## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. M ARLY N J. B ARN ES an d M EL VI N B. T A Y L OR, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on. No . 06 CR 00023

—Th eres a L . Sp ri ngmann, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 27, 2011

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 25, 2011

B efore F LA UM, K ANN E , a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, C ircui tJudg e . U pon re - sente nci ng, a dist ri ct co ur t j udg e r es pec ti ve l y s en te nced M ar l y n Ba r ne s an d M el vi n Tayl orto 29 2 m onths and 188 m onths ofi m pri sonm ent forco nspir i ng to poss ess with intent to distr ibute m or e than fi ve kil ogr am s o fco cai ne. In a s uccessi ve appeal befor e thi s Court, Barnes and Tayl or chal l enge t h ose se ntences
. They a rgue that, i n l i ght o f th e S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ec en t decision i n P epp er v. U nited2 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602

Th ou ghn otr e l e va ntto th i s app e a l , a m or e ex t e ns i ve de s c r i p- 1 ti on of th e fa cts und erl ying the conspir acy m ay be f ound at U n i te d S tates v. Ba rnes , 602 F. 3d 790, 792 ( 7th Cir
. 2010) a nd U ni t ed Sta t es v. Tayl or, 60 0 F .3d 86 3 , 86 6 -6 7(7t h C ir . 20 1 0 ). Sta tes , 131 S. Ct. 1229 ( 2011 ) , the dist ri ct cour t did n ot proper l y e nter tain new ar gum ents w hen i t r e- sente nced them
. They a l so ad vance that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i t s d i s c r e t i o n b y r e - s e n t e n c i n gth e m t o th e s a me numbe ro fmo nths t o wh i c h i ts e nt e nc e d the m o r i g i na l l y. N o tabl y, the se ne w se nt en ce s r emai n wi th i n Gui d el i ne ra nge. W e a ffi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.

I . B a c kg r o und A. Fa c t ua l B a c kg r o und 1 Barnes and Tayl or, with four ot h erm en, co nspir ed to ste al a sh ipm en t of d rugs from a stash hou se in Fort W ayne , Indiana. They l earned about thei r i ntended tar getfro m a confi denti ali nfo rm ant forthe gov er nm ent, w hi ch had conco cted th e s hi pm ent a nd i nstr ucted i ts i nf o r m an t to pr o vi d e B ar ne s an d Ta y l o rwi ththe fi c t i o na lde t a i l s . In r e a l i t y, n o s uc h s hi pme nte xi s t e d. Una wa r e o f th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s i n v o l v e me n t, B a r n e s a nd Tayl orper si ste d i n thei r pla nning and, ult im at el y, pro cured the ne c es sar y e quipm ent a nd weaponry to exec u te th e t h e f t. T h e g ov er n m en t a rre st ed th em an d th eir ass oci ate s o n M ay 5, 20 06, as they a rriv ed ata sto ra ge f aci l i ty to pickup a va n theyi ntended to use in the hei st.N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 3 U pon sea rchi ng the m en and thei r vehi cl es, the gov er nm ent uncov er ed two bul l et- re si sta nt ve sts , a K el tec autom ati c r i fl e, m agazi nes a nd twenty- thre e r ounds of am m unit i on f orthe K el tec ri fle, a sto l en N or i nco as sa u lt rifle , a 75 -ro u n d m ag az in e a n d n in et y-n i n e a d d itio n al ro u n d s o f am m u n itio n for th e N or in c o r i fle, a l oaded ni ne- m i l l i m et er pi sto l, thi rty- si x ro und s o fni nem i l l i m ete r am m unit i on, a l oad ed . 40- cal iberpi sto l, f or tysi x ro und s of
. 40- cal iber am m unit i on, and three ad d iti onal12

- ro und m aga zi nes.
B . Pr o c e dur a l B a c kg r o und T h e g ov er n m en t in d i c te d B ar n es , Ta ylo r, an d th eir c o-c on sp ira to rs on M ay 24 , 200 6. It ch ar ge d a ll s ix p ar tic ipants with conspi ring to poss ess with in tent to di str ibute m or e t h an five kilog ra m s o f co c ain e, 21 U .S.C . § 8 4 6 . It also char ged Barne s a nd Tayl orwith pos ses si ng a fi re ar m i n further ance ofa drug tr affi cki ng cr i m e, 18 U
. S. C
. § 924(c). Barnes, Tayl or, and two of th ei r co- conspi ra tor s pro c e e d e d t o t r i a l
. T h e o r i g i n a lp r o c e e d i n gr e s u l t e d i n a m i str i albec ause Barnes offe re d to tes ti fy o n behal fo f Tayl orand the othe r tw o co- conspi ra tors. The di str i ct cour t a ccor dingl y s evered the defendants’ tr i al s, at w hi ch ti m e the two rem ai ni ng co- conspi ra tor s pl ed gui l ty. Barnes and Tay l or continued to tr i al
. A j ury convi cted Barnes on th e c on sp i ra cy and gun counts. In a s epara te tr ial, a jur y c o n v ict ed T ay lor o n bo th co u n ts as w ell. In ea cht r i al, the j ur i es f o und b y sp ec i alv er di cttha t th e4 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602

am ount o fdrugs i nvol ved in the co nspir acy exceeded fi ve ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne.
1. Sen t encing and The Fir stA pp eal A s it sen ten c e d B a rnes and Tay lor’ s four co-cons p irato rs, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that the co nspir acy i nvol ved five

- to- fi ftee n ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. I t, thus, cal cul ate d thei r base o ffense l eve l s a t 3 2.

a. Barnes’ Proc eedi ngs T h e in itia l p re -se n te n c e re p or t fo r B ar n es sim ilar ly r ec o m m en ded a ba se o ffen se level o f3 2, t r ea tingthe c o ns pi r a c y a s i nv o l v i ngfi v e - t o - fi ft e e n k i l o g r a ms of dr ug s. Howev er, the pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce rr ev i se d the pre- sente nce r epor t t o re fl ect a drug quanti ty o ff or ty ki l ogr am s. Barnes o bj ecte d to thi s quanti ty. The di st r i ctc o ur t o r dered fur th erb r i efi ngo n the dr ug am ount, but, r ather than fi l e a dd i ti onalm ate ri al s, B arne s an d the g o ve r nm en t st i pul at ed th atthe c o nspi ra cy i nvol ved fi ve- to- fi ftee n ki l ogr am s. A t sente nci ng, the dist ri ct cour t rej ecte d thi s sti pu l ati on and f ound that the co nspir acy i nvol ved f or ty ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. Thi s fi nd i ng r ai sed Barnes ’ bas e o ffe ns e l e v e lt o 3 4
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tr e fus e d t o a c c e pt the stip ula ti on be cause i t v i ew ed i tse l fas unconstr ai ned bythe f actu alfi ndi ng s i n the c o - co ns pi r at o r s’ s en te nc i ngpr o ce eding s. I t wi sh ed to i ss ue a n inde pen den t fi nd i ng o n the quanti ty ofdrugs f orw hi ch Barnes wasN os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 5

r es po ns ibl e. Ye t, the di st r i ctc o ur t al so c ho se t o s en tence Ba rn es at the l ow end o fhi s Guidel i ne r ange b ec au se , i t r ea so n ed , th er e w as n o re as on to tre at h im di ffer en tly tha n h i s co - co ns pi rato r s wi thr eg ar d t o the am ou nt of d rugs i nv o lve d
. On ce h is enh an cem en ts w ere consi dered, the cour t s entence d Barnes to 292 m onths. Barne s appe al ed, c onte st i ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ng th a t, f o rh i m, th e c o n s p i r a c y i n v o l v e d f o r t y k i l o g r a ms of cocaine an d not fi ve-to-fi fteen kilogram s. T his C o u rt ag r ee d tha t su chunj us ti fi ed, d i spa r at e tr ea tmenta m o ng co- conspi ra tor s was cl earer ro r. W e v acat ed Barnes’ sente nce and r em an d ed to the dist ri ct c ourtf or re - sente nci ng.
b. Tayl or’ s Pr ocee dings Ta y l o r ’ s pr e- sen te nc e r epo r t r ec o m m en ded th atthe conspi ra cy i nvol ved f or ty ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne. Tayl or o bj ec te d t o thi s amoun t a nd s ug g es te d tha t th e co nspi r ac y i nv o l ve d fi ve - to
- fi fte enk i l o g r ams. At sentencing, the dist ri ct c ourto ver rul ed Tayl or ’ s obj ecti on and fo und thatthe am ount o fco cai ne i nvol ved w as f or ty ki l ogr am s. I t, ther ef or e, cal cul ate d his bas e o ffense l eve las 34
. Enhancem ents ra i sed hi s ba se offe n se l eve l to 36, r esul ti ng in an a d viso ryGuidel i ne r ange of18 8 t o 23 5 m o nths o fi nc ar ce r at i o n. To min i m i ze potent i al l y une qua lt r ea tmento fthe co- conspi rator s ba sed upon drug quanti ty, the dist ri ct co ur t se nt en ce d Ta y l o rt o the l ow end ofhi s Gui del i ne ra nge. H e r ecei ved a 188- m onth s entence
.6 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 T a y l o ra p p e a l e d , a l l e g i n gth a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o mm i tt ed cl ea re r r o rwheni t det er m i ne d tha t th e amoun t ofco cai ne at tr ibutabl e t o the c onspi ra cy w as f or ty ki l ogr am s. T h is C ou rtag re ed , aga in v i e w in g a s u n ac c ep ta b le the i nconsi ste nt f actual fi nd i ng on the am ount ofdrugs involved . A s w e d id in B arn es’ case, w e vaca ted Tay lor’ s convi cti on a nd r em anded hi s ca se f orr e- sente nci ng.

2 . Re - Se nt e nc i ng U pon re - sente nci ng, the dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d as wai ve d o rb ey o nd the sco pe o fr emand al lne w ar g um en ts raised by B arn es an d Tay lor.

a . Th e Sc o pe o fRe ma nd f o rB a rne s ’ Re - Se nt e nc i ng I n ou ro pi ni o n o n Ba r ne s ’ fi r s ta pp e a l, we a ddr e sse d o nl y h i s a r g u me n tth a tth e l o we rc o u r te r r e d i n r ej e c t i ng th e par ti es’ st i pu l ati on that the co nspir acy i nvol ved fi ve- to- fi ftee n ki l ogr am s o fco cai ne . U ni t e d S t at e s v. B a rnes , 602 F. 3d 790, 792, 796 ( 7th C ir. 2010 ) (“ B arn es’s ar gum en t f o cus es o n the f ac t th athi s co - defen dan ts who p lead ed guilty and w ere sen t en ced before him w ere sente nced base d on the fi nd i ng tha t the con sp i ra cy o n l y i n v o l v e d fi v e - t o - fi ft e e n k i l o g r a ms o fc o c a i n e . ” )
. We ag r ee d wi thBa r ne s’ a r g um en t, hol d in gtha t “[ w]i th

out any j usti fi cation f orwh y o ne co - conspi ra tori s r esp on sib l e fo r a g re at er qu an tit y of d ru gs th an h is fel l ow co- conspi ra tor s, such a dis cre pancy i n f actual fi nd i ngs i s cl ear l y e rr oneo us. ” Id. a t 796. W e v acat ed hi s s entence and ge nera l ly rem anded hi s ca se f orN os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 7

re -se n te n c in g. Id. at 7 9 7 (“[W ]e vacate the d istri ct cou rt’s sen ten ce of 292 m ont hs , and rem an d f or re- sen ten cing.”). On r emand, the di st r i ctc o ur t i nt er pr et ed o ur op in ion as an ord e r to “re so lve th e d isc re p an c y in f ac tu alfi ndi ng s” used wheni t se nt en ce d Ba r ne s. The dist ri ct c ourtundersto od thi s di scr epancy to b e i ts “i ncongr uou[s ] r ej ect[ i on] [ of] the par ti es’ post
- tr i al j o i nts ti pul at i o n tha t th e co ns pi r ac y inv ol ve d b etwee n 5 an d 15 kil ogr a m s o f c o caine
. . . . ” Th e d istri ct cou rt re - sente nced Barnes usi ng the post
- tr i alst i pu l ati on to cal cul ate hi s Guidel i ne r ange. I t s en te n ced Barnes anew to 292 m onths ofi m pri sonm ent forthe conspi ra cy count o fthe i nd i ctm ent.
b . Barn es’ W aived A rgum en ts A t r e- sente nci ng, the dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d as wai ved se ve r alne w ar g um en ts Ba r ne s r ai se d i n h i s po st
- r emand se nt en cingb r i ef
. Ba r ne s as k ed th e co ur t to di sr eg ar d the parti es’ st i pu l ati on that the co nspir acy i nvol ved betw een fi ve - to
- fi fte enk i l o g r ams a nd, i ns tead, t r ea t th e dr ug qua nt i t y a t i s s u e a s l e s s th a n 2 5 g r a ms . He fe l tt he lar ge r d ru g q u an tit y ov er st at ed h is c rim in alit y. H e a d d iti o na l l y a r gue d tha t, due t o the fi ct i ti o us na tu r e o fthe dr ug s an d the g o ve r nm en t’ s ab i l i tyt o di ct at e th e am ount, the cour t s houl d tre at t he am ount o fdrugs i nvolve d a s zero gr am s o r fi nd thathe c oul d not hav e com ple ted the co nspir acy. Final l y, he r eque st ed that th e co ur t r ec o ns i der hi s four-l evel enh an ce m en t for being an orga n izer or leade r offive or m ore p ar tic ip an ts in t h e c om m iss ion of an offe n se , as w ell8 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602

as hi s tw o- l eve lenhancem ent forwil l ful obs tr ucti on ofj usti ce. The c o ur t r ej ec te d Ba r ne s’ ar g um en t th atthe a m o unt o f dr ug s i nv o l ve d sh o ul d be co ns i der ed l es s th an the am ount t o w hi ch hi s co - conspi ra tor s s ti pu l ated bec ause “[ the ar gum ent] d[i d] not appear to have been
. . . r ai se d o n a ppea l, a nd the Co ur t o fAppea ls d id no t ex p licit ly d isc u ss it.” T h e c ou rtals o n ot ed th at e v en if th e a rg u m en t w er e n otw aiv ed , i t “ w o u l d n otfind it to h av e a n y m er it.” T he cou rt sim il arly d isrega rd ed Ba rnes ’ subsid iary ar gum en t th athe was incapabl e o fpr o ducinga ny drug am ount. The co urt f ound that thi s a rgum ent, to o,
“ wa s n o tr a i s e d o n a p p e a la n d [ w] a s o u t s i d e th e s c o pe ofr em and.” A s be f or e, the cour t e l abor ate d that “ had the i ssue b ee n pro perl y r ai sed, and re m anded f or[ i ts] d et er m in at ion, [i t] w ou ld [h av e] rej ec t[e d ] it.” W i th re spect to hi s obj ecti on to i ts sente nce en hancem ents, the dis tri ct c ourthel d that Bar nes “ coul d have appe al ed th e appl i ca ti o n o fthe se e nha nc ement s [ dur i ng hi s fi rs t a pp eal ]
. ” S in c e h e d i d not do so, the cour t r ule d that he waiv ed hi s a rgum ents agai nst them such that “theyd[i d ] n ot f al lwithi n the perm i ssibl e a re as ofdi sc u ss ion
. . . on rem an d .” The dis tri ct c ourtexcl ud ed each ofthes e a rgum ents as on es th at co u ld h av e b ee n rais ed in h is f i r st ap p ea l, wer e no t so r ai se d, a nd, the r efo r e, wer e be y o nd the s c o pe o fthi s Co ur t ’ s r e man d.N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 9

c . Th e Sc o pe o f Re ma nd f o rT a y l o r ’ s Re - Se nt e nc i ng A s with Barnes, the onl y sentencing i ssue w e co nfr onte d on Tayl or’s a pp ealwas w hetherthe dist ri ct c ourter ro neousl y c al cul ate d his Guidel i ne r ange b ased up on f or ty kilo gr am s o f co c ain e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 6 00 F. 3d 863, 870-71 (7th C ir. 2010). W e agreed w ith Ta ylor: T he district cou rt
. . . sen ten ced
. . . four co-con sp irators on the fi nd i ng thatthe c o ns pi r a c y i nv ol ved fi ve - to
- fi fte enk i l o g r ams o fc ocai ne . The n, a t th e se nt en cinghe ar i ng s f o rBa r ne s an d Ta y l o r, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that th e c onspi ra cy i nvol ved f or ty ki l ogr am s ofcocai ne. . . . [ W ] i thout a j usti fi cati on f ortr eat i ng the se co- defe nd ants differ en tly w hen deter m i ni ng the am ount o fd ru gs att ributabl e t o the c onspiracy, i t was cl earer ro r f orthe dist ri ct co ur t to fi nd o ne dr ugqua nt i tyf or [ th e f o ur co- defe nd ants] , an d a di ffer ent dr ug quanti ty f or Ta y l o ro n a n i de nt i c a lr e c o r d. Id. at87 1- 72. W e v acat ed Taylor’s sent ence and or dered a g en er al re m an d for re -se n te n c in g. Id. a t8 7 2 ( “ We vac ate T aylor’s sen ten ce an d rem an d f or re- sen ten cing.”). The di st r i ctc o ur t understoo d the r emand o r dera s i nst r uct i o ns t o re-sent en ce Ta y l o rb as ed o n a dr ug q u an tit y c on sis te n t w ith th at at tr ibu te d to h is co-con sp irators: “[t] he suffi cienc y of th e factu al sup p ort f oru s i ngf o r t y k i l o g r a ms t o de t e r mi ne the b a s e o f f ense l e v e lwa s notth e i s s ue tha tu l t i mat e l y r e qu i r e d r e man d. R ath er, i t w as . . . the sen ten cing of other co- c o n sp irators o n the b as i s o ff ac tu als ti pul at i o ns f o rbetwee n fi ve a nd fi fteen kilogram s of coca ine.” C ons eq ue nt ly, the cou rt re cal cul ate d Tayl or ’ s Guidel i ne r ange usi ng fi ve- to- fi ftee n10 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 ki l ogr am s as the pertinent drug quanti ty. It re- sente nced hi m to 18 8 m onths i n pri son f orthe conspi ra cy c ou n t o f the ind i ctm ent.
d . T aylor’ s W aived A rgum en ts I n hi s pos t- re m and re- se n tencing br i ef, Tayl orr ai sed new argum ents that the di str i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d as w ai ved. H e a ske d thatthe cour t s entence hi m bas ed on a drug quanti ty of25 gr am s o r few ero r, a lte rn at el y, o f tw o to thre e- and-a- h alf kil ogr am s. H e a rgued that these r edu ce d a m o unt s wer e appr o pr i at e g ive n the fi ct i ti o us nature o fthe drugs invol ved , the go ver nm ent’ s co ntro l o ve rthe a m o unto fdr ug s i n th e f ak e sh i pm en t, a nd hi s s m al l err ol e in the conspi ra cy. A s an i ni ti alm att er, the dist ri ct c ourtr ej ecte d these ar gu m en ts be c au se th ey “ d [id ] n ota p p ea r to h av e b ee n . . . r ai se d o n a ppea l, a nd th e C o ur t o fAppea l s di d no t ex plic itly di scuss [ them ]
. ” How eve r, the cour t a l so note d that “[ e]ven i f[ the a rgum ents] were properto address on r em and because [ they] r el ate d to the drug quanti ty, th e [c ]ou rtw ou ld n otfind [th em ] to h av e a n y m e r i t .” I n part i cul ar, the cour t fo und that the governm ent “ est abl i sh ed, b y a pr epo nde r an ce o fthe e vi den ce , thatthe co ns pi r ac y t o po sse ss wi thi nt en t to de l i ve rc o ca i ne i n v o l v e d , a tl e a s t, b e t we e n f i v e a n d fi ft e e n k i l o g r a ms of c oc ain e.” A s it d id w ith B arn es, th e d istri ct cou rt view ed Tay lor’ s a r gume nt s a s wa i v e d a nd b e y o nd the s c o pe o fr e man d. Both Barnes and Tayl orappealthei r sente nces.N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 11

This c ase does not prese nt the quest io n o f w hethera dis tr ic t 2 c our tm us tc ons i der pos t
- s en t en c i ng r eh abi l i t at i on upon a ge ne ra l r em and for r es en t en c i ng. W e, the re f or e, r es er ve the is sue. I I . Discussi on A . T h e S c op e of R em an d an d th e Im p ac t of Pepper v. Uni ted States W e firs t a d d re ss w h et h er th e d ist ric t c ou rtim p ro p er ly deter m i ned the s cope o fr em and w hen it re fused to enter tain Barnes and T ayl or ’ s new argum ents at re s en ten cing. In p articu lar, w e con side r w he th er Pepp er v. U nited Sta tes, 131 S. C t. at 1229, ab olis h es w aiv er in the conte xt of re - sente nci ng or w hether “de n ovo ” r e - s e n t e n c i ngr e t a i n s a mo r e l i mi t e d me a n i n g . We concl ud e that, upon a g ener alr em and fo r re - sent enci ng, a di str i ct c ourt m ayper m i t new ar gum en ts and evi dence as i t deem s nec ess ar y t o re - f ashi on i ts sent en c e. General rem and does no t, however, enti tl e the defendants to prese nt new argum ents and evi den ce b eyo nd that p er tin en t t o th e is su es rais ed on ap p ea l. 2 W e r e v i e w a di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de t e r mi na t i o n o f the s c o pe ofr em and de novo. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Hu s b and, 312 F. 3d 247, 25 1 ( 7th Cir. 2 00 2) ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wat s on , 189 F.3d 496, 500 (7th Cir. 1999)).

1 . Th e Sc o pe ofa Ge ne r a l Rema nd f o rRe - Se nt e nc i ng Thi s Cou r t’ s dec i si o n t o r emand an d o urc o r r es po ndi ng op in ion d i c t a te th e s c op e o f th at rem an d
. U nited Sta tes12 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602

v . Av il a , 6 34 F
. 3d 95 8, 9 61 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 1)
. I fthi s Cou rt re m an ds to co rr ect a “ disc re te, part i cul arer ro r that can be c or re cted .
. . witho ut . . . a r edeter m i nati on o fo ther i ssues , the dist ri ct c ourti s l im ite d to co rr ecting tha t er ro r. ” U nited Sta tes v. P a rker, 1 01 F
. 3d 52 7, 5 28 ( 7th Ci r. 1996 )
. The Court ’ s sile nce o n an i ssue ra i sed o n appeal m ea n s “ it is n otav aila b le fo r c o n sid er at ion on rem an d .” Se eH us b and, 31 2 F
. 3d at 251 ( ci ti ng Bar r ow v. Falck, 1 1 F. 3d 729, 7 30 (7th Cir
. 19 93) )
. M or eov er, any i ssue that could h av e been r ai sed o n appeal but w as not i s wai ved and, ther ef or e, notr em ande d
. Se eH us b and, 31 2 F
. 3d at 25 0-5 1; see also P a rker, 101 F. 3d at 528 ( “A pa rt y c an n ot use the acc i dent ofa re m and to ra i se i n a s eco nd appeal ani ss ue tha t he c o ul d j us t as wel lhave r ai se d i n the fi rst ap p eal becau se th e rem an d did not affect it. ”).

a. T h e Im p ac t of Pepper v. Uni ted States Barnes and Tayl orco ntend that they w er e en ti tl ed to th e di st r i ctc o ur t’ s co ns i der at i o n ofa ny and a l la r g um en ts th ey rais ed u p on re-s en te n c in g. T h ey refe r th is Cou r t to the Su pr eme Co ur t’ s r ec en t dec i si o n in P epp er v. U nited Sta tes , 13 1 S
. Ct. at122 9, wh i ch theyr ead as ho l di ngtha t ano r derf o rg en eral r emand bythe Court ofA pp eal s e ra ses the or i gi n al sente nci ng pro ceed ing an d , w ith it, any issu es of w aiver. I n P epp er, the Su p rem e C ou rt de nied the ap p ell an t’s cl ai m thatthe “l aw o fthe case ” doctr i ne preve nted a ne w j ud ge, upon re - sente nci ng, fro m di sturbi ng the pri or se nt en cingj udg e’ s do wnw ar d de par ture fr o m the de fen -N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 13

Even the Si xth a nd Te nth Ci rc ui t s , whic h adopta m or e l en i en t 3 v iew ofthe s c ope ofr em and thandoe s the Se ven th Ci rcuit, d o n ot in terp ret P epperas el im in a tin g w a iv er . S ee Un i te d S tat es v. West, 646 F. 3d 745 , 74 9 ( 10 th Ci r. 20 11 ) ( f avor i ng, i n a p ost- P epperr eg im e, a r ul e wher eby a di s t ri c tc our t“do[ es ] no t m ake i nqu i ry in to whe the r the i s s ue pre s en t ed i s an t ec ede nt (co n tin u ed ...) d an t’s rec om m en d ed G u id elin e s e n te n c e. P epp er, 13 1 S
. Ct
. a t1 2 5 1
. T he Co ur te qu a t e d g e ne r a lr e man ds f orr e- sente ncin g to an o rderforde nov o re - sente nci ng, no t i ngtha ts uc h o r de r s “ e ffe c t i v e l y wi pe d the sl ate cl ean. ” Id. at 12 50 -51
. A s su c h, it con c lu d ed , “a n a p p e ll at e co ur t w he n reve r singo ne pa r t o fa de fen dan t’ s se ntence ‘ m ay vacat e the ent i re se ntence
. . . so that, o n r emand, the t rial co ur t ca n r ec o nfi g ur e th e se nt en cing pl a n . . . t o s a t i s fy the s e nt e nc i ngf a c t o r s i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553( a)
. ’ ” Id. at12 51 ( quoti ng G reenla w v . U nited Sta tes , 554 U
. S. 237, 253 (2008 ))
. A t i ssue, then, i s what the P epp erCourti nt en ded by the t er m “de no vo” in the re - sente nci ng co ntext. Barnes and Tay lor inte rpre t the Court ’ s di cta that g en er alr emand o r der s “wi pe th e sl at e cl ea n” a s en ti tl i ng the m to pre sent any a nd al lnew ar gum ents at re- se nt en cing

— r eg ar dl es s o fthe i rr el ev an ce t o the e r r o rg i v i ngr i s e t o the r e man d. A l though few co urt s h ave ye t t o apply P epp er, a nd the S up re m e Cour t has notye t defi ned th e sc op e o f thi s ca se, no cour t has co ncl ud ed that P epp ero perat es to ab olis h w ai v e r i n th e c on te x t o f re-s en te n c in g. A s it 314 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 to o r a r i s e s o uto fthe c or r e c t i ono n a ppe a l
. I ns t e a d the dist ri ct c our ti s t o l ook t o the m anda t e f or an y l i m i tat i ons onthe scop e of the re m an d an d , in th e ab senc e of such lim itation s, exe rc isedisc re t i on i n det er m i ni ng t he appr opr i at e sc ope ”) ( em p ha sis a d d ed ); seeal so U n i te d S tat es v. G arci a-R obles , 640 F. 3d 159, 16 6 (6th C ir. 20 11 ) (hold ing , in a p ost- P epper regi m e, th a t “[ a] ge ne ra l r em an d al l ows the di s t ri c tc our tt o r e- s en t en c e the d efend an t d e no v o, w hich m ean s tha t the d istrict cou rt m ay. . . c ons i de[ r] ne w evi denc e and i ssues” ( quo t i ng U ni t ed Sta t es v. M oore, 13 1 F .3d 59 5 , 59 7 -9 8 (6t h C ir . 19 9 7 ))) (em p h a sis ad d ed ). disc usses de nov o re - sen te nci ng, the Court em phasi zes a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s ab i l i t y t o “ e ffe c t u a t e i t s s e n t e nc i ng i ntent, ” i d. at12 51, underscorin g i ts concern that re - sente nci ng co urts sho uld notb e b ou nd bythei r predecess or s o r ro telyi npu t the Courto fA pp eal ’ s chang es i nt o the i ro r i g i na ls en te nc i ngc al cul at i o ns . I ts ho l di ng thu s s t a nd s f o rthe pr o po s i t i o n tha tg e ne r a lr e man ds re nd er a di s t r i c tc o ur tu nc o ns t r a i ne d b y a nye l e men to f th e p rior se n te n c e. Id. Al l o wi nga di s t r i c tc o ur tt o fr e e l y b a l a nc e a l r e a dy and proper l y r ai sed ar gum ents to prese rv e or re vi se i ts s en te nc i ngo bj ecti ve s do es no t equa te t o c ar te b l an ch e f o rde fend an ts t o r ai se ne w ar g um en ts unr el at ed to the i ssues r ai sed o n appeal
. To t h e c ontr ar y, the onl y new ev i den ce tha t th e S upr eme Co ur t co ns i der ed an d approve d ofi s that o fa defe nd ant’ s p os ts entencing r eh ab ilita tio n . Id. at1 23 6 ( “We ho l d that w he n a de fen dant’s sente nce has been set asi de on appeal, a d i str i ct cour t a t r ese ntenci ng m ay c on sider evi dence ofthe de-N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 15 fendant’s post sente nci ng r ehabi l i tat i on . . . .”)
. Barnes an d Tayl orat tem pt to expand the P epp erCo urt ’s ho l di ng s so th at, upo n g en er al r emand, a defe nda nt enj o y s a m an i fes t r i g htto ra i se new i ss ue s. W e dec l i ne the in vit at ion to d o s o. See, e . g., U nite d States v. White, 4 06 F. 3d 827, 83 1- 32 ( 7th C i r. 2005) (“Our case l aw has chara ct e r i z e d th e s c o p e o fth e r e ma n d i ss ue u s i n gt wo an alo gie s: (1) t h at u p on rem an d th e d ist ric t c ou rtis p resen t e d w ith a ‘cl ean slate’ or ( 2) the d istri ct cou rt m ay‘ unb undl e th e se nt en cingpa ck ag e. ’ The r e i s no m ean ingful distinc tion in this ph raseology.”)
. W e, ther ef ore, h old thatwh en a case i s g ener al l y r em an ded to the di st r i ctc o ur t f o rr e- se nt en cing, the d is t r ict court m ay en tertain n ew argum en ts as ne cess ary to effectuat e i ts se n te n ci ng i ntent, but i t i s no t obl i gat ed to c o ns i dera ny n ew ev i den ce o ra r g um en ts b ey o nd that re l evantto the i ssue s rai sed o n appeal
. A ccor dingl y, the d istr i ct c ourtdi d not e rrbyr efusi ng to co nsi der Ba r ne s a nd T a yl o r ’ s n e w a r g ume nt s a s b e y o nd the s c o pe o fr e man d.

2. H arm l ess Er r orA pp l i es A ssum i ng ar guendo that the dist ri ct cour t sh ou ld have c on sid er ed B ar n es an d T ay lor’ s n ew a rg u m en ts w ith in the s cope o fr em and, i ts er ro r i s har m l ess. See, e.g., U nited St at e s v. Ande rs on , 5 1 7F
. 3 d 9 5 3 , 9 6 5 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( a pply i ng har m l ess er ro r anal ysi s t o sente nci ng)
. A n er ro r is harm less i f it “did not affect the distric t cou rt’s sel ecti on o ft h e sentence i m posed. ” Willia m s v. U nited Sta tes , 503 U .S . 193 , 203 (19 92 ). Th e d ist ric t c ou rtin t h is16 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602

ca se e xa m i ne d b o thde fen d an ts ’ wai ve d a r g um en ts a nd ex p lain ed w hy the y would notpre vai lev en i fi t had for m ally rea c h e d t h eir m er its
. Seedi sc us si o n sup ra Part I
. B.2 b, d. S i nce i t e xpressly s tat ed that these ar gum ents wo ul d n o th a v e a l t e r e d the s e nt e nces i tp r o no un c e d, any e rr ori s har m l ess .
B. A bu se o fD i scr et i on Barne s an d T ay l o ra l so a ppea lthe i rs en te nc es a s th e re sul t o fpro ceduralerr orand as unreas onabl e. Acc o r di ngl y, theyar gue tha t the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re t i o n b y i mp o s i n gth e m. O u r re vie w of a d is t r ict co u rt ’s s en te n c in g d ec isio n is a tw o- ste p anal ysi s. U nite d States v. Hall , 6 08 F. 3d 340, 34 6 (7 th Ci r. 20 10)
. Fi rs t, we re vi ew de nov o any a l l ege d p ro c ed u ra l err or . Id. S eco nd , we exam i ne the r eas on ab l eness ofa sentence i m posed by a di str i ct c ourtf orabuse of d isc re tio n . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Bol i ng, 64 8 F
. 3d 47 4, 483 (7th C ir. 2011).

1. Pr oced ur alErr o ri n t he Ap pl i ca t i o n o f1 8 U. S. C. § 3 553( a) B arn es an d T aylor each claim th at th e d istri ct c o u rt com m i tte d proceduraler ro r w hen i t f ai l ed to co nsi der m iti gating ev iden ce abo ut their backg roun d , cha racter, an d co n d u c t. See ge ne r al l y Bol i ng, 64 8 F
. 3d at 48 3 (l is ting f ai l ure to consi der the f act or s listed i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) as p roced ura l error).N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 17

a. Barnes’ Fam i l y Ci r cum st ances Barnes c on tend s that the di str i ct c ourtr efused to exer ci se it s disc re ti on t o re du ce hi s s entence bas ed on the “ hardshi p his chi l dren wou ld sufferas a re sul t o f h is incarc er ati on. ” He sugge sts thatthe cour t wrong ly d isr eg ar d ed th e h a r d s h ip on h is c h ild re n as th e re su lt o fh is o wn co nduc t, the r eb y a ff o r di ngthe a r g um en t i ns uffi ci en t co ns i der at i o n. At Ba r ne s’ r e- se nt en cing, the di st r i ctc o urt made th e follo w in g c o m m e n t s in res p on se to h is m ot h er ’s t es timo n y a n d h i s r e q u e s tth a t i t c o n s i d e rh i s f a mi l y c i r c u msta nces as m i ti gat i ng ev i dence: [E]very tim e s o m e bod y i s sen ten ced i n th is court or an y ot h er co u rtan d h as to lea ve th eir fam ily, it does w or k a hard sh i p not o nl y o n the i nd i vi du al offender l i ke M r. Barnes , but on th e en tir e f am i l y. A nd that ’s th e con seq ue nc e of th e con d uc t. A nd i t’s the c o ns eque nc e o fwhato urs y st em o fj udg m en t provi des i n havi ng to se ntence som ebo dy to do a ter m o fi ncarc er ati on l i ke M r. Barnes , t h er e wil lbe these kind s ofsa d ci rcum sta nces. . . . But that cannot b e a j ust i fi c a t i o n o ra r e a s o n f o rthe Co ur tt o do ot h er th an w h at th e la w p ro vid es an d allow s fo r in ter m s o fwh at the Cour t ca n do f orse n tencing, becaus e the ci rcum sta nces ofthi s f am i l y a re si m i l ar to othe rs wh o have to go thro ugh thi s pro cess , b ec au se a lov ed on e h as be en se n t t o jail. I n Barnes’ vi ew , the dist ri ct c ourts u m m ar i l y r ej ecte d hi s f am i l y ci rcum sta nces as m i ti gat i ng evi denc e because h e w as res p on sib le for im p o sin g t h at h ar d sh ip u p on h is18 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 f ami l y . In do i ngs o, h e a r g ue s, the di st r i ctc o ur t r ana f o ul ofthi s Court ’ s ru lin g that “ the f act that the c onse quences o fi n c a r c e r a ti o n ar e a t t r ib u t ab l e t o [ a d e fe n d a n t ’ s ] o wn m i sco nd uct m ay be a f acto r i n th e anal ysi s but
. . . not the s ol e f acto r nor[ the] di sposi ti ve one. ” U nit e d S t a tes v. Sc hro eder, 536 F.3d 746 , 755-56 (7th C ir. 2008). H owever, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e xplanat i on f ori ts sente nce ca l cul ati on co unsel s aga inst Barnes’ i nter preta
ti on o fi ts ear l i erco m m ents. A s the co urt announced i t s r ul i ng, i ts t a t e d: The fi r stf ac tor I as se ss ed was the s er i o us ne ss o fthe offen se. Inoted that this case involved a pla n t o carry ou t t h e a rm ed rob b er y of o th er arm ed ind ivid u als
. . . . M r. Ba r ne s a l s o a nt i c i pa t e d s e l l i nga l a r g e qua nti ty ofdrugs i nto the c om m unity. T he f act that M r. Barnes had high capaci ty w eapons and bull et p roofve sts , fu r th e rs p o k e t o th e v i o l e n tp o t e n t i a lo fh i s c r i me a n d h is w illing n es s a n d p re p ar ed n es s t o e n ga ge in that vi ol ence. . . . I al so add re sse d the nee d to prom ote re sp ec t fo r law , no tin g t h at M r . B ar n es n oton ly shunned the law f orhi s o w n gain as a g et- ri ch- quick

schem e, but re crui ted o ther s into his cri m i nalact i vi t y . I no t e fur the r tha t M r . Ba r ne s note d an abso l ute disr ega rd f or the l aw w hen hi s co m m i tte d perj ury . . . . I note d a t sente nci ng that M r. B ar n es’ cri m in al a cti vi ty had escal ate d .
. . . In consi derat i on ofthes e f acto rs , Ibel i eve d t hat a se ntence of29 2 m o nths was the s en te nc e th atb es t to o ki nt o a cc o unt a l l th e p u r p o s e s o f p u n i s h m e n t
. . . . T h a t s a me be l i efho l ds true t o day
. In c o ns i der at i o n o fmit i g at i ngN os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 19 fac to rs , th e C ou rt
. . . is sy m p at h et ic t o [h is] fa m ily ci rcum sta nces, but fi nd s th at they do not outweigh the s er i ousness o fthe offense , o r the ne ed to i m pose a sen ten ce th at ad e q u a tely add ressed the oth er pu rposes o fpunishm ent. The c o ur t dec l i ne d to re duce Ba r ne s’ s en te nc e i n l i g ht ofhi s f am i l y c i rcum sta nces not b ec au se hi s co nd uct cre ate d the har dship, but b ecause hi s f am i l y di ffi cul ti es w er e no t s o ex traor dinar y a s t o outweigh orm i ti gat e a g a i ns tthe o the r§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s the c o ur tc o ns i de r e d. The cour t’ s a na lys is doe s no t, as Barnes al l ege s, gi ve sh or t s h riftt o h is fa m ily c irc u m st an c es . Ra th er , i t fu lly con side rs his cir cu m stan ces an d de em s the m i ns uffi ci en t to mer i t a se nt en ce r edu ct i o n. To this end , Barnes ’ as ser ti on that the co urt vi ew ed its elf as l eg ally u n ab le to w eig h th e ha rd sh i p o n h is chi l dren and, t h er ef or e, f ai l ed to exer ci se i ts disc re ti on si m i l ar l y l acks m er i t. R ea d i ng the co urt’ s co m m ents at s e nt enci ng i n thei r enti re ty, Barnes ’ se l ecte d phrases

— “ca nn ot be a j us tif ication,” “w ha t the Cou rt can do for s entencing, ” a nd “what the l aw pro vi des an d all ow s for”

— com m unic ate the cour t’ s unw i l l i ngness to re du ce hi s sente nce base d o n f am i l y hardshi p, n ot i ts l ega li nabi l i ty to do so
. In thi s ca se, the cou rt’ s r efusal to re du ce Bar nes’ se ntence i n l i ght of othe r § 3 553( a) f acto rs r efl ects j ud i ci aldi scr eti on, noti ts abse nce.
b. Tayl or’ s Cr i m i nal H i st ory a nd Chara ct er A l though he ra i ses the ar gum ent a s a n att ack on h is s en te n c e’s rea so n ab len es s, T ay lor m ain ta in s t h a t h is20 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602

se nt en ce do es no t ade qua te l y r efl ec t hi s r ole i n the c o nspi ra cy, abs ence ofcr i m i nalhi sto ry, and re habi l i tat i ve pros pects. T h e d i str i ct c ourtev al uated and decl i ned to a pp l y the s e f a c t o r s t o r e du c e the sent e nc e i ti mpo s e d. I t st at ed i n i ts o pi ni o n: [ T]he evi dence i s that the Defendant agr eed with othe rs to r ob a s tas h house to obt ai n drugs, was prep ared to car ryo ut the pla n, and expected t o be s uccess ful i n the executi on o fthe pla n. H e was not pu ffi ngwh e n he i nd i c a t e d, a nd the n de mon s t r a t e d, hi s wil l i ngness to obt ai n the shi pm en t of dr ugs by f or ce. H e a nti ci pated thatthe sta sh house would be ar m ed an d t o o kthi s factor in to a cc o unti n h i s pl an, ar r i vingi n F o r t W ayn e wi thfi r ea r m s, a m m uni ti o n, an d ad d itio n al p eo p l e w h o w er e w illing to h elp hi m c ar r y o utthe pl an . He metw ith th e o th erc o nsp irat o r s to di sc us s th e det ai l s o fthe pl an, i nc l udi ng w h o w ou ld en te r t h e s ta sh h ou se an d w h o w ou ld sta nd guar d.
. . . [ T]her e ar e no m i ti gat i ng f acto rs that sugge st a s entence o f188 m on ths i s g re ate r than necess ar y t o acco m pli sh the p u rp ose o fpunishm ent. The De fen dan t no te s t hat he pa r ti ci pat ed i n the Feder alJ ob Corp Pro gr am and w as em plo yed ata c ab in etco m p an y. T h e D efe n d an t’s p a r t icip at ion in th e J o b C o r p e n d e d i n 2 0 0 1 a s d i d h i s e mpl o y m en t and [he ] does noti nd i cate wh at h e d i d fr om 20 01 unti lM ay 2006 w h en he c onspi re d to posse ss w i th i nt en t to di st r ibut e co ca i ne . . . . The Co ur t do es no t fi nd the Defendant’s vo cati onaltrain i ng and m i ni m al em plo ym en t to be a m i ti gat i ng f acto r that j usti fi es r e du c i n gh i s s e n t e n c e . T h e D e fe n d a n t ’ s l a c ko fc r i m-N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 21 i na lhi st o r y, whi chhe a l so po i nt s to a s a m i ti g at i ng f acto r, i s al re ady accounted f ori n hi s a dvis or y Gui del i ne r ange and i n thi s Court ’ s i m positi on o f18 8 m onths i m pri sonm ent. The dis tr i ct c ourtexam i ned th e m i ti gat i ng ev i dence that T ay lorpre sente d. I t incor pora ted hi s cr i m i nal hi s t o r y i n t o h i s b a s e G u i d e l i n e r a n g e a n d a ff o r d e d no re du cti ve w ei ght t o hi s par ti ci pati on in the con sp ira cy o rhi st o r y i n the J o b Cor p. Acco r di ng l y, i t pr o per l y c o nsi dered the se ntenci ng f acto rs a s re quir ed by § 3 553( a) an d co m m itt ed n o p ro c ed u ra l err or . Se e U ni t e d St at es v. R uz z ano , 2 4 7 F
. 3 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) ( “ W e wi l l not fi nd a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n whe r e, a s he r e, the de fend ant m er el y di sag re es w i th the weigh t th at the di str i ct j ud ge assign ed to various m iti gating factors
. ”).

2. R easo nab l eness B ot h B ar n es an d T ay lor’ s s en t e n c es are su b st an tiv ely re ason able. A co rr ectly c al cul ate d, w i thi n-Gui del i nes sentence i s e nti tl ed to a presum pti on o fr eas onabl eness . U nited Sta tes v. P ulley, 601 F.3d 660 , 664 (7th C ir. 2010). To sust ai n t h e pr esum pti on, a dist ri ct c ourtneed provi de onl y a j usti fi cati on f ori ts sente nce “ad eq u ate to al l ow fo r m eani ngful appellate revi ew and to pr o mot e the p e r c e pt i o n o ff a i rs e nt e nc i ng . ” U nited Sta tes v. Scott, 55 5 F
. 3d 60 5, 608 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10) ( quoti ng U nited S ta te s v. O m ole, 52 3 F
. 3d 691, 69 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ) ( i nter nal qu otation m arks om itted ). Barnes does n ot dispute the s ubstanti ve re aso nabl eness ofhi s s entence
.22 N os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 T a y l o r a r g u e s th a t r e - s e n t e n c i n g h i m t o th e s a me 188 m onths to w hi ch he was o ri gi nal l y s entenced cannot b e re as on ab le b ec au se , b a se d on all of th e s am e e vidence except a l ower drug am ount, the cour t s u b j ects hi m to the hi gh end ofhi s new G uidel i ne r ange w hen i t pr ev i o us l y fou nd hi m e nt i tl ed to b e se nt en ce d o n the low e n d of h is G u id elin e ra n ge . H e s ta te s t h at h is n ew se n te n c e “ fails to refle c t ( t o h is a d va n ta ge ) th e o n ly var i abl e that changed between M ay[ ] 20 09 and his r ese nt e n c i n gi n Ma r c h [ ] 2 0 1 1 ; a l e s s e ra mo u n to fc o c a i ne b ein g a tt rib u ta b le t o th e c on sp ira c y.” The S upr eme Co ur t, i n P epp er, m ade clearthat, o n gener alr em and, a r e- sente nci ng j ud ge i s no t bo und by the fi nd i ngs o fthe orig i nalse ntenci ng pro ceedi ng. P epp er, 13 1 S
. Ct. at1 25 0-51. Consequentl y, the dist ri ct cour t was notr equi re d to apply a l ow-e n d -of- the- Gu i del i nes s entence si m plybec ause i t had done s o bef or e. I n thi s case , the dist ri ct cour t expla i ne d it i m posed the sam e 1 88- m onth s entence o n Tayl orbec ause that numbero fmonths r emai ne d ne ce ss ar y t o r efl ec t th e se r i o us ne ss o fthe o ffen se , t o pr o m o te r es pec t f o rthe l aw , and t o prot ect othe rs fro m Tayl or ’ s cri m es. It al so e x p l a i n e d i t s d e c i s i o n t o u s e th e h i g h e n d o fth e n e w, l ower Gu i del i ne ra nge, sta ti ng that “the Court
. . . fir st i m po se d the 1 88

- m o nth s en te nc e co ns i der [ i ng] th atthe am ount ofdrugs used to deter m i ne the se ntences o f othe r Codefe nd ants i nvol ved i n the sam e conspi ra cy w as l es s than 15 ki l ogr am s. I t was f orthi s r eas on that [ i t] sen ten ced [ T aylor] to the lo w e n d of th e ad visory ra nge that had be en cal c u l ate d usi ng f or ty ki l ogr am s o fN os. 11

- 1261 & 11

- 1602 23

coca i ne. ” The o ri gi nal18 8- m on th se ntence thus depart ed fro m t h e 235 m onths avai l abl e t o the c ourti n re cogni ti on ofthe f act that the c ourtused a l ower drug quanti ty to cal cul ate hi s co - conspi ra tor s’ G uidel i ne r anges . S i nce, u p on re- sente nci ng, al lco - conspi ra tor s were sente nced bas ed on an con sisten t am ou nt of d rugs , th e c o urt fou n d n o c om p ellin g re as on to d ep a r t f ro m th e m ax im um se nt en ce av ai l ab l e to i t unde r th e ne w Gui del i ne ra nge. The dis tr i ct c ourt ’ s a nal ysi s e vin c es the per cepti on o f fair se n te n c in g, Scott, 55 5 F
. 3d 608, and re aso nabl eness . I t di d not abus e its dis cre ti on byi m posi ng upon Barnes a 29 2- m o nth sen te nc e o rupo n Ta y l o ra 1 88

- m o nth s en tence
.
I I I . Concl usio n Fo r th e for ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt
.

10- 25- 11