FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 24, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 12706 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D oc ke tN o. 03- 00050- C R - 1- W S - 006 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 C U S F I T Z G E R A L D S T E V E N S O N , D e f e 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 f o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 24, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h is is M a r c u s F . S te v e n s o n ’s th ir d ap p e a l o f h is s e n te n c e f

o rin te r s ta te2

tr a n s p o r ta tio n in a id o f

r a c k e te e r in g , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 2 ( a ) . S t ev en so n arg u es th ath i s re-i m p o sed 5 7 -m o n th sen t en ce i s u n reaso n ab l e b ecau se th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f

a ile d to c o n s id e rp r o p e r ly th e f a c to r s in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. I . B AC KG RO UN D S te v e n s o n p le d g u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f tr a v e lin g in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e w ith i nt e ntt o f

a c i l i t a t e the pr om ot i on of a n unl a w f

ul a c t i vi ty ( na m e l y the pos s e s s i on w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te o n e p o u n d o f m a r iju a n a ) , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 19 52 (a )( 2) and (3). A cc ordi ng t o the fa ctual al l egat i on s i n the pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por t( “ P S I ” ) , t o w hi c h S t e ve ns on di d notobj e c t , S t e ve ns on pa r t i c i pa t e d i n adrug s m uggl i ng c ons pi r a c y by pi c ki ng up s hi pm e nt s of m a r i j ua na i n B at on R ou ge, L ou i si ana a nd dri vi ng them t o M ob i l e, A l abam a. T he P S I r ec om m ended a t ot al offe nse l evel of 21 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c a te g o ry o f

V , r e s u ltin g in ag u id e lin e s r a n g e o f 7 0 to 8 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. H ow ever , because the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence for S t evenson’ s off ense s w as 6 0 m o n th s, th e P S I co n cl u d ed th atS t ev en so n ’ s g u i d el i n es sen t en ce w as 6 0 m o n th s. A ts e nt e nc i ng, S t e ve ns on s uc c e s s f ul l y a r gue d f

oram i norr ol e r e duc t i on, r e s ul t i ng i n a gu i del i nes r ange of 57 t o 6 0 m on ths. S t evenson al so ar gu ed for ase nt ence b e lo w th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e b a s e d o n th e le s s e rs e n te n c e s r e c e iv e d b y s o m e o f h is3

co-defe nd ant s. N ot i ng thati tw as bo un d b y the gu i del i nes, the di stri ctcourt sen t en ced S t ev en so n t o 5 7 m o n th s. O n S t evenson’ s f

i rs tappeal , thi s C ou rtconcl ud ed thatS t evenson’ s c ri m i nal hi s t ory ha d be e n pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e d, butva c a t e d S t e ve ns on’ s s e nt e nc e a nd re m anded for res ent enci ng un der a n adv i sorygu i del i nes s chem e pursuantt o U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t evenson, 13 1 F . A pp ’ x 2 48 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). O n rem and, the di stri ctcourt im p o se d th e s am e 5 7 -m o n th se n ten ce w ith o u t h o ld in g a h ea rin g . O n S tev en so n ’s se cond appeal , thi s C ou rtvaca t ed S t evenson’ s s ent ence and d i re ct ed the di stri ct c o u r t o n r e m a n d to p r o v id e S te v e n s o n a n o p p o r tu n ity to a d d r e s s th e c o u r t, a n d to c o n s i d e rth e f

a c t o r s i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . Se e U n i t e d St a t e s v . St e v e n s o n , 1 6 2 F. A pp ’ x 9 07 (11th C i r. 20 06 ). A t th e r e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , S te v e n s o n a r g u e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld i m po se a s ent ence bel ow the gu i del i nes r ange based on: (1) the di spar i ty betw ee n hi s s e nt e nc e a nd the s e nt e nc e s of hi s c o- de f

e nda nt s , ( 2) the f

a c ttha ttw o of St e v e n s o n ’ s c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry p o i n t s w e r e ar e s u l to f b e i n g o n p r o b a t i o n a tth e t i me of the offens e, w hen i n fac tthe prob at i on w as on l y at ec hn i ca l i ty t o col l ec ta f i ne, and (3) S t evenson’ s post -c on vi ct i on re habi l i t at i on and con du ct . T he di stri ctcourt co n clu d ed th at S tev en so n ’s h ig h erse n ten ce w as w ar ra n ted d u e to S tev en so n ’sStevenson also points to comments by the district court at Stev en s o n ’s initial pre-B ooker 1 sentenc ing that sugg ested that, but for the m andator

y nature of the guidelines, it might haveimposed a low er s entenc e . O n re mand and po st- B oo ker, thedis tric t c ourt wa s n ot b ound

by su c h c omm ents in determiningwhat sentence w as re asonable . Th efac tor s in

18 U. S.C. § 355 3( a) inc lude : (1) thenatureand c ircums tanc e s o f t

heof fens e 2 and the history

and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt; (2) the nee d to refle ct th e s er i o u s n es s of the offense, to promote re spect for the law, a nd to provide just punishment for the off ense; (3)the nee d for deterrence; (4) the ne ed to protec t the public; (5) the ne ed to provide thedefendant with neede d educational o r vocational training or medical c are ; (6) the kinds of sentence s available ; (7) the SentencingGuidelines ra

ng e; (8) pertinent policy

statements of the SentencingCommi ssion; (9) the ne e d toavo id u

nw ante d s entenc ingdispa ritie s; a nd (1 0) thene e d toprov ide re stitution to vic tim s. 4 s i gni f i c a ntc r i m i na l hi s t ory ( c a t e gory V ) . T he di s tr i c tc our tthe n r e - i m pos e d a57- m on th sent ence , no t i ng thati thad con si dere d S t evenson’ s a rgum ent s a nd the § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . S te v e n s o n f

ile d th is th ir d ap p e a l. I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l , St e v e n s o n c o n t e n d s th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tg a v e o n l y “ s h a m” c o n s id e r a tio n to th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s b e f

o r e r e - im p o s in g th e s a m e s e n te n c e . S te v e n s o n e m p h a s iz e s th e d is p a r ity b e tw e e n h is s e n te n c e a n d th e s e n te n c e s o f h is co -d efen d an t s. 1 A ft er B o o k er, a d i stri ctco u rt , i n d et erm i n i n g a reaso n ab l e sen t en ce, m u st corr ec t l y c al cul at e the advi sorygu i del i nes r ange and then con si der the fa ct ors s et f o r th in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th 2 C i r . 2005) . W e r e vi e w ade f e nda nt ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e f orr e a s onabl e ne s s i n l i ght o f th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r s . U n ite d S ta te s v . W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 6 ( 1 1 thAs the district court corre ctly noted, on rema nd, Stevenson’s guidelines calculations were 3 thelaw o f the c a se and , ab sent an e xcepti on , co uld no t hav e be en re -opene d with out vi olatingthi s Court’s limit ed mandate. See United States v. D avis, 329 F.3d 1250, 1252 ( 11th Cir. 2003). 5 C i r . 2005) . T hi s “ [ r ] e vi e w f orr e a s onabl e ne s s i s de f e r e nt i a l . . . . a nd w he n the d i s tr i c tc o u r ti m p o s e s as e n t e n c e wi th i n th e a d v i s o ry Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e , we o r d in a r ily w ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e ar e a s o n ab le o n e .” T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 7 8 8 .

“ [ T ] he pa r ty w ho c ha l l e nge s the s e nt e nc e be a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e i n the l i ghtof both [ the ] r e c or d a nd the f a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” I d. A f te rr e v ie w , w e c o n c lu d e th a t S te v e n s o n h a s n o t s h o w n th a t h is 5 7 - m o n th s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e . T he di s tr i c tc our ti ndi c a t e d tha ti tha d c ons i de r e d the c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T he

3 d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o c o n s id e r e d S te v e n s o n ’s a r g u m e n ts in m itig a tio n , in c lu d in g h is pos t - c onvi c t i on r e habi l i t a t i on a nd the di s pa r i ty be tw e e n S t e ve ns on’ s s e nt e nc e a nd the s e nt e nc e s of

hi s c o- de f

e nda nt s . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c tc our tc onc l ude d tha tthe sen t en ce d i sp ari ty w as w arran t ed g i v en S t ev en so n ’ s ex t en si v e cri m i n al h i st o ry, w hi c h w a s ac a t e gory V . A c c or di ngl y , w e c a nnots a y tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s 57- m on th sent ence , atthe l ow end o f the advi sorygu i del i nes r ange, i s unrea sonabl e. AF F I RME D.