Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60274

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. K EV I N D EW AY N E W I LLI AM S D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo r th e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

N o . 0 7 -C R -7 -1

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d K IN G an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * D efen d a n t- a p p ell a n t K ev i n W i l l i a m s p l ea d ed g u i l ty to attem p ti n g to
c o m m i t e x t o r t i o n af fe c t i n gi n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 1 9 5 1 (a) a n d w a s sen ten ced to 1 2 0 m on th s of i m p ri son m en t. H e ap p ea ls h is
s e nt e nc e o n bo t h pr o c e dur aland s ubs t ant i ve g r o unds
. Fi r s t , he a r gue s t hatt he di st ri ctcourt m i sapp l i ed a cros s reference i n t h e rel evan t sentenci n g gu i del i n e, resul t i n g i n an i n f

l ated gu i del i n es r an ge. Secon d, he argu es that t h e sentence
w a s u n r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h t o f h i s p o s t
- o f

fe n s e mi l i t a r y s e r v i c e , w h i c h h e c l a i ms United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 4, 20 09 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkC hief Ju dge J on esa gre esth at thisse nte n cemu stb e aff ir me d u n de r a pp licab lel aw, 1 butshestron gly believes th at the gove rnment miscarriedj usticebyin sistin g that this defen dantbe sente nced in this case on the basi s of co ntrive d amo unt s of non -existent co cain e. Inh er view, nothinginth e d efen dant’s pa st rec ord sugge sts that th e goal s of rehabilitation or d eterr encerequir ed a10 -ye ar sente nce of i mpr is on ment; he abandon ed his misde eds vo luntarily ; heserved this co untry without b lemishinwarti me. The phra se “deter mined above” refers to § 2C 1.1(a)(1). Under this sectio n, Williams’s 2 adj usted offen se l evel would have b een22
. 2 e vi de nc e s hi s r e hab i l i t at i o n. For t he r e as o ns s t at e d be l o w , w e af f i rm t he sentence. 1 I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND W illia m s ’ s in d ic tm e n t a lle g e d th a t in 2 0 0 3 , w h ile a p o lic e o ffic e r in V i cksbu rg, M i ssi ssi pp i , he a greed on t w o occ asi on s t o esc orta shi pm en t of
c oc ai ne as i t pass ed t hro ugh t he c ount y i n exc hange f orc as h paym ent s f

r om an und er c ove r ag en t
. W i l l i am s bel i eve d t hat t he f i r sts hi pm ent c ont ai ned f i ve ki l o gr am s a nd t hatt he se c o nd s hi pm e nt co nt ai ne d t e n ki l o gr am s . Al t ho ugh t he unde r c o ve r a ge nt c o nt i nue d t o c o nt ac t hi m r e ga r di ng f ur t he r s hi pm e n t s o v e r t he
n e x t y e a r , W illia m s ce a s e d p a r tic ip a tin g . At t h e M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 8 s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n c l ude d,
ove r W i l l i am s’ s obj ec t i on, t hat t he c r os s r ef er enc e i n U
. S. S. G
. § 2C 1
. 1 ( c ) ( 1) ap pl i ed. Sect i on 2C 1. 1( c) ( 1) provi des: I f t he o f fe ns e w as com m i t t e d f o r t he pur po s e o f

fac i l i t at i ng t he c o m m i s s i o n o f

a no t he r c r i m i nalo f

fe ns e , a ppl y t he o f

fe ns e g ui de l i ne ap pl i c ab l e t o a c o ns pi r ac y t o com m i t t hato t he r o f fe ns e , i f

t he resul t i n g of

fen se l evel i s great er t h an t h at det erm i n ed ab ove. 2 T h e d i stri ct cou rt t h en l oo k ed to § 2D 1
. 1 , w h ic h a p p l i es to con sp i ra cy to
com m i t drug traff

i cki n g. Th e qu an t i t y t able at § 2D 1. 1( c) set s a base of fen se l evel of 34 f or “ at l east 15 K G bu t l ess t h an 50 K G of C ocai n e. ” Th e di st ri ctcourt added t w o l eve l s f

orposs es si on of

a danger ous w eapo n purs uant t o § 2D 1. 1(b) ( 1)
an d tw o l evel s f

or abu se of

a posi t i on of

t rust pu rsuan t t o § 3B 1. 3; t h ere w as al so a tw o -lev e l de cr e a se for a cc e p ta n ce of re sp o n sib il ityp u rs u a n t to § 3 E 1 .1(a ).Rule 35(a) of the Fed eralRules o f C r im inal Proc edur es stat es that “[w] ithi n 7 days 3 after sente ncing , th e court maycorrect a se ntence thatresulted from arith metical, te chnical , or otherc l e are rr o r . ” Th edi s t ri c tc o u rtr e s e nt e n c e dWilli a m sw ithi nth es ev e n - d ayp e ri o d. We do not c onsi der if t he reasons proffere d byth e di strict court satisfy the “arithmetical, te chnic al oro th erc le ar erro r”r equ ir em ent, see, e.g., United States v. Ro ss , 557 F.3d 237 , 24 3 (5thC ir. 2 009) (“Anysub sequ ent misgiving s ab out the leniency or seve rityof the sente nce do not constituteth e type of error that is contemplated b y Rule 35(a)”), be cau se th e governme nt did not obj ect at the time of re sente ncingan d did not filea cross-appe al, s eeGree n la w v . United States , 128 S. C t. 2 5 5 9( 2 0 0 8) (h ol din gth at ab se nt agovern me nt a pp eal orc ro ss appeal, an appellate court mayn ot suasponteincrea se adistrict court’s sentenc e tocorrect a plain error). There fore, we assu me with out decidingth at the district co urt’s recon sideration of Willi a ms’ s s ente n cewa s app ro priateu n de r Ru le3 5 (a). 3 T h u s, W i l l i am s’ s adj u st ed l evel of 36 and cri m i n al hi st ory cat egory of I res u l t ed i n a gu i del i n es r an ge of 188 t o 235 m o n th s. T h e di st ri ctcourt t h en sentenced W i l l i am s t o a t erm of 188 m on t h s of

i m pri sonm en t an d t h ree years of sup ervi sed
r e le a s e . O n M ar c h 2 4, 2 00 8, t he d i st r i c t c o ur t e nt e r e d a n o r de r r e s e nt e nc i ng W i l l i am s t o onl y 120 m on t h s of im p rison m en t an d three years of sup ervi sed
r e l e as e pur s uantt o Rul e 35 ( a) o f t he Fe de r alRul e s o f Cr i m i nalPr o c e dur e . The 3 di s t r i c t c o ur t s t at e d t hati t s pr e vi o us c o nc l us i o n t hatt he r e w e r e i ns uf f i c i e nt gr ou n d s for a d ep a rtu re below th e gu i d eli n es ran ge w a s i n corre ct i n l i gh t of i ts caref u lrec on si derati on of al lt h e § 3553 ( a) fact ors an d, speci f i cal l y, i t s r evi ew of t h e docu m en t s rel ated t o W i l l i am s’ s A rm y career t h at w ere bel atedl y provi ded t o i t by defense coun sel o n the m orni n g of t h e sentenci n g h eari n g. Th ese d o c u me n t s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Wi l l i a ms , w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y s e r v e d i n t h e A r my f r o m 1 98 9 t o 1 99 1, l e f t t he po l i c e de pa r t m e nt a f t e r hi s o f

fe ns e a nd r ej o i ne d t he A rm y in ea rl y 20 0 5
. H e p erform ed ad m i ra b l y in the A rm y a n d w a s p rom oted to serg e ant pr i o r t o hi s ar r e s t i n 20 07
. The do c um e nt s i nc l ude d a l e t t er of
com m en d a tion fro m W il li a m s’s su p e rio r o ffi ce r a n d v a ri ou s posi t ive perf orm an ce e va l uat i o ns . The di s t r i c t c o ur t c o nc l ude d t hati t w as “ no w o f t he o pi ni o n t hatt he def endant ’ s se r vi c e t o hi s c ount r y be f or e t he i ndi c t m ent s houl d be c ons i der ed as
a m i t i gat i ng fac t oran d thath i s s er vi c e af t erthe c r i m i nal c onducts houl d al so beWilli ams also argued that th e cross refe renc e sh oul d n ot applybe cau se th ere were 4 never anyactual drug s inth e vehicle s he escorted. Assuming he challe nges th e quantityof drug s invo lved a s be ing arbitr arily determine db y t he gove rnment, we concludeth at this argu me nt h a s no me rit. See United States v. Richardson , 92 5 F .2d 1 12, 117–18(5th Cir. 1 991 ) (hol ding th at ther e was no separationof powers proble m inallowin g the government todictate the amou nt of mon eyinvo lved in an und ercover l aun derin g sting an d th at ther e was no due proc es s vio lationbe cau seth e de fe n dant “f re elydecid edto a cc ep t th e n egotiate d a mo u nt”); see also U nited States v. Bu rke , 43 1 F .3d 8 83, 887(5th Ci r . 2 00 5) (“ [I]nconviction s ba sed on reverse-stin g operation s suchas this one , w herethe actual quantityof drug s is controll ed b y the gove rnment inste ad of by the defen dant , the quantity of drug s agreed uponmore accurate lyrefl ects the scaleof the offen se th an the quantity actu ally delive red.” (citing U. S. S. G. § 2 D1 .1 , cm t. , n . 1 2 ))
. 4 c o n s id e r e d , a s w e ll.” D e s p ite th i s d o w n w a r d d e p a r tu r e , W illia m s a p p e a ls h is
s e n te n c e . I I . DI S CU S S I ON A
. S t an d ard s of

R evi ew W i l l i am s m ak e s t w o a r gum e nt s o n a ppe al
. Fi r s t , he c l ai m s that t he d istr ict co u rt p ro ce d u ra ll y er re d in a p p lyin gth e cr o ss re fer e n ce in § 2 C 1 .1(c )(1). W e r e vi e w t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s i nt e r pr e t at i o n a nd a ppl i c at i o n o f t he Se nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s d e n o v o . Un i t ed Stat es v. Joh n st on , 5 5 9 F .3d 2 9 2 , 2 9 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). S e c o n d , h e a r g u e s th a t h is 1 2 0 -m o n th s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f h is p o st -o ffe n se A rm y se rv ice
. W e re v iew th e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss of a sentence t h at c on t ai n s a dow n w ard d epa rt u re un der an abu se- of

- di scr et i on s ta n d a r d
. Uni t e d St at e s v . Ar m s t r o ng , 5 50 F. 3d 3 82 , 404 ( 5t h C i r . 200 8) ( c i t i ng G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S . C t. 5 8 6 , 5 9 7 (2 0 0 7 )). B. G ui de l i ne s Cal c ul at i o ns W i l l i am s f

i rs t c l ai m s t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t i nc o r r e c t l y c al c ul at e d t he
r a n g e o f h is s e n te n c e . H e a r g u e s th a t t h e § 2 C 1 .1 (c )(1 ) c r o s s re fe r e n c e o n ly appl i es w hen t he def endant has bee n co nvi c t ed o f a c ons pi r ac y and t hat i t w as n ot p oss i b l e for h i m to h a ve b ee n i n a co n sp i ra cy w i th an u n d erco ve r ag en t. S ee 4 Un i t ed S t ate s v. A si bor , 1 09 F. 3d 1 02 3, 1 03 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 7) ( “ [ T] he r e c an be no c o ns pi r ac y be t w e e n o ne de fe nda nt a nd a g o ve r nm e nt i nf o rm er. ” )
. The5

c o m m e nt ar y f

o l l o w i ng § 2C 1. 1 e xp l ai ns w hy W i l l i am s i s i nc o r r e c t a nd why t he
cros s r eference app l i es i n t h i s c ase: U n der § 2C 1. 1( c) ( 1) , i f t h e pay m en t w as t o faci l i t ate t h e com m i ssi on of an ot h er c ri m i n al off en se, the gu i del i n e a pp l i cabl e to a conspi racy t o c om m i t t hat ot her of fens e w i l l appl y i f t he r es ul t i s gr eat ert han t hat det er m i ned abo ve. For ex am pl e, i f a br i be w as gi ven t o a l aw en f orcem en t of

