# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 3- 10 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

And re Ro dd y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 23 , 20 13 Fi le d: Octo be r 1, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , BYE, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

And re Ro dd y en te re d a p l ea of gu il ty t o co ns pi racy t o di st rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne an d ot he r co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es in vi ol at io n o f 2 1 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 84 6. Ro dd y was de te rm in ed to be a care er of fen de r pu rs ua nt
to U.S.S.G. § 4B 1.1

. Thi s de si gn at io n res ul te d in an ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in esran ge of 18 8 to 23 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t im po se d a 22 4- m on th 1

te rm of i m pr is on m en t. Ro dd y

ap pe al s t hi s s en te nc e, an d we a ffi rm

.

Ro dd y f i r s t as se rts pr oc ed ur al erro r, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to de pa rt do wnwar d su a sp on te un de r U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .3(b )(1 ). Ro dd y po si ts th at he was

en ti tl ed to th is de pa rtu re be cau se hi s care er of fen de r de si gn at io n si gn ifi can tl y

ov ers ta te d th e se rio us ne ss of hi s cri m in al hi st or y

. Ro dd y , ho wev er, ne ve r req ue st ed th is de pa rtu re be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t bu t rat he r rai se s it fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

. Nex t, Ro dd y arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. Sp eci fic al ly, he

co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve to o li tt le weig ht to hi s di sa dv an ta ge d ba ck gr ou nd

an d di d no t refl ect th e ne ed to pr ov id e ed uc at io na l an d vo cat io na l tra in in g as pa rt of th e se nt en ce.

In rev ie win g Ro dd y ’s ch al le ng e to hi s se nt en ce, we “ fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m

m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r.” Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7)

. Bec au se Ro dd y rai se d no pr oc ed ur al ob jecti on in t h e d i s t ric t

co ur t, we co ns id er hi s pr oc ed ur al cl ai m un de r th e pl ai n- erro r st an da rd

. Uni te d St at es

v. Deeg an , 60 5 F.3 d 62 5, 62 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. McGee
, No. 95 -1 62 6, 19 96 W L 23 00 55
, at *1 (8 th Ci r. May 8, 19 96 ) (h ol di ng th at whe re, as he re, th e de fen da nt di d no t s eek a de pa rtu re un de r U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .3 be fo re th e di st ric t

co ur t, fai lu re to de pa rt is rev ie wed fo r pl ai n erro r). Und er pl ai n- erro r rev ie w, Ro dd y

m us t sh ow: (1 ) an erro r; (2 ) th at is pl ai n; an d (3 ) th a t a f f ect s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s. Jo hn so n v. Uni te d S t a te s , 52 0 U.S. 46 1, 46 6- 67 (1 99 7) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 2 (1 99 3) ). “A p l a i n e r r o r wil l no t be co rrec te d un le ss [] it

se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .”
Uni te d St at es v. Mir el es , 61 7 F.3 d 10 09
, 10 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bai n , 58 6 F .3d 63 4, 6 40 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M. Mo od y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-At th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t co m m en te d th at it was ap pa ll ed by
Ro dd y ’s cri m in al hi st or y

. Eve n be fo re th e pr es en t of fen se , Ro dd y was co nv ic te d of

se ve n pr io r cri m es , in cl ud in g ro bb ery, res id en ti al bu rg la ry an d ba tt ery, as w e l l as th ree in st an ces of po ss es si ng a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. Giv e n th at th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y an d care fu ll y co ns id ered Ro dd y ’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st or y , we fin d no erro r,

m uc h le ss pl ai n erro r, in th e di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to de pa rt d o w n ward su a sp on te

un de r U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.3 (b )(1 ).

Nex t, we ad dr es s R od dy’ s s ub st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss ch al le ng e. W e rev ie w th e su bs ta nti ve re as ona

blen es s of th e se nt en ce un de r a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n
st an da rd

. G a l l
, 5 5 2 U.S. at 41

. A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n in se nt en ci ng whe n i t “ (1 ) fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t

we i g h t ; ( 2) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ; or (3 )

co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a cl ear

erro r of jud gm en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. K an e , 55 2 F .3d 74 8, 7 52 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

Fi rs t, we no te th at Ro dd y ’s wit hi n- gu id el in es se nt en ce is pr es um pt iv el y

reas on ab le

. Uni te d St at es v. W oo da rd
, 67 5 F.3 d 11 47
, 11 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Seco nd
, th e di st ric t cou rt exp res sl y weig he d Ro dd y ’s di sa dv an ta ge d ba ck gr ou nd ag ai ns t hi s

c r im in al hi st or y in as se ss in g Ro dd y ’s hi st or y an d ch arac te ris ti cs : “ [Y]ou’ve ha d a ha rd li fe an d h av e b een de ni ed m os t o f th e ad va nt ag es th at ot he r pe op le ha ve , b ut I

am so m ewh at ap pa ll ed by th e cri m in al hi st or y th at y ou ha ve , no t on ly th e freq ue nc y of th e of fen se s t ha t y ou ’ve co m

m it te d, bu t th e vi ol en t na tu re of m an y of th es e [o ffen se s].” I n ad di ti on , d es pi te Ro dd y ’s c on tra ry co nt en ti on , th e d is tri ct co ur t d id

reco m m en d th at Ro dd y “ pa rti ci pa te in res id en ti a l s u b st an ce ab us e tre at m en t an d ed uc at io na l an d vo cat io na l pr og ram s du rin g in carc erat io n.” In co ns id eri ng t he se rel ev an t fact or s an d im

po si ng a wit hi n- gu id el in es se nt en ce, we di sc ern no cl ear erro r of jud gm en t. Nor do we fin d th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht

. Fo r th es e reas on s, we fin d no ab us e of

-3

-di sc ret io n an d c on cl ud e th at Ro dd y ’s se nt en ce is no t un reas on ab le

. The refo re, we

affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-