FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 23, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, United States Circuit J u d ge fo r t he Six th Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1511 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 1- 00 12 5- CR-J -2 5- TEM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee,
ve rs us RICH ARD TH OMA S A DA MS, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch23, 200 5) Be fo re MA RC U S, F A Y and S IL E R , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e:2

Ri ch ar d T hom as A dam s a ppe al s hi s 60 -m onth se nte nc e im pose d f or conspiracy

to distrib ute 500 g ram s or m ore of coca ine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 84 1(a)( 1) and (b)(1)( B) and 84 6. O n appeal, A dam s argues that the district
co urt e rr ed

by a sse ssi ng h im

one c ri m ina l hi sto ry

poi nt f or a199 1 c onvi ct ion be cau se th e o ffen se oc cu rredou ts id e th e te n- y ear wi nd ow p ro vi de d fo r in U.S.S.G. § 4A 1. 2( e) (2 ). W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the S en te nc ing Guidelines de novo
. See United States v. Rubio, 317 F.3d 1240 , 1242 (11th Cir. 2003 ). A ft er

atho ro ugh re vie wof

the r ec or d and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n of

the p a rt i e s ’ b r i e f

s an do r a l ar g u me n t s , w e a f f i rm. On May 10, 2001, a fe deral grand j ury in the United States D istrict Court for the Middle District of Florida charged A dam s with conspiring (betw een Mar ch
an d M ay 2, 200 1) to dis tr ibu te 500 gr am s or m or e of c oc ai ne , in vio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( B) and 8 46, and w iththr ee c ount s of dis tr ibu tin g co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , (b) (1 )(C) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2. W ithou t a w ritten plea agree m ent, A dam s entered a guilty plea as to the conspiracy
co un t an d t he go ve rn m en t ag reedto dro p t he rem ai ni ng ch arg es . A t the sub se que nt p le a co llo quy he ar ing , the gov er

nm en t pr of

fe re d th e following factual basis for A dam s’ s guilt y plea. O n March 2, 2001 , a confidential inf orm an t ( “ CI ”) a dvi se d lawe nf or ce m en t tha t A dam s w as inv olv ed in the3

op erat io n o f a co cai ne tra ffi ck in g o rg an iz at io n. Ov er t he co ur se of t he ne xt two mo n t h s , th e C I an dA d a ms h a ds e v e r a l t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n w h i c h A d a ms ind ic at ed his w ill ing ne ss t o se ll dis tr ibu tio n qu an tit ie s of c oc ai ne . T he se co nve rs at ion s w er e m oni tor ed and t ap e- re co rd ed

by lawe nf or ce m en t. A lso dur ing thi s tw o- m onth pe ri od, A dam s m ad e hand- to- hand s al es of c oc ai ne to the CI in a re sta ur ant park ing lot

in Ja ck sonv ill e, F lor ida , on the f oll ow ing da te s and i n ap pr oxi m at el y

the f oll ow ing a m ount s: ( 1) an Apr il 4, 200 1 sa le in the a m ount of 252.2 gram s; (2) an April 25, 2001 s ale in the am ount of 145 gram s; and (3) a May 2, 200 1 sa le in the a m ount of 273 gr am s. T hus, A dam s pr ovi de d th e CI w itha to ta l o f 67 0.2 gra m s o f co cai ne . Adam s was arrested a s he com pleted the May

2, 2001 sale. W

hen he was
ar re ste d, A dam s ha d $8 , 100 in m ar ke d U
. S. c ur

re nc y that he ha d r ec ei ve d f

ro m the CI m om ents earlier
. Adam s’ s codefendant and Adam s had com e to a m utual understandi ng to d istribut e cocaine to the CI , and thi s understand ing was in eff ect f r o m Ap r i l 4 , 2 0 0 1 , t o M a y 2 , 2 0 0 1 . Up o n qu e s t i o n i n g a tth e p l e ah e a r i n g , A d a ms state d th at