f i cer t o a l l ow the sm u ggl i n g of a q u an t i t y of

coc ai n e, th e g u id e lin e fo r co n s p ir a c y to im p o r t c o c a in e w o u ld b e a p p lie d if it r e s u lte d in a g r e a te r o ffe n s e le v e l. U
. S. S. G
. § 2 C1. 1, c m t
. , b ac kg r o und. T h e predic ate f

or ap pl i cat i on of § 2C 1. 1( c) ( 1) i s n ot t h e exi st en ce of a
c o ns pi r ac y, b ut r at he r t hat t he pur po s e o f t he o f fe ns e w as t o fac i l i t at e t he
c o m m is s io n o f a n o t h e r c r im in a l o ffe n s e . A t t h e s e n t e n c in gh e a r in g , W il li a m s ’s
cou n sel arg u ed tha t B urke , w h ic h a ls o in v o lv e d a s tin go p e r a tio n w h e r e a p u b lic of f i c i alagr ee d t o pro vi de a pol i c e es c or t forc oc ai ne s hi pm ent s, es t abl i she s t hat t her e m ustbe an ac t ual c ons pi r ac y f or t he c r os s r ef

er enc e t o a ppl y. 431 F. 3d at 88 5. Al t ho ugh t he r e w as a c o ns pi r ac y o f s e ve r al o f f i c i al s i nvo l ve d i n B urke , t he court di d not rel y on t h at fact i n ap pl yi n g § 2C 1. 1( c) ( 1)
. Inst ead , t h e court noted t h at “ B u rke h ad a l ready a dm i t t ed, d u ri n g h i s p l ea col l oqu y, t h at t h e ext ort i on w as c om m i t t ed f

ort he purpo se of

fac i l i t at i ng t he com m i ss i on o f anot her c r i m i nal offen se: a i d i n g in the distri b u ti on of coca i n e.” Id
. T h u s , B urke r e i nf o r c e s o ur con cl u sion tha t t h e tri gg er for § 2 C 1
. 1 (c) (1) to ap p l y is t h a t t h e p u rp ose w a s to fa c ilita te a n o th e r cr im e . M oreover, w e rej ect ed W i l l i am s’ s exact argu m en t i n a recent u n pu bl i shed
o p in io n b a s e d o n s im ila r fa c ts
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. C arr , 3 0 3 F
. A p p ’ x 1 6 6 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. The d efen dant i n C arrw a s also a po l i ce offi cer w h o p l ea d ed gu i l ty
u n der 18 U
. S
. C
. § 1951 ( a) t o accept i n g cash f or “ pro v id in g p rot ect i on f or a ve h i cl e he b eli ev ed con tain ed fi ve k i l og ra m s of coca i n e.” Id
. a t 1 67. Th e di st ri ct court ap pl i ed the § 2C 1. 1( c) ( 1) cr oss reference a n d sen t en ced him t o ei gh t y- seven m o n th s . Id
. O n a p p ea l , C ar r ar gued, j ustas W i l l i am s has i n t hi s c as e, t hatAlthou ghu npubli shed opinion s arenot pr ecede ntial and bin ding onthis co urt, we may 5 cite them, as noted above , for their pe rsua s iv e value and to maintain consi stencyincircuit jurispru dence
. See United States v. Meraz-En riqu ez , 44 2 F .3d 3 31, 333(5th Cir. 2 006) (citing 5 T H C IR . R
. 4 7 .5 .4); see a lso F ED . R. APP . P
. 3 2 .1 (a). 6 “ be c aus e , a s a m at t e r o f l aw, he c o ul d no t ha ve c o ns pi r e d wi t h t he FBI i nf o r m ant
w h o p a i d h i m , th e cou rt sh ou l d n ot h a ve ap p l i ed the cross re feren ce.” Id
. at168. The c o ur t hel d t hatt he c r o s s r e fe r e nc e “ ap pl i e s no t w he n t he r e ha s b e e n a conspir acy, bu t rat h er w h en t h e of fe n se w as com m i t t ed f or t h e pu rpose of facil i tati n g th e com m i ssion of a n oth er crim i n a loff en se.” Id
. at168–69 ( i nt er nal quo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)
. W e f i nd C arr p e r s u a s iv e a n d a c c o r d in g ly
rejec t W il li a m s’s in te rp re ta tion of § 2 C 1 .1(c )(1). 5 H e r e , t h e d is t r ic t c o u r t c o r r e c t ly c o n c lu d e d t h a t th e p u r p o s e o f W il li a m s ’s act i on s w as t o faci l i t ate t h e cri m e of drug t raf

f i cki n g by p rovi di n g a poli ce es cort
w hi l e t he s hi pm e nt s o f dr ugs pa s s e d t h rough the c o unt y. At t he s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng, W i l l i am s adm i t t ed t hat he und er st oo d t he purpos e of hi s se r vi c es t o b e t o pr o t e c t a s hi pm e nt o f c o c ai ne . The hy po t he t i c ale xa m pl e l i s t e d i n t he
com m en t ary t o § 2C 1. 1( c) ( 1) is ex act l y t h e si t u ati on tha t occurred i n this case. T h u s , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is t r ic t c o u r t d id n o t e r r i n c a l c u la t in gW il li a m s ’s g u id e lin e s ra n g e . C

. S u bst an t i ve R easona bl eness Se c o nd, W i l l i am s c l ai m s t hathi s s e nt e nc e w as unr e as o nab l e b e c aus e t he di st ri ctcourt “ u n derrated” hi s m i l i t ary servi ce i n consi dering hi s post
- of fen se reha bi l i t ati on . “ G i ven t h e deference du e t h e sentenci n g j udg e ’ s di scr et i on un der t h e B oo ke r /Fanf

an r e gi m e , i t w i l lb e r ar e f o r a r e vi e w i ng c o ur t t o s ays uc h a
s e n te n c e [i.e ., o n e w ith in th e a p p r o p r ia te g u id e lin e s ra n g e ] is u n r e a s o n a b le
. . . [an d ] w e w i l lgive g rea t de feren ce to th a t sen ten ce.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l on zo , 435 F .3d 5 5 1 , 5 5 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (in te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n d c it a tion om itted ). “T h e fact tha t t h e a p p e ll a te cou rt m i gh t reas on a b l y h a ve con cl u d ed tha t a7

di f fe r e nt s e nt e nce was a ppr o pr i at e i s i ns uf f i c i e nt t o j us t i f

y r e ve r s alo f

t he d i stri ct cou rt. ” G a ll , 128 S. C t
. at597. W i l l i am s’ s argum en t concerns t h e w e i gh t gi ven t o hi s A rm y servi ce, not t he fai l ur e t o c o ns i de r t hi s s e r vi c e . The re s e nt e nc i ng o r de r m ak e s c l e art hatt he di st ri ctcou rtcaref

u l l y revi ew ed the bel ated docu m en t s and W i l l i am s’ s evi den ce o f hi s po s t
- o f

fe n s e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n a s p a r t o f i t s § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n a l y s i s . I n d e e d , t he
ne e d f o r t hi s de l i be r at e r e vi e w w as t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s i m pe t us t o v acat e t he ori gi n al s e nt e nc e . W i l l i am s ’ s e r vi c e t o hi s c o unt r y i s ad m i r ab l e and w o r t h y of consi derati on as a m i t i gati n g fact or s u pp ort i n g a d ow n w ard d epa rt u re. H o w e ve r , w e ca nno t sa y t hatt he di s t r i c t co ur t abus e d i t s di s c r e t i o n i n de c i di ng t o r e duc e t he s e nt e nc e t o 1 20 m o nt hs , w hi c h was a l r e ad y l e s s t han t w o - t h i r ds
o f t he l o w e nd o f

t he g ui de l i ne s r ang e , a nd n o t t o a s ho r t e r l e ngt h.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON F or t h e reasons st ated abov e, w e A F F IR M W i l l i am s’ s s en t en ce.