FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 9, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 15481 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 2 - 0 0 4 5 8 - C R - T - 1 7 - T GW U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A R L O K E V I N M C E L R O Y , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 9, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D e fe nda nt - a ppe l l a ntM a r l o K e vi n M c E l r oy pl e a de d gui l ty t o pos s e s s i on2

w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e f i ve gr a m s orm or e of

c r a c k c oc a i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 . T here w as no w ri tt en pl eaagre em ent . T he go vernm entgave no t i ce thatthe penal t i es for posse ss i on w er e am andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence of fi ve ye ar s i m pr i s onm e nta nd as t a tut or y m a xi m um s e nt e nc e of for ty y e a r s i m pr i s onm e nt u n d e r§ 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . T h e u n d e r ly in g fa c ts o f th e c a s e a r e th e s e : W h ile c o n d u c tin g s u r v e illa n c e in th e p a r k , p o lic e o b s e r v e d M c E lr o y p u ll ap ap e rn a p k in f r o m h is p o c k e t; th e n a p k in c o n ta in e d ap la s tic b a g w ith p ie c e s o f c r a c k . M c E lr o y s o ld s o m e o f th e c r a c k to h is c ode fe nda nt , w ho the n s ol d the c r a c k t o am a n i n ac a r . W he n pol i c e m ove d i n, M cE l roy r an and t hrew the napk i n t o the grou nd . M cE l roy r ef used t o st op w hen ordered t o d o so, and p ol i ce w er e force d t o sub du e hi m w i th p epper s pray . P ol i ce r e tr ie v e d th e n a p k in , w h ic h la b te s ts c o n f ir m e d c o n ta in e d 6 .2 g r a m s o f c r a c k . M c E l r oy di s put e d the a m ountof c r a c k, a nd as ubs e que ntl a b t e s ts how e d the a m ounte qua l e d 5. 9 gr a m s . H e a dm i tt e d, how e ve r , tha the pos s e s s e d a nd s ol d a s ubs t a nc e he kne w t o be c r a c k c oc a i ne . A tthe c ha nge - of- pl e ahe a r i ng, the m ag i strat e j u d g e d et erm i n ed th atM cE l ro y h ad p l ead ed t o th e essen t i al el em en t s, even i f he di sput ed som e of the fa ctual proffe r. T he m agi stra t e j ud ge al so ensure d tha tM c E l r oy unde r s t ood tha the fa c e d am a nda t or y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of f i ve y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t a n d am a x im u m s e n te n c e o f fo r ty y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t.Un der U .S. S.G . § 2D 1. 1( c )( 7) , the ba se of fens e le vel is 26 for of

fens e s invo lvi ng at le a st 1 5 grams but less than 20 grams of crack. Thus, even though the probation officer listed the amount for which McElroy

was re sponsible as 6.2 grams - and McElroy asserts that the proper amount was 5.9 grams - the discrepancy is not relevant f

or purpose s of calculatingthe rang e. Notably , the di s tri ctco urts u s t ai n edth e o b j ec ti o nats en ten ci n g.

3 M c E lr o y in d ic a te d h is “c o n c e r n ” o v e rth e f iv e - to - fo r ty y e a r s , b u t r e a f f ir m e d h is in ten t t o p lead g u il ty. T h e c o u rt ac ce p ted th e p lea o n th e m ag istrate ju d g e’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n . T he prob ati on offi ce r pre pare d a pres ent ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt(“ P S I” ), a s s i gni ng aba s e of

fe ns e l e ve l of

26 unde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1( c ) ( 7) . T he pr oba t i on 1 of f i c e rthe n l i s t e d M c E l r oy ’ s pr i orfe l ony c onvi c ti ons forc r i m e s of vi ol e nc e a nd a control l ed subst ance offe nse, qu al i fy i ng M cE l roy a s acare eroffe nd erun der U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1. B ec ause the st atut ory m axi m um penal ty w as 40 ye ar s i m pri sonm ent , the offens e l evel w as i ncre as ed t o 3 4 u nd er§ 4 B 1. 1. W i th a three l e ve l r e duc t i on fora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , the t ot a l of fe ns e l e ve l w a s 31. T he prob ati on offi ce r det er m i ned t hatM cE l roy had nu m er ou s pri or conv i cti on s, w hi ch re sul t ed i n 1 0 cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s a nd a c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory V , bu tw hi ch w as i ncre as ed t o V I und erthe ca re er -off ender provi si on . T he re sul t i ng gu i del i nes r a n g e w a s 1 8 8 to 2 3 5 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. M cE l roy obj ec t ed t o, i nt eral i a, the appl i ca t i on of the ca re eroffe nd er pr ovi s i on on the gr ound tha tthe fa i l ur e t o l i s tthe pr i orc onvi c t i ons i n the4

i nd i ctm entre sul t ed i n S i xth A m endm entand d ue process vi ol ati on s. H e f urther a r g u e d th a t h e h a d n o n o tic e th a t h e fa c e d e n h a n c e d p e n a ltie s u n d e r§ 4 B 1 .1 . A tse nt enci ng , M cE l roy c on ce ded t hatthe appl i ca t i on of the ca re er -off ender p r o v is io n w a s c o rr e c t, b u t h e c la im e d th a t it o v e r - r e p r e s e n te d h is c r im e a n d h is cr i m i nal hi st ory. H e not ed the di sc re panci es bet w ee n the ca l cul at ed gu i del i nes r a nge a nd the s e nt e nc e s he fa c e d i f hi s gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s c a l c ul a t e d w i thoutthe pri or conv i cti on s ( thatw er e notchar ged i n the i nd i ctm ent ) or i f he w as se nt ence d b a s e d o n h i s a c tu a l c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y p o i n t s . He f u r th e ra r g u e d th a tth e t wo p r e d ic a te o f

fe n s e s s h o u ld n o t c o u n t, a s h e h a d o n ly p le a d e d g u ilty b e c a u s e th e s ta te offe re d h i m “ sw ee thear t ” dea l s. H e urged the courtt o u se i t s di sc re t i on t o sent ence hi m be l ow the gui de l i ne s r a nge . T he di s tr i c tc our tove rr ul e d the obj e c t i on, f i ndi ng th a t th e g u id e lin e s w e r e p r o p e r ly c a lc u la te d . M cE l roy nextar gu ed thathe shou l d n otbe consi dere d a ca re eroffe nd er beca use he w as no tt ol d atthe t i m e he e nt er ed hi s pl eathathe fa ce d an enh ance d se nt ence . T he courtre

j ec t ed thi s argum ent , st ati ng thatM cE l roy had been advis ed tha tthe gui de l i ne s a ppl i e d, a nd he w a s a w a r e of hi s ow n c r i m i na l hi s t or y . T he c our tthe n gr a nt e d the gove r nm e nt ’ s m ot i on foraone - poi ntr e duc t i on ba s e d on s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e , U . S . S . G . § 5K 1. 1, a nd a dde d a n a ddi t i ona l one - poi nt r e duc t i on. W i th at ot a l of fe ns e l e ve l of

29, the gui de l i ne s r a nge be c a m e 151 t o 188This court h as reje cted the g overnment’s argument that a sentence w ithin the guidelines 2 rang e is presumptively

rea sonable. United St at es v . Wini ng ear , 422 F.3d 1241, 1246 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (holdingthat sentenc es within the rang e are not per se re asonable ). 5 mo n th s . Co n s i d e r i n g th e g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e a n d th e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s o f 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , th e c o u r t s e n te n c e d M c E lr o y to 1 5 1 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t, w h ic h it found t o be s uf

f i c i e nt , butnotgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a r y , t o a c hi e ve the s e nt e nc i ng go al s. M cE l roy now appeal s, chal l engi ng (1) w hether the se nt ence i m po se d w as re as on abl e, and (2) w hether the courtw as re qu i re d t o g i ve hi m ac tual w ri tt en no t i ce before appl yi ng enhanced penal t i es for hi s s t atus as a c ar ee r off ender. A . R easo n ab l en ess M c E l r oy a r gue s tha thi s s t a tus a s ac a r e e rof fe nde rgr e a t l y i nc r e a s e d the g u id e lin e s r a n g e , r e n d e r in g h is s e n te n c e u n fa ir . A ft erB oo ker, w e r evi ew a def endant ’ s s ent ence for r ea sonabl enes s. U ni t ed 2 S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1244 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w fo r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A d d itio n a lly , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is sti l l re qu i re d t o correc t l y c al cul at e the gu i del i nes r ange. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. L ee , 4 2 7 F .3 d 8 8 1 , 8 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . M c E lr o y b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f s h o w in g th a t h is se nt ence w as un re as on abl e. U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). H er e, the se nt ence i m po se d w as re as on abl e. F i rs t , the courti m po se dThese f actor s include the available sentence s, the calculated guideline rang e, the nature 3 and circumstance s of th e o ff ense, and the nee d for the sentenceto refle ct the seriousness of the offense, promote respec t for the law , and providejust punishm ent for the o ff en s e. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . 6 s e nt e nc e a tthe bott om of the gui de l i ne s r a nge , a nd thi s s e nt e nc e fe l l w e l l be l ow the s t a tut or y m a xi m um of

for t y y e a r s i m pr i s onm e nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a r t i ne z , 434 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 22 (11th C i r. 20 06 ); W i ni ng ear, 42 2 F . 3d at12 46 . S ec on d, the court depart ed do w nw ar d ano ther poi nti n add i t i on t o the re du cti on for s ub st ant i al assi st an ce. M o reo v er, th e co u rtco n si d ered M cE l ro y’ s l en g th y cri m i n al h i st o ry, w hi ch had res ul t ed i n a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory V w i tho utthe ca re er -off ender e nha nc e m e nt . T he c our tthe n c ons i de r e d the s e nt e nc i ng fa c t or s of § 3553( a ) a nd d et erm i n ed th ata sen t en ce atth e l o w en d o f th e ran g e w as su ffi ci en tt o m eetth ese fa ct ors. A l tho ug h the courtdi d n otst at e the w ei gh tgi ven t o eac h fac t or, i tw as

3 no tre qu i re d t o d o so. U ni t ed S t at es v. S cott , 42 6 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R obl e s , 408 F . 3d 1324, 1328 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . M c E l r oy h a s o f fe r e d n o th in g to s h o w th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n a b le . B . N ot i ce M c E l r oy ne xta r gue s tha thi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n the courtfa i l ed t o adv i se hi m atthe t i m e of hi s pl eathathe fa ce d an enh ance d sent ence b a s e d o n h is s ta tu s a s ac a r e e r - o f fe n d e r . H e c o n te n d s th a t n o tic e o f p o s s ib le care er -off

ender s t atus i s r equi re d j ustas no ti ce of enhanced penal t i es i s r equi re d7

u n d e r2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 1 . W he the rthe a ppl i c a t i on of the gui de l i ne s vi ol a t e s due pr oc e s s i s aque s t i on of l a w s ubj e c tt o de novo r e vi e w . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. J ohns , 984 F . 2d 1162, 1163 (11th C i r. 19 93 ). T hi s c ou rthas r ej ec t ed M cE l roy’ s c l ai m thathe w as ent i t l ed t o n ot i ce before hi s s e nt e nc e w a s e nha nc e d ba s e d on hi s s t a tus a s ac a r e e rof fe nde r , Y oung v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 936 F . 2d 533, 536 ( 11th C i r . 1991) , a nd M c E l r oy ha s c i t e d no a uthor i t y forhi s a r gum e nt . M or e ove r , M c E l r oy w a s a w a r e of the m a xi m um p e n a l t y h e fa c e d , a n d th e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d fe l l w e l l b e l o w th e ma x i mu m. A c c o r d i n g l y , fo rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , w e A F F I R M.