he ha d no dis ag re em en t w iththe gov er nm en t’ s pr of

fe r an d
ac know le dge d th at

he ha d c om e to a

m utu al und er standi ng w ithoth er s to pr ovi de
co ca ine unl aw fu lly

to the CI on at l ea st thr ee oc ca sio ns.We note that the assessment of an additional cr iminal hist ory point, b as ed o n the 1991 1 conviction, re ndere d Adams inelig ible for a safe ty -valve reduc tion to his offe nse leve l, see U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)( 6); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)( 1) (enumerating as one of the five require ments for saf ety -valve e lig ibi lity , th at “ the de fe nd ant d oe s n ot have m or e tha n 1 c ri min a l hi sto ry

po int ” ), and , th

us , ine lig ibl e to r e c e ive a

se nte nc e be low

the 60 -m onth m and ator

y min imum he f

a c e d und e r 2 1 U .S. C. § 841(b)( 1)(B ). 4 A t se nte nc ing , the P SI a ssi gne d A dam s aba se of fe nse le ve l of

26, pur suant t o U.S .S .G. § 2 D1 .1 (c )( 7 ), an dre co m m en d eda 2 -l ev el re du ct i o n fo r A d ams’s
m ino r ro le in the of

fe nse , pur suant t o U . S. S. G
. § 3B 1. 2( b) , and a 3- le ve l r ed

uc tio n fo r ac ce ptanc e of

r es pons ibi lity , pur suant t o U . S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1( a) and ( b)
. T hus, Adam s’ s adjusted offe nse level wa s 21. A s for his crim inal histo ry , the P SI
re co m m en de d a sse ssi ng o ne c ri m ina l hi sto ry poi nt b as ed

on an Augus t 22 , 199 1
co nvi ct ionf

or w hic h A dam s ha d r ec ei ve d 12 m onths’ pr obatio n f or vio la tin g G eo rg ia ’ s c ontro lle d su

bst an ce a ct , dr ivi ng unde r the inf lue nc e, spe ed ing , and
carr y ing ac onc ea le d w ea

pon. A dam s a lso r ec ei ve d on e cr im ina l hi sto ry poi nt f or a 1997 conv iction for aggravated fleeing and attem pting to elude poli ce, poss es sio n of

m ar ij uana , dr ivi ng unde r the inf lue nc e, r ec kle ss dri vin g, and dri vin g the w ro ng w ay

on a one -w ay r oa d. T he se tw o c ri m ina l hi sto ry poi nts e sta

bli she d a crim inal histo ry

category of II
. 1 T he P SI f urthe r not ed

that the re w as a5- y ear statut or y m ini m um and a 40- y ear statut or

y m ax im um f or A dam s’ s of

fe nse . T he G uid el ine s se nte nc ing r an ge w as 41- 51 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t, but

be ca use of the m an da tor

y m ini m um , 215

U . S. C. § 84 1( b) (1 )( B) , the r ec om m en de d G uid el ine s se nte nc e w as 60 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. A t the se nte nc ing he ar ing , the gov er nm en t arg ue d a ga ins t giv ing A dam s am ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t be ca use it w as he w ho m et

w iththe pur ch as er , dis cu sse d th e ne got ia te d pr ic e, ha d m ult ipl e te le phon e co nve rs at ion s with the purchaser, and did th e hand-to-hand deliv ery of drugs. T he district court ag re ed , f ind ing that A dam s’ s be havio r in the c as e w as m or e than th at of asim ple dr ug c our ie r. A cc or din gly , the c ourt de nie d th e m ino r- ro le a dj ustm en t. T ak ing int o c onsi de ratio n th e 60- m onth st at uto ry m ini m um , A dam s’ s a dj ust ed

of fe nse le ve l of 23 and c ri m ina l hi sto ry

c at eg or y I I re sul te d inase nte nc ing r an ge of 60 t o 63 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. A dam s arg ue d a ga ins t i m posi tio n of

ac ri m ina l hi sto ry

poi nt f or his Augus t 1991 c onvi ct ionbe ca

use the of fe nse oc curr ed

m uc h e ar lie r (o n January

28, 199 1) than th e ac tua l i m

posi tio n of

his pr ior se nte nc e. A dam s c ont en de d th at the onl y reason he w as not sentenced unt il August 19 91 was because of a busy state-court doc ke t. A cc or din g to A dam s, the re w as no o the r explana tio n f or the se ve n- m onth de lay be ca use he ple d gu ilty

and, thu s, the re w as no d ef en se to pr ep ar e. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ov er

ru le d A dam s’ s ob

j ec tio n, f ind ing that be ca

use the 199 1 im posi tio n of

se nte nc e oc curr ed

w ith in t eny ears of

the be gin nin g of

the ins tant offense, it could be cons idered under the Guidelines. T he district court thenThe district court later gr anted Adams’s motion to vacate hi s sentenc e, filed pursuant to 28 2 U.S.C. § 2255, based o n Ad am s ’s claim t hat counse l was ineff ective f or fa iling to file a

direc t a pp e a l. Th e re a ft e r, the dis tr ic t court re -e nte re d the orig ina l judgme nt in Se pte mbe r 2 00 3. Ad ams then appe aled his sentenc e to this Court. Ronald W. Max well, appointed c ounsel for A dams, moved to withdraw on a

ppeal pur suant to Anders v. Califor nia, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct . 1396, 18 L . Ed. 2d 493 (1967), because , in his opinion, there wer e no issues of arguable merit on which to base a dire ct criminal appe al. We denied that motion and dire cted counsel to brief the issue of whe ther Ada ms’s 1991 conviction should have be en included in his cr iminal hist ory computation at sentenc ing. Cf. United States v. Cornog , 945 F.2d 1504, 1509 ( 11th Cir. 1991) (wher e the 3 c omm e nc e me nt o f t

he c on sp ir a c y

of fe ns e op e ne d th e 15 -ye ar w ind owof § 4 A1 .2 (e )( 1) late r t

ha n d id the substantive offe nses, this Court used the ear liest substantive offense date to outline the date s of the offe nse conduc t, specifica lly limit ing that method and stating“for purposes of this opini on, we will count back only

from the last da

y alleg ed as pa

rt of the c onspiracy” (e mphasis added) ). 6 sentenced Adam s to a 60-m onth term of im prisonm ent, f

ollowed by

a 5-y ear term of supervised release. 2 Se ct ion§ 4A 1. 2( e) of

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s pr ovi de s, in re le vant p ar t, that i n c al cu la tin g ac ri m ina l hi sto ry sc or e fo r of

fe nse s inw hic h ate rm

of im pr iso nm en t of

le ss than on e y ear an d on e m onth w as im pose d, ase nte nc ing
co urt sh oul d sc or e a “pr ior se nte nc e that w as im

pose d w ith in t eny ears of the de fe ndant’ s c om

m en ce m en t of

the ins tant o ff

en se . . . . ” U . S. S. G
. § 4A 1. 2( e) (2 ) (2001). A“prior sentence” f or purposes of thi s Guideline “ m eans any sentence pr ev io us ly im

po se d upo n a dju di cat io n o f gu il t.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .2(a )(1 ). A cc or din g to A dam s, the ins tant o ff en se oc curr ed

on Apr il 4, 200 1, the da te of the
earl ie st s ubst an tiv e of

fe nse . W e have giv enhim the be ne fi t of

that date f

or pur pose s of our ana ly sis
. 37

Adam s asserts that the Guidelines do no t define the term “ im posed” as used in the context o f § 4A1. 2(e)( 2), and that an int erpretation o f the term that
en co m pa sse s so le ly

the da te the se nte nc e w as im pose d f or apr ior of fe nse i mp e rmi s s i b l y o v e r l o o k s th e p r o c e du r a l h i s t o ry o f th e p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n . A d a ms urges the 1991 offense should no t be considered in calculating hi s crim inal histo ry sc or e be ca

use the of fe nse oc curr ed

on J anuary

28, 199 1, but

he w as not

se nte nc ed , thr oughno f

au lt of his ow n, unt il A ugus t 22 , 199 1, the f ir st s ch ed ule d c ourt date af te r his ini tia l a

ppe ar an ce . W e ar e unpe rs ua de d. Be ca use A dam s’ s pr ior

se nte nc e w as im

pose d onAugus t 22 , 199 1, and h e com m enced the instant offense no later than Marc h 2, 2001 (well w ithin 10 y ears of the prior conviction ), the district court correc tly assessed a crim inal-histo ry poin t for the prior conviction. W e decline A dam s’ s invit ation to recognize an exception to th e 10-y ear rule w here, due to an alleged backlog in the state-court sy ste m in w hic h he w as c onvi ct ed , im posi tio n of

the se nte nc e fo r his pr ior
co nvi ct ionw as de lay ed
. S uc h an e xc ep tio n w oul d be c ontrary to the pla in langua ge of

the § 4A 1. 1( c) and i ts a cc om pany ing c om

m en tary , inc lud ing the de fin it io ns of i ts ter m s. The c alculation of a defendant’ s crim inal histo ry category expressly

focuses on “pr ior se nte nc e[ s] , ” not

on p ri or of fe nse s or pr ior c onvi ct ion s. I t i s w el l-8

es ta bli she d th at

“ langua ge in the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s is to be giv enit s pl ai n and
or din ar y m eanin g. ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. P om

pe y , 17 F . 3d 3 51, 354 ( 11th C ir
. 199 4) (c iti ng Unit ed

S ta te s v. S tr ac han, 968 F . 2d 1 161, 116 3 ( 11th C ir
. 199 2) ( re fe rr ing to the “ w ea lthof

pr ec ed en t i n th is c ir cu it that se ek s to r em ai n f ai thf ul t o th e pla in langua ge of

the se nte nc ing gui de lin es ”) ; U nit ed S ta te s v. W ils on, 993 F . 2d 2 14, 217 (11t h Cir. 1993 ) (stating that Sentencing Guidelines comm entary to be given its pla in and o rd inary

m eanin g) ). S im

ply put , the langua ge of

§ 4A 1. 1( c) is
unam bigu ous and, accordingly , w e m ust giv e the language its plain andordinary
m ean in g. Mo re ove r, our

de ci sio n inthi s c as e is c onsi ste nt w ithour sis te r Ci rc uit s’ uni fo rm tr eatm en t of

suc h c la im s. S ee , e . g. , U nit ed S ta te s v. A rn old , 213 F . 3d 894, 896 (5th Cir. 2000) (observing that “ sentence pronoun cem ent is the sole,
re le vant e ve nt f

or pur pose s of § 4A 1. 2( e) (2 )” ); U nit ed

S ta te v. Ro bbi o, 186 F . 3d 37, 45 ( 1st

Ci r. 199 9) ( re

j ec tin g de fe ndant’ s arg um en t tha t pr ior of fe nse s takin g pla ce out sid e of

the 10- y ear pe ri od s houl d no t c ount und er § 4A 1. 2( e) (2 ) an d observing , “ [f] or purposes of determ ining a cr im inal histo ry category under § 4A 1. 2( e) (2 ), the te n- y ear pe ri od i s de te rm ine d by the da te of

se nte nc ing , not

of
co nvi ct ion ”) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. N ap oli , 179 F . 3d 1 , 17- 18 ( 2d C ir
. 199 9) ( af fi rm ing im posit ion of crim inal histo ry point s even wher e prior sentences w ere im posed9

within 10-y ear period onlyafter sentencings were delay ed while def endant was cooperating with the gov ernm ent). In sum , the district court did not err by assessing Adam s one crim inal h i s t o ry p o i n tf

o r th e 1 9 9 1 s e n t e n c e an dw e , a c c o r d i n g l y, a f f i rm. AFFIRMED.