FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UL Y 09, 2010
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 0 9- 16 32 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D. C. Dock et No. 0 8- 00 31 5- CR-4

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us

EMANUEL JONES, a.k .a. 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 ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J ul y 9, 2 01 0)

Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS an d WILSON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

PER CURI AM:

Em m an ue l Jo ne s ap pe al s fro m hi s 78 -m on th to ta l se nt en ce im po se d f o r t w o

co nv ic ti on s fo r th e us e of a co m m un ic at io n faci li ty in fu rth eran ce of a co ns pi racy topo ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, an d to di st rib ut e, co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es , in vi ol at io n

of 21 U.S.C. § 84 3( b)

. Jo ne s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t c o u r t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by

fai li ng to acco un t fo r hi s su bs t a n t i a l a ss is ta nc e to th e go ve rn m en t, as a fact or in it s

18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) s en te nc in g a na lysis . After c aref ul rev ie w, we affi rm

.

W e rev i e w th e se nt en ce a di st ric t co ur t im po se s fo r “ reas on ab le ne ss ,” whi ch

“m erel y as ks whe th er th e tri al co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v

. P u g h
,

51 5 F.3d 11 79 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8,

35 1 (2 00 7) ).

In rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r reas on ab le ne ss , we pe rfo rm two st ep s. Id

. at 11 90

.

Fi rs t, we m

us t “ ‘ens ur e th at th e di st ric t c ou rt co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al

erro r, su ch as fai li ng to cal cu la te (o r im pr op erl y cal c u l at in g) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ,

tre a t i n g th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s,

se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s, or fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n

th e ch os en se nt en ce -- in cl ud in g an ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 5 52 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7) ). The di st ric t 1

The § 3553(a) fac tors include: (1) the nature and circ umstances of the offe nse and the history 1 and char acte ristics of the defe ndant; (2) the need for the sentenc e imposed to ref lect the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote respe ct for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offe nse; (3) the need for the sentenc e imposed to a ffor d adequate deter renc e; (4) the need to pr otect the public; (5) the need to provide the defe n d an t wi th educational or vocational training or medical car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es available ; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines rang e; (8) the pertinent policy statements of the Sentencing Commi ssion; (9) the need to avoid unwanted sentenc ing disparities; and (10) the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to victims . 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

2co ur t ne ed no t di sc us s each § 35 53 (a) fact or

. Uni te d St at es v. Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d 78 4,

78 6 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ). Rat he r, “ [t]he se nt en c i n g jud ge sh ou ld se t fo rth en ou gh to

sa ti sf y th e ap pe ll at e co ur t th at h e h a s c on si de red th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts an d ha s a

reas on ed ba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s own le ga l de ci si on m ak in g au th or it y

. ” Ri ta, 55 1 U.S.

at 35 6.

If we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t pr oc ed ur al ly err, we m us t co ns id er

th e “ ‘sub st an ti ve reas on ab le n e s s o f th e se nt en ce im po se d un de r an ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n st an da rd ,’ ” ba se d on th e “ ‘tot al it y of th e ci rcu m st an ces .’ ” Pu gh
, 51 5 F.3 d

at 11 90 (q uo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). Thi s revi ew is “ de fere nt ia l,” req ui rin g us to

de te r mi n e “wh et he r th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t fai ls to ach ie ve th e

pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng as st at ed in se ct io n 35 53 (a).” Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d at 78 8. The re

is a “ ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces fro m whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t m ay ch oo se ,” an d

a se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in e r a n g e i s or di na ril y ex pe ct ed to be reas on ab le

. Id

.

Mo reo ve r, whe n co ns id eri ng whe th er a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce is reas on ab le
, we ha ve

co m pa red th e se nt en ce act ua ll y im po se d to th e st at ut or y m ax im um

. See, e.g ., Uni te d

St at es v. Valn or , 45 1 F.3 d 74 4, 75 1- 52 ( 1 1 t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (u ph ol di ng se nt en ce as

reas on ab le in p a r t b e c a us e it was “ ap pr eci ab ly be lo w th e le ng th of th e st at ut or y

m ax im um ”).

3“ The weig ht to be acco rd ed an y gi ve n § 355 3( a) facto r is a m at te r co m m it te d

to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we wil l no t su bs ti tu te ou r jud gm en t

in weig hi ng th e rel ev an t fact or s.” Uni te d St at es v. Am ed eo , 48 7 F.3 d 82 3, 83 2 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 07 ) (in t ern al qu ot at io n an d br ack et s om it te d)

. W e wil l rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g on ly if we are “ le ft wit h th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at th e di st ric t

co ur t co m

m it te d a cl ear erro r o f jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s by

arri vi ng at a se nt en ce th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of reas on ab le se nt en ces di ct at ed by

th e fact s of th e cas e.” Pu g h, 51 5 F.3 d at 11 91 (ci ta ti on an d in te rn al qu ot at io n

om it te d)

. The bu rd en is on th e de fen da nt to sh ow th at th e se nt en ce was un reas on ab le

in li gh t o f th e rec or d a nd th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3d at 7 88

. As app li ed he re, Jo ne s ha s no t de m on st rat ed th at th e di st ric t cou rt com m it te d

an y pr oc ed ur al erro r or th at hi s s e n t e nc e is pr oc ed ur al ly un reas on ab le

. Jo ne s

co nc ed ed at se nt en ci ng th at hi s ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge was co rrec tl y cal cu la te d,

an d do es no t al le ge ot he rwis e on ap pe al

. Jo ne s al so co nc ed es on ap pe al th at , be cau se

th e go ve rn m en t di d no t fil e a § 5K1 .1 m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t la ck ed th e au th or it y

to de pa rt d own ward ba se d o n h is su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce. 2

“Upon motion of the g overnme nt stating that the de fenda nt has provided substantial 2 assistance in the investiga tion or prosec ution of another pe rson who has c ommitt ed an of fense
, the cour t may depar t from the g uidelines.” U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Section 5K1.1 thus re quires a substantial assistance motion by the g overnme nt before the cour t can r educe a sente nce unde r that g uideline. I d.; see United States v. How ard, 902 F .2d 894, 897 (11th Cir. 1990).

