C irc u it Ju d g e J. C liffo rd W a llac e o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e N in th * C i r cui t , s i tt i ng by des i gnat i on. T he C l erk of

the C ourti s di r ect ed t o amend the capt i on t o r ead a s s how n above. ** 09 - 32 28 - cr U ni t ed St at es v. H or t on UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I NG S B Y S UMM AR Y OR DE R DO N OT HA VE P RE CE DE NT I AL E F F ECT . C I T AT I ON T O A S UM M ARY ORD ER FI LED ON OR A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P ERM I TTED AND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND THI S COUR T’ S LOCAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY ORD ER I N A D O C U M EN T F I LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E LE CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UM M ARY ORD ER” ) . A P ARTY C I TI NG A S UM M ARY ORDER M US T S ERVE A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A t a s tate dterm o f th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e S e c o n dC irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 15 day of J une, tw o thous and t en. th P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H, J . CLI FF OR D W ALLA CE, *

C i r cui tJudges .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Appel lee , v. N o. 09- 3228- cr M I CH AE L HOR T ON, a l s o k n o wn a s BU DDY, D ef endant

-Appel lant , W I LLI AM LAM , a l s o k n o wn a s TOK E, BERN I E P E O P L E S , a ls o k n o w n a s D U K E , S H A N IK A D A V IS , M AR K V END ERG RI FT, D e fen da n ts . **

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- FO R A PPE L L A N T : M i chae l H urw i t z, H urw i t z St ampur & R oth, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork.2

FO R A PPE L L E E : T odd W . Bl anche a nd K atheri ne P olk Fai l l a, A s s i s t ant U n ite dS ta te s A tto rn e y s ,f orPr eetB har ar a, U ni t ed St at es A tt orney f

orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork, N ew Y ork. A p p ea l f rom the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r the S o u thern D istri ct o f N ew Y o rk (Jed S . R ak o ff, Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY ORDE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entent er ed on Jul y 28, 2009, i s AF F I RMED . D e fe n d a n t M ich a e l H o rto n , w h o p lea d e dg u ilty to o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c y to tra ffic in fi rea rm s, see 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (a)(1)(A ), ap p ea ls f rom a jud g m en t sen tenc ing h im pr i nci pal l y t o 30 months ’ i m pr i s onm ent . H ort on as s ert s thatpr ocedur al err ori n the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s G u id e lin e s c a lcu latio n a n d s u b sta n tiv e e rro r in th e term o f in c a rc e ra tio n re n d e r h is s ent ence unr eas onabl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d 180, 18 9-90 (2d Ci r . 2008) (e n b a n c ) ( re c o g n iz in g p ro c e d u ra l a n ds u b s ta n tiv e c o m p o n e n ts o f r e a s o n ab le se n te n c e ). W e r evi ew a s ent ence f

orr eas onabl eness, see U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 261- 62 ( 2005) , unde ra n abus e- of - di s cr et i on s t andar d that“ i ncorpor at es de novo r evi ew of ques t i ons of l aw ( i ncl udi ng i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes ) and cl ear - err orr evi ew of ques t i ons of f act , ” U ni t ed St at es v. L egr os , 529 F. 3d 470, 473-74 ( 2d C i r . 2008); see al s o U ni t ed St at es v . C a v e ra , 5 5 0 F .3 da t 18 7 . In ap p ly in g the se p rin c ip les , w e a ss u m e th e p a rties ’ fa m ili a rity w ith th e fa c ts a n d r e c o rd o f p rio r p ro c e e d in g s, w h ich w e re fe re n c e o n ly a s n e c e ss a ry to e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i rm. 1. Pr ocedur al R eas onabl enes s : T he R ol e Enhancement3

H ort on s ubm i t s thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed i n appl yi ng a tw o- l evelr ol e enhancement pur s uantt o U. S. S. G . § 3 B 1. 1( c) i n cal cul at i ng hi s Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. Speci f i cal l y, h e a rgu es th at th e fa c ts f o u n db y the d istri ct co u rtan dset forth in th e P rese n tenc e R ep o rt ( “PSR ”) , w hi ch f

