FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 24, 2008 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. 07- 12113 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 06 -002 04 -C R -1-1 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 E R I C K B I L L I N G S , 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 N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 24, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: E ri ck B i l l i n g s ap p eal s h i s co n v i ct i o n s, an d 2 7 -m o n th co n cu rren tse n te n ces, f o rth r e e c o u n t s o f

p r o v i d i n g f

a l s e i n f o rma t i o n t o af

e d e r a l l y l i c e n s e d f

i r e a rms2

d eal er, i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (a)(1 )(A ). O n ap p eal , B i llin g s rai ses th ese c la im s : ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty pl ea ; (2) the di stri ctcourterre d b y denyi ng hi s m o ti o n fo r a n acc ept ance -ofre spon si bi l i ty a dj ustm ent , un der U .S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) ; and (3) the di stri ctcourt i m pos e d apr oc e dur a l l y unr e a s onab l e sen t e nc e be c a us e i tf a i l e d t o c ons i de ra l l of t he mi t i ga t i ng f

a c t or s r a i s e d by Bi l l i ng s a nd l i s t e d i n 18 U . S. C. § 35 53 ( a ) . A ft er c a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i rm. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s d en i al o f am ot i on t o w i thdr a w agui l ty pl e af or abuse of d iscr etio n. U ni t ed S t at es v. M cC arty, 99 F . 3d 38 3, 38 5 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ). T h e g o o d f

a ith , c r e d ib ilit y , a n d w e ig h t o f th e d e f e n d a n t’s r e p r e s e n ta tio n s in supp or t o f the m ot i on t o w i thd ra w ar e i ss ues f or the tri al courtt o d ec i de. U ni t ed S t at e s v. Buc kl e s , 84 3 F. 2d 46 9, 47 2 ( 11 th Ci r . 19 88 ) . W e r e vi e w the di stri ct c our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s de no vo, a nd i t s f i ndi ngs r e ga r di ng the deni al of an acc ept ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty a dj ustm entfor c l ea r e rr or. S ee U ni t ed S tates v . C o e, 7 9 F .3 d 1 2 6 , 1 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e s en ten cin g ju d g e’s d e t e r m i n a tio n r e g a r d in g ad e f e n d a n t’s a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility “is e n title d to g r e a t d e f e r e n c e o n r e v ie w .” U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 ( a ) , c o m m e n t. ( n .5 ) . W e re vi ew a def

endant ’ s ul t i m at e s ent ence for r ea sonabl enes s. U ni t ed S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 264 ( 2005) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l ey, 431 F . 3d 784,3

78 5 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 05 ) . U nd e rthe po s t - Book e r , a dv i s ory G ui de l i ne s r e gi me , di s tr i ct court s e nj oy si gn i fi ca ntl at i tud e i n i m p o sin g cr i m i nal se nt ence s. R i t a v. U ni t ed S t at es , -- - U . S . -- -, 12 7 S . C t . 24 56 , 24 65 (200 7); se e a l so G al l v. U ni t ed S t at es , -- - U . S . - - - , N o. 06- 7949, 2007 W L 4292116, a t*7 ( U . S . D e c. 1 0 , 2 0 07) . T he
re as on abl enes s s t andard of appel l at e r evi ew i s a ki n t o abu se o f d iscr et i on . S ee G a l l , 2007 W L 4 2 9 2 116, a t*7 ( “ O ure xpl a na t i on of ‘ r e a s onabl e ne s s ’ r e vi e w i n the B ooke ropi ni on m a de i tpe l l uc i dl y c l e a rtha tthe f a m i l i a rabus e - of

- di scre t i on st andard of revi ew no w appl i es t o app el l at e r evi ew of se nt enci ng d ec isions. ”) ; K i m br ough v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 552 U . S . -- - - , 2007 W L 4292040, a t*15 ( D e c . 10, 2 0 0 7 ) ( statin g th at ap p ellate co u rts m u st g iv e “d u e r es p ec t t o [a ] D is tr ict C o u rt’s
re as on ed apprai sa l ” of the prop erse nt ence for adefe nd ant ). T he re l evant fa ct s ar e these . O n A pri l 25 , 20 06 , a fe dera l grand j ury i nd i ct ed B i l l i ng s on three coun ts o f prov i di ng fa l se i nform at i on t o a fe dera l l y l i ce nsed f i r e a rm s de a l e r , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 924( a ) ( 1) ( A ) . B i l l i n g s en t ere d anonnego t i at ed pl eaof gu i l ty t o al l three coun t s an d th e di stri ctcourtcond uct ed a pl ea col l oq uy. D uri ng thatcol l oq uy, the co u rt asked B i l l i ng s, i n rel evantpart , w hether he unde r s t ood tha t“ by pl e a di ng gui l ty t o the s e c ha r ge s the C our tc a n s e nt e nc e y ou t o f i ve y e a r s i nc a r c e r a t i o n o n each count . ” B i l l i ngs a ns w e r e d a f f i rm a t i ve l y a nd f urthe rs t a t e d tha the ha d t a l ke d w i th h i s a tt orne y abo utthe Se nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes4

and unde r s t oo d tha tthe di s tr i c tc ou r tw ou l d h a ve t o c on s ul tthe G ui de l i ne s be f ore s e n te n c in g , b u t th a t it w a s n o t p o s s ib le to d e te rm in e h o w th e G u id e lin e s w o u ld
a f f e c thi s s e nt e nc e u n t i l aP r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t( “ P S I ” ) w a s c om pl e t e d. B i l l i ng s a l so sa i d thathe un ders t oo d thathe w ou l d st i l l be bo un d b y hi s gui l ty pl ea e v e n if h is s e n te n c e w a s m o r e s e v e r e th a n h e e x p e c te d . A f t e rf i ndi ng tha tB i l l i n g s’ s gui l ty pl e aw a s know i ngl y , vol unt a r i l y , a nd i nt e l l i ge nt l y e nt e r e d, the c our ta c c e pt e d the pl ea an d s e tas e nt e nc i ng da t e . T he f o llo w in g e x c h a n g e th e n to o k p la c e b e tw e e n th e c o u r t a n d B illin g s ’s c o u n s e l: C O U R T : A l l r i ght , M r . B i l l i ngs . I a ssu m e t he gove rnm e nt

doe s n’ toppos e y ourr e m a i ni ng on bond a nd y ou ne e d t o f ol l ow the i ns truc t i ons of yo u r a tt orne y a nd the pro b at i o n of

f i c e ra nd be ba c k on tha tda t e f or s e nt e n c i n g . H a v e y o u g o t a n y q u e s t i o n s ? O h , oh. I ’ m notgoi ng t o l oc k y ou up t oda y . W ha t ’ s the prob l em ? T he g o vernm enti s notgo i ng t o l ock y ou up. T he y w a i t e d f

oury e a r s t o pr os e c ut e y ou. C O U N S E L : J u d g e , M r . B i llin g s , y o u m a y h a v e s e e n h is f a m ily h e r e w ith h im . H e ’s g o t tw o y o u n g c h ild r e n , a four m on th and ei gh t ee n m on th o ld , a nd i t ’ s bee n w e i ghi n g he a vy on hi s m i nd, the pos s i bi l i ty of t i m e an d h o w th atw i l l affect hi s fam i l y. C O U R T : W e a r e n o t g o in g to m a k e th a t d e c is io n to d a y , b u t I

e nc our a ge y ou t o s t a y c l e a n be tw e e n n o w and the n. D on’ tge ta rr e s t e d. A c c or di ng t o the P S I, i nf orm a t i on r e c e i ve d f

r om tw o pa w n s hops i n or ar ou nd Jonesboro, G eorgi a r evealed th at , i n 2 00 1 and 20 02 , B i l l i ng s purchas ed5

e i ghtf i r e a rm s . F o r eac h of

the s e pur c ha s e s , on the A T F F orm 4473, B i l l i ngs a f f i r m e d t h a t h e w a s th e a c tu a l b u y e r , a n d h e w a s n o t b u y in g th e f ir e a rm s o n b e h a lf
o f an o th er p erso n . O n M arch 3 , 2 0 0 3 , d u ri n g a n in te r v iew w i th au th o ri t i es, B i l l i ngs s t a t ed t h at h e ha d s ol d thr e e of the f i r e a rm s t o “ C a l vi n” a nd tha tthe f i ve o t h e r s w e r e s to le n f

r o m h im . T h r e e d a y la te r , h e to ld a u th o r itie s th a t “C a lv in ” p a id h i m t o p u rch ase al l ei g h t fi rearm s. O n M arch 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , B i l l i n g s a d m itte d to au th o ri t i es thathe ac tual l y bou gh t11 or 12 fi re arm s f or C hase M anni ng , and that hi s pr i ors t a t e m e nt s w e r e untrue be c a us e “ C a l vi n” w a s af i c t i t i ous na m e. B i l l i ngs s t a t e d tha tM an n i n g s pe c i f i c a l l y i de nt i f

i e d the guns he w a nt e d a nd ga ve B i l l i ngs m o n e y to p u r c h a s e th e g u n s . I n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 5 , B ill i n g s a g a in a d m itte d to a uthor i t i e s tha tM a nn i ng r e c rui t e d hi m t o pur c ha s e the f i r e a rm s , a nd s uppl i e d the
m o n e y f o rth e p u r c h a s e s . T he P S I not ed that , af

t erhi s i nd i ctm enti n A pri l 20 06 , B i l l i ng s w as re l ea se d on bond, s ubj e ct t o cert a i n c ondi t i ons . I n N ove m be r2006, he t e s t e d pos i t i ve f or m a r i j ua na . A f

t e rtw o n ega t i ve t e s t s , he a ga i n t e s t e d pos i t i ve i n F e brua ry 2007,
w hi c h w a s one m on t h af t e rthe pl e ac ol l oquy he a r i ng. H e s ubs e que nt l y di d not
re po rtfor asc hedu l ed uri ne sc re en in M ar ch 2 0 07 . T he P S I not ed thatB i l l i ng s had begu n att endi ng w ee kl y c ou nsel i ng se ss i on s a nd tw i ce -w ee kl y N ar cot i cs A n o n y m o u s m e e tin g s . T h e P S I a ls o n o te d th a t B i l l i n g s h a d c lo s e f a m ily6

r e l a t i ons hi ps , a nd he l i ve d i n hi s m othe r ’ s hous e w i th hi s w i f e an d the i rtw o y oung c h ild r e n . T he P S I a s s i gne d B i l l i ngs a n a dj us t e d of f e ns e l ev el o f

16, a f t e rde ny i ng B i l l i ng s a2-l evel adj ustm entfor a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty bec ause of hi s f ai l ed d ru g t e s t s a n d f

a i l u r e t o r e p o r t f

o r a d r u g t e s t . Wi th ac r i m i n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry I V, B i l l i ng s fac ed a G ui del i nes s ent enci ng ra ng e of 33 t o 4 1 m on ths. B i l l i ng s f i l ed
o b je c tio n s to th e P S I ’s f a ilu r e t o a w a r d h im a n a c c e p ta n c e - o f
- r e s p o n s ib ility
a d ju s tm e n t a n d to th e P S I ’s r e c o m m e n d a tio n o f ac r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry I V . A t the se nt enci ng hear i ng , B i l l i ng s ar gu ed that he d es er v ed an ac ce p tanceof
- r e s pons i bi l i ty a dj us tm e ntbe c a us e he ha d a dm i t t ed hi s r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd
co o p erat ed w i th au th o ri t i es an d h ad en t ered a g u i l ty p le a . A cco rd i n g t o B i l l i n g s, hi s posi t i ve t es t s f

or m ar i j uana w er e unrel at ed t o the cr im e at issu e, and they w er e o u tw e ig h ed b y h i s act i o n s d em o n strat i n g accep t an ce o f resp o n si b i l i ty. D efen se coun se l al so no t ed thatB i l l i ng s w as un dergoi ng tre atm en t and att endi ng cl as se s r e g a r d in g h is p r io rm a r iju a n au s e , a n d a ll h is r e c e n t te s ts h a d c o m e b a c k n e g a tiv e . T he di s tr i c tc our tnot e d tha ta l though i tc oul d “ pr obabl y f or gi ve ” one po si t i ve t es tfor m ar i

j uana, there had b ee n m ul t i pl e p o siti v e t es t s a nd B i l l i ng s had
m i ssed a sch ed u le d te s t. In ad o p t i n g th e P S I’ s o ffen se l ev el co m p u t at i o n s, i ncl ud i ng the deni al of the ac ce pt ance -of- re spon si bi l i ty a dj ustm ent , the di stri ct7

c o u r t n o te d th a t th e a u th o r itie s h a d tr o u b le a c q u ir in g in f o rm a tio n in th e ir i nv e s t i ga t i on, a nd B i l l i ngs “ ga ve the m f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s . . . tha tm a de the in v e s tig a tio n ta k e lo n g e r .” T he di stri ctcourtsust ai n ed B i l l i ng s’ s obj ec t i on re gardi ng hi s c ri m i nal hi s t ory c a t e gory , a nd l ow e r e d i t t o ac a t e gory I I I , w hi c h y i e l de d aG ui de l i ne s r a nge of 27 t o 33 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he c our tthe n i nvi t e d B i l l i ngs t o pr e s e nt
m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e on the s e nt e nc e t o be i m pos e d. B i l l i ngs ’ s m othe rt e s t i f i e d on hi s be ha l f

, de s c r i bi ng hi s pos i t i ve ro l e i n the fa m i l y a nd as a fa th ert o h i s y ou ng chi l dren. C ou nsel for B i l l i ng s then p re se nt ed
a r gum e nton the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s , ur gi ng tha tas e nt e nce of pr oba t i on w i thout in ca rc er atio n w o u ld b e su ff icien t. S p ec ifically, co u n se l h ig h li g h ted B illi n g s’s f a m i l y s i tua t i on, i nc l udi ng hi s r e s pons i bi l i t i es as af a the r , a nd tha tB i l l i ngs w a s no lo n g erin clin ed to co m m itcr im in al co n d u ct. C o u n s e l also stated th at B il li n g s’s
r e c e n t u s e o f m a r i

ju a n aw a s d u e to s tr e s s r e la te d to th is c a s e a n d th e h e a lth o f h is
s o n . F in a lly , c o u n s e l n o te d th a t B il l i n g s w a s u n d e r g o in g tr e a tm e n t f o rh is
m ar i j uana prob l em , thatB i l l i ng s’ s off ense cond uctoccurre d i n 2 00 2, and that B illin g s h a d b e e n c o o p e r a tiv e a n d tru th f u l a t n e a r ly a ll s ta g e s o f th e in v e s tig a tio n . T h e co u rtth en h e a r d B il l i n g s’ s st at em en t , d u ri n g w h i ch h e sai d th ath e w as a c h a n g e d m a n , a n d th a t h is f a m ily w a s th e m o s t im p o r ta n t th in g in h is lif e .8

T he di stri ctco u rt im p osed se nt ence s of 27 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entfor e ac h
coun t , t o b e s erved con curr ent l y, w hi ch fe l l atthe l ow end o f the G u id elin es ra ng e. In i m po si ng se nt ence, th e co urtst at ed thati thad con si dere d “ the gu i del i nes und er the st atut e on the defendant ’ s behal f” an d n ot ed thatthe fol l ow i ng fa ct ors w ei gh ed i n fav o r o f

B i l l i ngs : ( 1) the t i m e be tw e e n the of f e ns e c onduc ta nd s e nt e nc i ng; ( 2) th e f a c t th a t B illin g s w a s e m p l o y e d ; ( 3 ) h is f a m ily ’s s u p p o r t; a n d ( 4 ) h is r o le in
su p p o rt i n g h i s fam i l y an d l o v e fo r h i s ch i l d ren . D esp i t e th ese m i t i g at i n g fact o rs, how e ve r , the c our tf

ound th ata27- m onth t ot a l s e nt e nc e w a s j us t i f i e d i n l i ghtof B i l l i ngs ’ s pr i orc r i m i na l r e c or d, hi s us e of m a r i j ua na b efo r e s e nt e nc i ng, hi s l a c k of
ap o s itiv e w o rk h is to ry , a n d th e o f f e n s e a t is s u e . B ef ore the se nt enci ng hear i ng concl ud ed, B i l l i ng s pers on al l y obj ec t ed that h e th o u g h t th a t h e w o u ld n o t r e c e iv e a n y ja il tim e b a s e d o n th e ju d g e ’s s ta t e m e n ts a t hi s pl e a he a r i ng. C ouns e l e xpl a i ne d tha t B i l l i ngs w a s r e f e rr i ng t o the st at em e nt
m a de by the j ud g e aft er B i l l i ngs e nt e r e d hi s pl e aa nd the c our ta c c e pt e d i t . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e s ponde d, “ I don’ tw a nta ny m i s unde r s t a ndi ng on hi s pa r t . I ’ l l a l l ow hi m t o w i thd ra w hi s pl eai f he f ee l s l i ke he has been tri cked or m ani pu l at ed. ” B illin g s s u b s e q u e n tly f ile d am o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a . A t a he a r i ng on the m ot i o n , B i l l i ngs a r gue d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s t a t e m e nt s a tthe e nd
o f th e p lea h ea rin g g av e B il li n g s a n d h is co u n se l th e im p re ss io n th at B il li n g s’s9

f in a l s e n te n c e w o u ld n o t in v o lv e in c a r c e r a tio n . C o u n s e l a s s e r te d th a t th is i m pr e s s i on a f

f e c t e d the w a y he a nd B i l l i ngs pr e pa r e d f ort h e sen t en c i ng he a r i ng. T he di stri ctcourtd en ied B i l l i ng s’ s m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea , fin d in g th at th e statem en t at issu e fro m th e p lea h ea rin g d id n o t re fe r t o B il li n g s’s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e a nd di d nota f f e c tthe gui l ty pl e abe c a us e the pl e ac ol l oquy i ndi c a t e d tha tB i l l i ngs unde r s t ood how s e nt e nc i ng w oul d pr oc e e d a nd the
s ta te m e n t w a s m a d e a f

te rB illin g s ’s p le aw a s a c c e p te d . T h e c o u r t a ls o n o te d th a t it had m ade the st at em entaf t erB i l l i ng s bec am e e m ot i on al , atw hi ch p o in t th e c ou rt
w as try i ng t o ass ure hi m thati tw ou l d n otre vo ke his bo nd or l ock h i m up on that da y . T hi s appe a l f

ol l ow e d. F ir s t, B illin g s a s s e r ts th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d b y d e n y in g h is m o tio n to
w i t hdr a w hi s gu i l ty pl e a , i n w hi c h he a r gu e d tha t the di s tr i c t c ou r t mi s l e d hi m at th e p l ea co l l o q u y w h en th e co u rtst at ed , “ I’ m n o tg o i n g t o lo ck yo u u p t o d ay. W hat ’ s the prob l em ? T he go vernm enti s notgo i ng t o l ock you up . T hey w ai t ed f ouryears t o pr os e c ut e y ou. ” N ot abl y , the f or e goi ng s t a t e m e ntw a s m a de a tthe cl ose of the heari ng on B i l l i ng s’ s gui l ty pl ea , af t erthe co u rt h ad ac ce pt ed the pl ea a s k n o w in g ly , v o lu n ta r ily , a n d in te llig e n tly m a d e . A de f e nda ntm ay w i thdr a w agui l ty pl e aa f t e rthe c our ta c c e pt s the pl e a , but be f or e i ti m pos e s s e nt e nc e , i f the de f e nda nts how s “ af

a i ra nd j us tr e a s on f

or10

r e que s t i ng the w i thdr a w a l . ” F ed . R . C ri m . P . 11( d) . I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe defe nd antshow ed a f

ai r a nd j ustre as on , w i thi n the m ea ni ng of R ule 1 1 , th e di stri ct courtm ayconsi der the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s s urroun di ng the p le a, i ncl ud i ng the fol l ow i ng fa ct ors: (1) w hether c l ose a ss i st ance o f co u nsel w as avai l abl e; (2 ) w h eth er the pl eaw as kn ow i ng and v ol un t ary; (3) w hether j ud i ci al
r e s our c e s w oul d be c ons e rve d ; an d ( 4) w he the rthe gove rnm e ntw oul d be pr e j udi c e d by the pl e aw i thdr a w a l . B u c kl e s , 843 F . 2d a t472 ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons om i tt ed). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o n d u c ts ap le ac o llo q u y , p u r s u a n t to R u le 1 1 , i n o r d e rto e ns ur e tha tade f

e nda nt ’ s gui l ty pl e ai s know i ng a nd vol unt a ry . U ni t e d S t a t es v. H e rna nde z - F r a i r e , 208 F . 3d 945 , 9 4 9 ( 11th C i r . 2000) . T he r e i s as tr ong pres um pt i on thatst at em ent s m ade duri ng the R ul e 11 p l eaco ll o q u y are true. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Me d l o c k , 1 2 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 4 ) . Fo r e x a mp l e , we consi dere d a ca se w here the defendantas ked t o w i thd raw h i s pl eabecause he w as u n d e rth e m is ta k e n im p r e s s io n th a t h e w o u l d r e c e iv e a n 1 8
- m o n th s e n te n c e , d e s p ite hi s s t at em entatthe col l oq uy thathe u n d erst oo d thatthe 18 -m on th sent ence w as onl y anon- bi ndi ng r e c om m e nda t i on. U ni t e d S t a t es v. G onz a l e z - M e r c a do, 808 F . 2d 796, 799 ( 11th C i r. 1987) . “ T o the e xt e nttha tthe appe l l a ntdi d not unde r s t a nd orf

a i l e d t o not e hi s m i s unde r s t a ndi ng, the d i st ri ctc our tc a nnot11

s p e c u l a t e , b u t r a th e rm u s t r e ly s o le ly o n th e ap p e lla n t’s s w o rn s ta te m e n t th a t h e . . . u n d e r s to o d th e p o s s i b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h is g u ilty p le a .” I d . a t 7 9 9
- 8 0 0 . W e f ound tha t the di s tr i c t c our t ha d not abus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng t he de f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w be c au se i t w as r e a s onabl e t o c onc l ude tha tthe de f e nda ntunde r s t ood the c ons e que nc e s of hi s gui l ty pl e a . I d. a t800- 01. W e di s c e rn no abus e of di scr e t i on he r e . F r om ourr e vi e w of the r e c or d, the di s tr i c tc ourt re a s onabl y c onc l ude d, a tthe e nd of the pl e ac ol l oquy , tha tB i l l i ngs unde r s t ood the r a nge of poss i bl e s e nt e nc e s , how s e nt e nc i ng w oul d pr oc e e d, a nd the othe rc ons e quen ces o f h i s gui l ty pl e a . A tno poi ntdi d the c our tpr om i s e anonc us t odi a l s e nt e nc e . M or e ove r , B i l l i ngs ne ve re xhi bi t e d a ny c onf us i on a tthe change-of-pl eahear i ng re gardi ng the di strictcourt ’ s s t at em ent s, and the chal l enged
s ta te m e n ts c o n c e rn in g w h e th e r B illin g s w o u ld b e im p r is o n e d i m m e d ia te ly f o llo w in g th e h e a r in g o c c u rr e d a f te rth e d is t r i c tc o u r t a lr e a d y a c c e p te d h is p le a . O n th is re co rd , th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t a b u se it s d iscr etio n b y d en yin g B il li n g s’s
m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is p le a . W e li k ew i se ar e unp er suaded by B i l l i ng s’ s a rgum entthatthe di stri ctcourt e rred b y d en yi n g h i m an accep t an ce-o f-resp o n si b i l i ty ad j u stm en t u n d er U . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1( a ) . A de f

e nda nti s e nt i t l e d t o atw o- poi ntde c r e a s e t o hi s of f e ns e l e ve l i f

he

“ c l e a r l y d e m o n s tr a t e s a c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i ty f

o r h i s o f

f e n s e . ” U. S . S . G.12

§ 3 E 1. 1(a) . “ T he defendantbe ar s the bu rden of cl ea rl y dem on stra t i ng ac ce pt ance o f r e s pons i bi l i ty a nd m us tpr e s e ntm or e tha n j us tagui l ty pl e a . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S aw ye r, 18 0 F . 3d 13 19 , 13 23 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rthe d efen d anti s e nt i t l e d t o thi s a dj us tm e nt , the di s tr i c tc our tm a y c ons i de r , a m ong othe rr e l e va ntf a c t or s , w het h er the de f e nda nt tru th f u lly a d m itte d h is r e le v a n t c o n d u c t. S e e U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 ( a ) , c o m m e n t. (n. 1(a) ). “ [A ] defe nd antw ho fa l se l y deni es . . . re l evantcond uctthatthe court de t e rm i ne s t o be true ha s a c t e d i n a m a nne ri nc ons i s t e ntw i th a c c e pt a nc e of
r e s p o n s ib ility .” I d . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o m a y c o n s id e rw h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t v o lu n ta r ily te rm in a te d h is c r im in a l c o n d u c t a f te rb e in g in d ic te d o n th e f e d e r a l c h a r g e s . I d ., c om m e n t . ( n . 1 ( b ) ) . Co n d u c t ma y b e r e l e v a n t e v e n i f u n r e l a t e d t o th e o f f e ns e of
conv i ct i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. P ac e, 17 F . 3d 34 1, 34 3 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). M oreover, co n d u ct in co n si s te n t w ith ac ce p tan ce o f r es p o n sib il ity m ay o u tw eig h a d ef en d an t’ s gu i l ty pl eaand h i s truthful adm i ss i on o f r el evantcond uct . U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) , c o m m e n t . ( n .3 ) . T h u s , e v e n w h e r e ad e f e n d a n t p r o v id e d a u th o r itie s w ith i nform at i on , he w as no tdu e a§ 3 E 1. 1(a) adj ustm entw here ev id ence show ed that he cont i nu ed t o u se co ca i ne af t erhi s a rr es ton char ges unrel at ed t o d rug u se . U ni t ed S t at es v. S cr og gi ns, 88 0 F . 2d 12 04 , 12 05 , 12 15 -16 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ).13

T he pr e s e ntr e c or d i ndi c a t e s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tpr ope r l y c ons i de r e d,
am on g o ther f

ac t ors, B i l l i ng s’ s post -i nd i ctm entpo si t i ve m ar i j uana tests, as w el l as t h e d rug t e s the s ki ppe d, i n de ny i ng a n a dj us tm e ntf ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i t y. W e l i kew i se di sc ern n o err or i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on si dera t i on of B i l li n g s’s pre
i ndi c tm e ntf

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s t o i nve s t i ga t or s r e ga r di ng the t ru e i de nt i ty of the pe r s on for w ho m he w as pu rc hasi ng fire ar m s. In short , w e a re sa t i sf i ed thatthe di stri ct c our tpr ope r l y e xe r c i s e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n w e i ghi ng the r e l e van t fact or s a nd de ny i ng th e a d ju s tm e n t. F i n al l y, B i l l i n g s ch al l en g es th e reaso n ab l en ess o f h i s se n te n ce. B i l l i n g s says th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s p r o c e d u r a l ly u n r e a s o n ab le b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to prop er l y c on si der a l l of the re l evantm i t i gat i ng fa ct ors on w hi ch he prese nt ed
e vi de nc e , i nc l udi ng tha t( 1) ac us t odi a l s e nt e nc e w oul d ha rm B i l l i ngs ’ s f a m i l y a nd f a m i l y r e l a t i ons hi ps ; ( 2) anon- c us t odi a l s e nt e nc e w oul d s uf f i c i e nt l y refl ectthe
s e r io u s n e s s o f t h e c r i m e ; a n d ( 3 ) an o n - c u s to d ia l s e n te n c e w o u ld p r o v id e h im w ith ed u cat i o n an d treatm en tw i th o u th arm i n g h i s fam i l y. A d efen d a ntm a y c ha l l e nge hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on pr oc e dur a l ors ubs t a nt i ve un re as on abl enes s. U ni t ed S t at es v. H un t , 45 9 F . 3d 1 1 8 0 , 118 2 n . 3 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) . I n its r e c e n t G a ll d e c is io n , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t e x p l a in e d th a t “s ig n if ic a n t” p r o c e d u r a l e rr o r s in c lu d e e rr o r s s u c h a s “f a ilin g t o c a lc u la te ( o rim p r o p e r ly14

c a lc u la tin g ) th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e , tr e a tin g th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry , f a ilin g to c o n s i d e rth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s , s e l e c t i n g as e n t e n c e b a s e d o n c l e a r l y e rr o n e ous fa ct s, or fa i l i ng t o adequ at el y e xp l ai n the ch o se n se nt ence -- i ncl ud i ng an e xpl a na t i on f

ora ny de vi a t i o n f

r om the G ui de l i ne s r a nge . ” G a l l , 2007 W L 4292116, a t*7 ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A gb ai , 497 F . 3d 1226, 12 29 (11th C i r. 20 07 ) (hol di ng that w hen a defe nd ant chal l enges his s en t ence b a s e d o n th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s f a i l u r e t o c o n s i de r § 3553 ( a ) f a c t o r s , a s ap p l i e d t o h i m, he i s c hal l engi ng the procedural re as on abl enes s of hi s s ent ence ). I n a nnounc i ng s e nt e nc e , t he di s tr i c tc our tm us tgi ve al e ga l l y s uf f i c i e nt st at e me nt of r e a s on s un de r 18 U . S. C. § 35 53 ( c ) . H ow e ve r , the di s tr i c t c ou r tneed
no tdi sc uss e ac h § 3 5 5 3(a) fa ct or. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at78 6. N or i s the court
r e q u ir e d to “e x p lic itly a r tic u la te th a t it h a d c o n s id e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s .” U ni t ed S t at es v. D orm an, 48 8 F . 3d 93 6, 94 4 (11 th C i r. 20 07 ); R i t a, 12 7 S . C t . at 2468- 69 ( 2007) (i n f

e rr i ng di s tr i c tc our t ’ s r e a s oni ng f r om c ont e xta nd e xa m i na t i on of w ho l e r e c o r d ) . Th e Su p r e me Co u r t h a s h e l d th a t a l e n g th y d i s c u s s i on i s not
r e q u ir e d in th e ty p ic a l c a s e , a s lo n g a s th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e “ s e t[ s ] f o r th e n o u g h to sat i sfy th e ap p el l at e co u rtth ath e h a s c o n si d ered th e p art i es’ arg u m en t s an d h as a r e a s one d ba s i s f

ore xe r c i s i ng hi s o w n l e ga l de c i s i onm a ki ng a uthor i ty . ” R i t a , 127 S . C t . at24 68 (c i t at i on om i tt ed).15

H er e, the di stri ct co u rtdi d n oti m po se a procedural l y unrea sonabl e s ent ence b ec au se th e r ec o rd in d icates th at th e c o u rt ad eq u ately c o n s id er ed B il li n g s’s
a r gum en t s an d t h e § 3553( a ) f a c t or s . T he c our the a r d the a r gum e nt s pr e s e nt e d by
c o u n s e l f o r B illin g s , a s w e ll a s th e s ta te m e n ts m a d e o n h is b e h a lf , a n d ite x p l i c i t ly
s t a t e d tha t , i n i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , i tha d c ons i de r e d the st atu t o ry f a c t or s w e i ghi ng i n B i l l i ng s’ s f

avor. O n thi s r ec ord, w e a re sa t i sf i ed thatsa t i sf

y th e d i stri ctcourt “c o n s id e r e d th e p a r tie s ’ a r g u m e n ts a n d h a [ d ] a r e a s o n e d b a s is f o re x e r c is in g h is
ow n l egal deci si on m aki ng autho ri ty. ” R i t a, 12 7 S . C t . at 24 68 (c i t at io n o m it te d). P u t s i m p l y , B illin g s h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h is s e n te n c e is p r o c e d u r a lly
un re as on abl e. AF F I RME D.