4In ad di ti on , at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t al lo wed bo th pa rti es to

pr es en t arg um en ts as to wha t th ey be li ev ed th e ap pr op ria te se nt en ce sh ou ld be

. The

co ur t co ns id ered Jo ne s’ arg um en ts f o r a “ do wnwar d de pa rtu re” ba se d on hi s

co op erat io n wit h th e go ve rn m en t, as well as hi s req ue st f o r c o n c ur ren t, rat he r th an

co ns ecu ti ve , se nt en ces on th e two te le ph on e co un ts

. Not ab ly, th e co ur t he ard Jo ne s’

arg um en t th at he co op erat ed wit h au th or it ie s fro m th e ve ry be gi nn in g of th e cas e an d

ag reed to “ ke ep qu ie t” so as to pr ev en t th e in ve st ig at io n fro m be in g ha m pe red ; it al so

he ard th e go ve rn m en t’s res po ns e th at it so ug ht to rewar d Jo ne s up -fr on t fo r hi s

co op erat io n by a l l o win g hi m to pl ead gu il ty to th e te le ph on e co un ts , in st ead of th e

co ns pi racy co un ts

. The co ur t res po nd ed to Jo ne s’ req ue st fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re
by po in ti ng ou t th at Jo ne s “ go t a be tt er de al ” by th is ch arg e ba rg a i n , n o t in g th at ,

be cau se Jo ne s w a s a l lo wed to pl ead to th e te le ph on e co un ts , as op po se d to th e

co ns pi racy ch arg es , he rece iv ed th e ad de d be ne fit of se r v i n g o n l y on e y ear of

su pe rv is ed r e l e a s e , in st ead of fiv e y ears

. The co ur t acce pt ed th e pl ea ag reem en t

be cau se it “ ad eq ua te ly refl ect [ed ] th e se rio us ne ss of th e act ua l of fen se be ha vi or , an d

[d id ] no t u nd erm in e th e st at ut or y pu rp os es of s en te nc in g,” an d it co ns id ered Jo ne s’

in di vi du al ch arac te ris ti cs

.

Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at it co ns id ered al l of th e fact or s

id en ti fie d in § 35 53 (a) an d fo un d th e 78 -m on th to ta l se nt en ce to be su ffi ci en t, bu t no t

5gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry , to co m pl y wit h th e st at ut or y pu rp os es of se nt en ci ng

. Tall ey ,

43 1 F.3 d at 78 6 (“ an ack no wled gm en t by th e di st ric t co ur t th at it ha s co ns id ered th e

de fen da nt ’s arg um en ts an d th e fact or s in se ct io n 35 53 (a) is su ffi ci en t

. . .”). In de ed
,

th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y cal cu la te d th e ap pl ic ab le gu i de li ne ran ge , tre at ed th e

gu id el in es as ad vi so ry , ack n owl ed ge d th at it co ns id ered th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts , as

well as th e PSI, th e pl ea ag r e e men t, an d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d ul ti m at el y

se nt en ced Jo ne s at the bo tt om of th e gu id el in es ran ge

. Jo ne s has th eref or e fai le d to

sh ow t ha t h is sen te nc e was pro ced ur al ly unr eas on ab le

.

Jo ne s a l s o ha s fai le d to de m on st rat e th at hi s bo tt om -o f-t he -g ui de li ne s to ta l

se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. As fo r hi s cl ai m th at th e “ ch arg e ba rg ai n”

th at he acce pt ed was no t a be tt er de al th an pl e a d i n g gu il ty to th e ch arg es of

co ns pi ra c y, J o n e s ig no res th e fact th at , if he ha d pl ead ed gu il ty to th e co ns pi racy

ch arg e s, he co ul d ha ve face d a 20 -y ear te rm of im pr is on m en t as well as a fiv e-year

te rm of su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d a m an da to ry m in im um of 20 y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t if

th e go ve rn m en t ha d fil ed a no ti ce un de r 21 U.S.C. § 85 1 ba se d on Jo ne s’ pr io r dr ug

of fen se

. See 21 U.S.C. § § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), 84 6, 85 1; 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (b )(1 ).

I n co nt ras t, by pl ead in g gu il ty to th e te le ph on e ch arg es , Jo ne s face d a le ss er

ei gh t-year st at ut or y m ax im um te rm of im

pr is o n men t an d a on e-year su pe rv is ed

rel eas e te rm

. See 21 U.S.C. § 84 3( b)
, (d )(1 ); 18 U.S.C. § 35 83 (b )(3 ). Fu rth er, Jo ne s’

6b o t t o m-o f-t he -g ui de li ne s 78 -m on th to ta l se nt en ce al so was be lo w th e st at ut or y

m ax im um of ei gh t y ears ’ i mp ris on m en t. See 21 U.S.C. § 84 3( d) (p ro vi di ng fo r a

m ax im um te rm of im

pr is on m en t of fo ur y ears , as to each co un t); Valn or , 45 1 F.3 d at

75 1- 52 ; Tall ey , 43 1 F.3 d at 78 8. Acco rd in gl y , Jo ne s ha s no t m et hi s bu rd en , in li gh t

of th e reco rd an d th e pe rti ne nt § 35 53 (a) fact or s, to sh ow th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed

it s d is cret io n i n s en te nc in g h im

.

AFFIRMED.

7