act s he does notdi s put e, w er e i ns uf f i ci entt o supporta f

i ndi ng thathe pl ayed the r ol e of

m anage rorsupervi s ori n the char ged of f ens e, part i cul ar l y i n l i ghtof the ext ens i ve r ol es pl ayed by c o- def endant s W i l l i am L am and B erni e Peopl es . W e di s agr ee. T h e G u idelines estab li sh three sep ara te offen se-lev el e n h an ce m en ts for a d efe n d an t’ s “A gg ravat i ng R ole” i n an off ense. U . S . S . G . § 3 B 1. 1. F or cri m i nal act i vity involvi ng atl east f i ve part i ci pant s orthati s otherw i se ext ens i ve, the G ui del i nes pr ovi de f ora f our - l evel enhanc ementi f

the def endantw as an “or gani zerorl eade r , ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( a) , a nd a thr eel evelenhanc ementi f

the def endantw as a “managerors up ervi sor( butnotan or gani zeror l eade r ) , ” i d. § 3B 1. 1( b) . Sect i on 3B 1. 1( c) pr ovi des f ora tw o- l evelenhanc ementi f the def end ant w as an “or gani zer , l eade r , m anage r , ors upervi s or ” i n connec t i on w i th cr i m i nal ac ti v ity inv o lving few er th an fi v e p arti cipa n ts an dno t o therw ise ex tens ive. Id. § 3 B 1 . 1 (c); s e e a ls o U n ite dS ta te s v . Oje ik e re , 5 4 5 F .3 d2 2 0 , 2 2 1 -2 2 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 8 ). A d e f e n d a n ti s p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e da ma n a g e ro rs u p e rv i s o r“ i f h e e x e r c i s e ds o me degr ee of

contr ol overother s i nvol ved i n the comm i s s i on of the of f ens e orpl ayed a s i gni f i cantr ol e i n the dec i s i on t o r ecrui tor t o supervi s e l ow er - l evelpart i ci pant s . ” U ni t ed St at es v. H ertul ar , 562 F. 3d 433, 448 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on marks a nd cit at i on o m itt e d ). M o re o v e r, a d e fe n d a n t n e e do n ly m a n a g e o r s u p e rv ise o n e o th e r p a rticip a n t to w arr anta rol e enhancement . See U ni t ed St at es v. G ar ci a, 413 F. 3d 201, 223 ( 2d C i r . 2005)4

(st ati n g that rec ruit ing sing le dru g co u ri er into c o n sp ir ac y co u ld “b y it self” su p p o rt e n h a n c e m e n t) . If

s u c h m a n a g e m e n t o r s u p e rv is io n is f o u n d , “ th e a d

ju s tm e n t is m a n d a to ry .” U n it ed S tat es v . B u rgo s, 3 2 4 F . 3 d8 5 , 9 2 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). H ort on’ s a r gum entthatno r ol e enhanc ementw as w arr ant ed f ai l s i n l i ghtof

the di s tr i ct cou rt ’s f i nd i ng s that H ort on “helped n ego t i at e pri ces, helped recruitcert ai n co -conspi rat ors, [ and] helped di r ectthe act i vi ty of the co- cons pi r at or s t o s om e degr ee. ” Sent ’ g T r . at10. T hes e f i ndi ngs w er e gr ounded i n the PSR , w hi ch report ed thatH ort on ( 1) s erved as a key poi ntof cont actbetw een the cons pi r acy and the N ew Y ork buyer( actual l y an under cover a g e n t), (2 ) n e g o tiate dp ric e s a n da rra n g e dp a y m e n t an dd e liv e ry d e tails, a n d(3 ) d e c id e dto re c ru it o th e rs to b u y g u n s in S o u th C a ro lin a a n dto d e liv e r th e m fo r s a le in N e w Y o rk . W e det ectno err or , l etal one cl earerr or , i n the di s tr i ctc ourt ’ s f actual f i ndi ngs . See U ni t ed St at es v . Ive za j, 5 6 8 F . 3 d8 8 , 9 9 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). E ven i f co- def endant s pl ayed e qual l y s i gni f i cantr ol es i n the cons pi r acy – apoi ntthat is f ar from clea r – th eir roles w o u ld n o t neg ate H o rt o n ’s ow n role a s a m an ag er o r sup erv isor. See U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1 A ppl i cat i on N ot e 4 ( “Ther e can, of cour s e, be more than one pe r s on w ho qua l i f

