T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 31,200 7 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 4299 v. ( D . of U t ah) KYL E M I NC HE Y,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CR- 5 4 6 - DB)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Ky l e M i n c h e yp l e a d e d g u i l tyt o o n e c o u n to f p o s s e s s i o n o f

s t o l e n fi r e a r ms i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922(j ) . B as ed on an offens e l evel of 21 and a cr i m i nal h isto ryo f

V I, M in c h e yfe ll w ith in a se n ten c e ra n g e o f 7 7

– 9 6 m o n th s p u rsu a n t to the U n it ed S tat es S en tenc ing G u idelines (U S S G ). M inch eyso u g h t a do w n w ard departur e bas ed on “di m i ni s hed capaci ty ” underU SSG §5K 2. 13. T he di s tr i ct-2-

cour tdeni ed the mot i on and s ent ence d M i ncheyt o a t erm of 86 m onths . M i nchey t i m el yappea l ed ( 1) t he deni al of the dow nw ar d departur e and ( 2) the r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

h i s s e n t e n c e u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . W e AFF I RM .

I . Backg r ound M in c h e yw a s in d icte d fo r p o ss e ss io n o f a fire a rm b ya c o n v icte d fe lo n in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ) an d fo r kn o w ing p o sses sion o f a stolen firearm in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (j). H e p lea d e d g u iltyto th e se c o n d c o u n t, admi t t i ng t hathe pos s es s ed a M agnum re vol ver , a s hot gun, and tw o r i fl es , w hi ch he knew w er e s t ol en. A thi s change of pl ea he ar i ng, M i ncheyr eques t ed a ps y chol ogi cal exami nat i on pendi ng s ent enci ng. A P r e s e n t e n c e Re p o r t( P S R) wa s p r e p a r e d wh i c h r e l a t e d t h e fo l l o wi n g : On M a y1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , p o l i c e we r e c a l l e d t o i n v e s t i g a t e a r e s i d e n t i a l b u r g l a rya tt h e h o me of M i nchey ’ s par ent s - i n- l aw . Fourfi r earm s , s om e ca s h, and a s etof ca rkey s had been s t ol en. M i ncheyw as s ubs equent l ys t opped i n the vehi cl e ow ned byhi s i nl a w s a nd l a t e rt ol d the offi c e r s w he r e t he fi r e a r ms wer e hi dd e n. The PSR cal cul at ed a ba s e offens e l evel of 20 and fourenhanc ement s fori nvol vementof m or e than thr ee f

i r earm s and a s t ol en fi r earm . A ft era dow nw ar d adj us t m entfor acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , t he PSR arr i ved ata t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21, y i el ding a gu i deli ne rang e of im pri sonm ent of 77 –9 6 m on ths.-3-

M in c h e y ’s c rim in a l h isto ryin c lu d e d a d u lt co n v ictio n s o f 1 2 se p a ra te th e f

t, d rug p o sses sion , an d fo rge ry -relat ed o ffen ses th at y iel d ed a c ri m inal h ist o ry c a teg o ryo f

V I. O th e r c h a rg e s fo r d ru g p o ss e ss io n a n d re c e iv in g sto len p ro p e rty w er e pendi ng att he t i m e. T he PSR al s o not ed that , t hr ee y ear s befor e, M i nchey h a d b e e n d iag n o se d b yS a lt L a k e C o u n tyJa il m e d ica l p e rso n n e l as sc h izo p h re n ic a nd ha d t a ke n med i c a t i on fo rt ha tc on di t i on a s w e l l a s de pr e s s i on . The PSR r ecomm ended M i ncheybe r equi r ed t o compl et e a s ubs t ance abus e pr ogr am as w el l as t o r ece i ve tr eatm entforhi s m ent al i l l nes s . Fi nal l y , t he PSR not ed thatt he m a x im u m te rm o f

im p ri s o n m e n t fo r M in c h e y ’s o ffe n s e w a s te n y e a rs . B efor e s ent enci ng, M i ncheyfi l ed a mot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e for s i gni fi cant l yr educe d m ent al funct i oni ng i n s uppor tof w hi ch he s ubm i t t ed the resu lt s o f a p sy ch o log ical ex am ination . T h e re p o rtsu g g ested that M inch ey ’s

“ h isto ric a l ex p e rie n c e s o f m e n tal illn e ss in c lu d in g p a ra n o id sc h izo p h re n ia sym ptom s m ayhav e con t ri bu t ed to [his ] per cei ved need t o p rocure w eapo ns as a m eans of s el f- pr ot ect i on. ” Supp. A pp. at4. M i ncheyar gued the r eports uppor t ed a c a u sa l co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n h is m e n tal illn e ss a n d h is c rim e , thu s e n tit lin g h im to a dow nw ar d departur e under§ 5K 2. 13. T he governm entobj ect ed t o the mot i on at sen tenc ing b ase d o n it s v iew that an ym en tal il lnes s o n M inch ey ’s pa rt nevert hel es s di d notcaus e hi m t o comm i tt he cr i m e. R . V ol . I I I at4.Sect i on 5K 2. 13 al l ow s “[a ] s ent ence bel ow t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne 1 r a n g e ” i f

“ ( 1 ) t h e d e fe n d a n tc o mmi t t e d t h e o ffe n s e wh i l e s u ffe r i n g f r o m a s i gni fi cant l yr educe d m ent al capa ci ty ; and ( 2) t he s i gni fi cant l yr educe d m ent al c a pa c i t yc on t r i bu t e d s ub s t a nt i a l l yt o the c omm i s s i on of t he offe ns e . ” U SSG §5K . 13. -4- A ts ent enci ng, t he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed M i nchey ’ s m ot i on t o departand s ent ence d hi m t o 86 m ont hs i ncar cer at i on, w i thi n the s ugges t ed gui del i ne r ange. I I . D i s cus s i on 1. D enialof D ow nw ard D epa rture M inch eyarg u es th e d istri ct co u rterred in d en y ing h is m o ti o n fo r a dow nw ar d departur e underU SSG § 5K 2. 13, w hi ch al l ow s a s ent ence bel ow t he appl i cabl e gui del i nes r ange w hen the defendanthas s i gni fi cant l yr educe d m ent al c a p a c ity . A f

ter c o n sid e rin g fa m ilylette rs s e n t o n M in c h e y ’s b e h a lf, the re su lts 1 of a ps y chol ogi cal exami nat i on, and the t es t i m onyof the part i es ats ent enci ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed M i nchey ’ s m ot i on t o departand s ent ence d hi m t o 86 m ont hs im p ri s o n m e n t. R . V o l. I II a t 3 , 9 . W e lac k juri sd ict ion to rev iew a se n tenc ing co u rt ’s refu sal t o d ep art d o w n w a rd f

ro m th e g u id e lin e s, a b se n t a c lea r m isu n d e rsta n d in g b yth e c o u rt o f its d is c re tio n to d e p a rt . See , e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. C havez - D i az , 444 F. 3d 1223, 1228 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Un i t e dS ta t e s v . Br o wn , 3 1 6 F .3 d 1 1 5 1 , 1 1 5 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he o nlyexcep t i on ari ses i f t he d i stri ctcou rtrefuses t o d epartbased o n a fa l se bel i ef thati tl acks t he author i t yt o do s o “fort he ent i r e cl as s of ci r cumst ance sSpeci fi cal l y , t he courts t at ed i t“has r evi ew ed the ps y chol ogi cal 2 eval uat i on i n connec t i on w i t h t hi s s ent enci ng and t aken thati nt o cons i der at i on as w e ll. ” R . V o l. III a t 3 . In ru lin g o n th e m o tio n , the c o u rt sim p lysta ted th a t it “deni es t he mot i on fort he dow nw ar d departur e. ” Id . a t 9 . -5- pr offe r ed byt he defendant . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sheehan , 371 F. 3d 1213, 1215–16 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( concl udi ng w e coul d r evi ew the deni al of a de partur e under U SSG §5K 2, butonl ybeca us e “the di s tr i ctcour tunambi guous l ys t at ed i thad no d iscreti o n to d ep art . . . b ase d o n a d efen d an t’ s d im inishe d ca p ac ity . ”). W hi l e the di s t r i ctcour ti n thi s cas e di d notel abor at e on i t s r at i onal e for deny i ng t he mot i on t o depart , i tal s o neverbetr ay ed a fal s e bel i ef thati tl acke d author i t yt o departfort he “c l as s of ci r cumst ance s pr offe r ed, ” namel ym ent al il lnes s. Itm ad e c lear, m o reo v er, th at th e re su lt s o f th e p sy ch o log ical ex am w ere con si dered b ut exer ci sed i t s di scr et i on t o d enythe m oti on nev ertheles s. 2 2. R eas onabl enes s of Sent ence M i ncheyal s o chal l enges t he r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence . I n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U. S . 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , we c o n tin u e to h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w a s e n te n c e fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . C ha vezD i az , 4 4 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 9 . W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s i n l i ghtof the s e n te n c in g fa c to rs s e t fo rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e d istric t co u rt h a s s ig n ifica n t d isc re tio n in-6-

s ent enci ng, and ourr evi ew forr eas onabl enes s , r egar dl es s of w hetherthe s ent ence fal l s i ns i de orout s i de of the advi s orygui del i nes , i s a r evi ew forabus e of d is c re tio n . R i ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S . C t. 24 5 6 , 2 4 6 5 (2 0 0 7 ); s ee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. G arci a-La ra , N o. 06- 3054, 2007 W L 2380991, at*4 ( 10th C i r . A ug. 22, 2 0 0 7 ). I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d M i ncheyw i thi n the gui del i nes ra n g e a n d M in c h e yd o e s n o t cla im th a t th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e itse lf w a s im p ro p e rly c a lcu late d . T h e b in d in g p re c e d e n t o f o u r c o u rt is th a t “a se n ten c e th a t is p ro p e rly cal cul at ed undert he gui del i nes i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 4 . See a lso United S tates v. R uiz Ter r az as , 4 7 7 F .3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re c e n tly aff i r m ed ourappl i cat i on of the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o w i thi ng u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s , h o ld in g th a t th e p re s u m p tio n is p e rm is s ib le b u t n o t r e q u ir e d . R i ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 5 9 (2 0 0 7 ). N ev erthe less, the p resu m p ti o n o f re aso n ab lene ss “is a d efere n ti al st an d ard t hatei t hert he defendantort he governm entm ayr ebutbydemonstr at i ng thatthe se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le w h e n v iew e d a g a in st th e o th e r fa c to rs d e lin e a ted in § 3553( a) . ” Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054. T hes e fa ct or s i ncl ude “the natur e of the offe ns e and c har act er i s t i cs of the defendant , as w el l as the nee d forthe s ent ence t o r efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e, t o pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence , t o pr ot ect-7-

t he publ i c, and t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d tr ai ni ng ortr eatm ent . ” Id. at 1 0 5 3 . M o re o v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s e m p h a siz e d th e d istric t co u rt’s d u tyto s h o w it h a s c o n s id e re d th e s e fa c to rs in re a c h in g th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . R ita , 127 S. C t . at2468 ( “The se nt enci ng j udge s houl d s etfor th enough t o s at i s fythe appel l at e courtt hathe has cons i der ed the part i es ’ ar gum ent s and has a r eas oned basi s for exerci si ng his ow n legal decis i on m aking au tho ri ty . ”). B ut the C ou rtal so m ade c l eart hata di s t r i ctj udge i s notr equi r ed t o gi ve an e xhaus t i ve l i s tof re a s o n s . Id. ( “ T h e l a w l e a v e s mu c h , i n th i s r e s p e c t , t o th e j u d g e ’ s o wn p rofessio n al j u d g m en t. ”). I n t hi s cas e, M i ncheydoes notchal l enge the fa ctthatm anyof the § 3553( a) fac t or s w ei ghed aga i ns thi m , i ncl udi ng hi s exce s s i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory , the s er i ous nes s of hi s offe ns e, t he nee d forthe s ent ence t o det erhi m fr om s i m i l ar conducti n t he futur e, as w el l as hi s need fortr eatm entfordrug abus e and ment al heal t h i s s ues . R ather , he cl ai m s the di s tr i ctcour t“di d notcons i derthe mi t i gat i ng fac t or s [namel y , t he r es ul t s of hi s ps y chol ogi cal exami nat i on] thatM r . M i nchey p re s e n te d a t s e n te n c in g a s re q u ir e d b y1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” A p lt. B r. a t 2 1

– 2 2 . H e adds t hati ti s “cl eart hatt he di s tr i ctcour tdi d notcons i deranyof the c o n sid e ra tio n s ra ise d in th e d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re m o tio n in d e p e n d e n tlyin det erm i ni ng t he r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence . ” Id. a t 2 3 . B utt he r ecor d bel i es t hi s cl ai m . A ts ent enci ng, the di s tr i ctcour tnot ed:-8-

I h a v e re c e iv e d a n u m b e r o f le tt e r s o n th e d e fe n d a n t’s b e h a lf, fr o m h is m ot her a n d from hi s ex- w i fe, and theyar e verythought ful l et t er s and I a p p re c ia te re c e iv in g th e m . . . . I have als o r evi ew ed a p syc hol ogi cal ex a m in a ti o n in c o n n e c tio n w ith th is s e n ten c in ga n dta ke n th a t in to c o n s id e r a tio n a s w e ll. R . V ol . I I I at3 ( emphasi s added) . T he di s tr i ctcour tw as thus expl i ci tthati thad cons i der ed M i nchey ’ s ps y chol ogi cal pr ofi l e i n connec t i on w i th i ts s ent enci ng decis i on . A d d it ion all y , the term s o f th e se n tenc e im p o sed reflect th e c o u rt ’s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

M i n c h e y’ s h i s t o ry o f m e n t a l i l l n e s s a n d d ru g a b u s e . S p e c i fi c a l l y, t he courtor der ed M i ncheyt o par t i ci pat e i n a drug and al cohol r ehabi l i t at i on p ro g ra m a s w e ll a s a m e n ta l h e a lth tr e a tm e n t p ro g ra m . R . V o l. I II a t 9 . M in c h e y ’s c laim s th a t th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to c o n sid e r h is m iti g a tin g fa c to rs in i m pos i ng hi s s ent ence ar e s i m pl yunfounded. I I I . C oncl usi on F o rt h e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c e i s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge