly up he ld jury ve rd ic ts

ba se d so le ly o n th e te st im on y of co -co ns pi rat or s an d c oo pe rat in g wi tn es se s, no ti ng

th at it is wit hi n th e pr ov in ce of the jury to m ak e cred ib il it y as se ss m en ts an d res ol ve

co nf li ct in g te st im on y .” Uni te d St at es v. Co le m an , 52 5 F.3 d 66 5, 66 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ).

Barr in g te st im on y th at is in cred ib le on it s face

, it was up to th e jury to de ci de whe th er

to be li ev e so m e, al l, or no ne of th e te st im on y of Cl em on s, Am ers on , an d J o r d a n

. Fu ll er, 55 7 F.3 d at 86 3. Fu rth erm or e, th e ev id en ce in de pe nd en tl y co rro bo rat in g th e

co -co ns pi rat or st at em en ts al so su pp or ts th e gu il ty ve rd ic t. In li gh t of al l th e ev id en ce

pr es en te d, we can no t co nc lu de th at “ no reas on ab le jury” co ul d ha ve fo un d W hi tl ow

gu il ty of th e co ns pi racy an d th e in di vi du al wire tra ns fer ch arg es

. See Co le

, 72 1 F.3 d 3

at 10 21

.

W hi tl ow se pa rat el y ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s th ree m ot io ns fo r 3

a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al whi ch were li ke wis e ba se d on in su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce. W e rev i e w d e n o v o t he de ni al of a m ot io n fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al ba se d on th e

su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Cha tm on , 74 2 F.3d 35 0, 35 2 (8 th Cir

. 20 14 ). W e vi ew th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d acce pt al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es th at m ay be dr awn in fav or of th e ve rd ic t, an d we affi rm un le ss

no r e a s o n a b le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e de fen da nt gu il ty. Id

. Fo r th e reas on s se t fo rth ab ov e, we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g W hi tl ow’s m ot io ns fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

-8
-D. Subs ta nti ve Reas on ab le nes s o f Sent ence

W hi tl ow arg ue s hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y u n r e a s o n ab le be cau se it was

ne arl y do ub le th e 51 to 6 3 mo n th se nt en ce reco m m en de d un de r th e ad vi so ry

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s. W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce fo r

an ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(en ba nc ). Our rev ie w of th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce is na rro w an d

de fere nt ia l, an d it is “ th e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t

se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Sen te n ci ng Gui de li ne s

ran ge —as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Kell ey , 65 2 F.3d 91 5, 91 8
(8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 4)

. W he n a di st ric t c o u r t va rie s

ou ts id e th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ra ng e, we co ns id er t he ex te nt of t he va ria nc e, bu t

we “ gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t cou rt’s dec is io n th at th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on

th e wh o l e , ju s ti fy th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e.” Ferg us on v. Uni te d St at es , 62 3 F.3 d

62 7, 6 31 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (qu ot in g Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (20 07 )).

In ex pl ai ni ng W hi tl ow’s s en te nc e, th e d is tri ct co ur t sta te d i t was co ns id eri ng

al l of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, pa rti cu la rly th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e wire frau d

of fen se s, W hi tl ow’s pa rti cu la r cri m in al hi st or y , an d th e ne ed to pr ot ect t h e p u b l i c

fro m W hi tl ow. The co ur t no te d th at W hi tl ow ha d be en co nv ic te d 16 di ffer en t ti m es

fo r va rio us of

fen se s, m os tl y th ef

t s , bu rg la ry , an d wire frau d, an d th at rece iv in g

se nt en ces of in crea si ng le ng th ha d no t de t erre d hi m

. Fi nd in g th at th e Sen te nc in g
Gui de li ne s di d no t ad eq ua te ly acco un t fo r hi s pr io r co nd uc t, hi s ut te r di sr eg ard fo r th e

la w, an d hi s pa tt ern of pr ey in g on t h e el de rly in si m il ar wire frau d type cas es , th e
di s t r i c t co ur t va rie d up ward to a se nt en ce of 10 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t on al l fiv e

co un ts

, to be se rv ed co nc ur ren tl y

. W hi tl ow do es no t co nt en d th at th e fact or s th e co ur t

co ns id ered were im

pr op er bu t as se rts th at a se nt en ce al m o s t twi ce th e le ng th

reco m m en de d by th e Gui de li ne s is by it s ve ry na tu re un reas on ab le

. Bu t as we ha ve

no te d, th e Su pr e me Co ur t ha s “ sp eci fic al ly reject ed us in g ‘the pe rcen ta ge of a
de pa rtu re as th e st an da rd fo r de te rm in in g th e st ren gt h of th e jus t i fic at io ns req ui red

-9
-fo r a sp eci fic se nt en ce.’” Ferg us on , 62 3 F.3 d at 63 1 (qu ot in g Gall

, 55 2 U.S. at 47 ).

Here, t h e f

a c t o r s co ns id ered by th e di st ric t co ur t were al l ap pr op ria te on es

. The

di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in fas hi on in g th e se nt en ce it fo un d ne ces sa ry

to sat is fy th e se nt en ci ng go al s o f 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a).

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e rea so ns set for th ab ov e, we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 0-