i es a s al eade roror gani zerof ac r i m i nal a s s oci at i on orc ons pi r acy.”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. D uncan, 42 F. 3d 97, 106 n. 6 ( 2d C i r . 1994) ( observi ng that“s uch compar at i ve anal ys es ar e i rr el evant , s i nce one cons pi r at or ’ s l eade r s hi p r ol e i s no tdi s pos i t i ve on the ques t i on of w hetheranotherw as al s o a l eade r ”) ; acc or d U ni t ed St at es v. Si L u T i an, 339 F. 3d 1 4 3 , 1 5 7 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).T o the ext enti tcoul d be ar gued thatthe di s tr i ctcourtmi s cal cul at ed the G ui del i nes 1 by noti m pos i ng a thr ee- l evelenhanc eme nt und er § 3B 1. 1( b) r atherthan the tw o- l evel enhanc ementi ti m pos ed, w e not e thatthe governm enthas notcr os s - appea l ed the s ent ence im p o sed an dthat there is no rea so n to b eli ev e tha t H o rt o n w o u ld h a v e re ce ived a m o re l eni ents ent ence had the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on produc ed a hi gherr ecomm ended s ent enci ng r ange. 5 A ccor di ngl y, the r ecor d ampl y s upport s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s con cl us i on thatH ort on qual i f i ed f oran aggr avat i ng r ol e enhancementunderU . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1. 1 2. S ub st anti ve R easona bleness H o rto n a ss e rts th a t h is s e n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e ly u n re a so n ab le b e c a u se it i s di s pr oport i onat e t o the s ent ence s l at er i m pos ed on hi s co- def endant s . W e di s agr ee. T he pr i m ary conce rn of

18 U . S. C . § 3 55 3(a) ( 6) i s nat i onw i de s ent enci ng di s par i ty among s i m i l ar l y si tuat ed def

endant s , notdi s par i t i es among co- def endant s . See U ni t ed St at es v. Fr i as , 521 F. 3d 229, 236 ( 2d Ci r . 2008) . T o the ext enta di s tr i ctcourtcons i der s s ent enci ng d isp a rities a m o n g c o -d e fe n d a n ts, th e w e ig h t af fo rd e da n y su c h c o n c e rn “ is a m a tter f irm ly comm i tt ed t o the di s cr et i on of the s ent enci ng j udge and i s beyond ourappel l at e r evi ew , as l ong as the s ent ence ul t i m at el y i m pos ed i s r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof al l the ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Flor ez, 447 F. 3d 145, 158 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s a n db ra c k e ts o m itte d ).

“ [I] n th e o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rity o f c a se s, a G u id e lin e s se n ten c e w illfa ll co m fo rtab ly w i thi n the br oad r ange of s ent ence s thatw oul d be r eas onabl e i n the part i cul ar c irc u m sta n c e s.” U n ited S tate s v . F e rn a n d e z , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 9 , 2 7 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ); se e a lso R ita v . U n ited S tate s, 5 5 1 U .S . 3 3 8 , 3 4 7 (2 0 0 7 ) (s tatin g th a t G u id e lin e s s e n ten c e “ s ig n if ica n tly6

incre ase s the li k eli h o o dthat the s en tenc e is a rea so n a b le o n e” ). H ere , the d istri ct co u rt i mp o s e da s e n t e n c e 1 6 mo n th s b e l o w th e Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e a f t e rc o n s i d e r i n g th e 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) f

act or s i n l i ghtof

, i nt eral i a, H ort on’ s per s onal ci rc um s t ance s and r emors e, the d a n g e rs in h e re n t in th e ill e g a l sa le o f f ire a rm s, a n dth e n e e dfo r g e n e ra l d e terre n c e . O n th is recor d, w e con cl ud e that the sentence fel l w i thin the b road ran g e o f perm i ssible deci si on s, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. C aver a, 550 F. 3d at189, part i cul ar l y w her e H ort on f ai l s t o pr ovi de c o n v in c in g su p p o rt fo r h is c laim th a t h e a n dh is c o -d e fe n d a n t co m p a ra to rs w e re so sim ilarly s i tuat ed as t o compel equal l y l eni ents ent ence s f ora l l , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. J i m enez - B el tr e, 4 4 0 F .3 d5 1 4 , 5 1 9 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( “ A s w ith d e p a rtu re s, th e p ro p o n e n t o f a fa c to r th a t w o u ld w ork i n the pr oponent ’ s f avorhas t o provi de the bas i s t o s upporti t . ”) ; acc or d U ni t ed St at es v. Fernandez , 443 F. 3d at32. W e h av e co n side red H o rt o n ’s othe r argu m en ts o n ap p ea l an dco n clud e tha t th ey are w ith o u t m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt