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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 40 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Mar lo n Ter rel l Co ll in s

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 Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 18 , 20 13 Fi le d: Decem

be r 5, 2 01 3 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Mar lo n Ter rel l Co ll in s ap pe al s t he sen te nc e h e rec ei ve d afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y
to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of co cai ne po wde r an d 8 ki lo gr am s of

m ari juan a, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B)
, a n d 8 4 6

. The di st ric tco ur t im

po se d a wit hi n- Gui de li ne s- ran ge se nt e nc e of 24 6 m on th s, whi ch was al so 1
wit hi n th e ran ge co nt em

pl at ed in Co ll in s's pl ea ag reem en t. On ap pe al
, hi s co un se l ha s fil ed a br ie f pu rs ua nt to And ers v. Cali fo rn ia
, 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , qu es ti on in g th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of Co ll in s's se nt en ce, su gg es ti ng th at th e co ur t di d no t
pr op erl y co ns id er t he 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) st at ut or y se nt en ci ng fact or s, and arg ui ng th at th e se nt en ce im

po se d was gr e at er th an ne ces sa ry to acco m pl is h th e go al s of fed eral se nt en ci ng

. Co ll in s su bm it te d a p ro se su pp le m en ta l br ie f rai si ng

su bs ta nt ia ll y

si m il ar i ss ue s. Fi nd in g n o a bu se of d is cret io n, we af fir m

.

I.

I n Sep te m

be r 20 10
, of

fic ia ls le arn ed th at Co ll in s was ob ta in in g na rco ti cs i n Ariz on a an d arra ng in g fo r th ei r sh ip m en t wit h Fed Ex to Mi nn es ot a. Offi ci al s pl aced Co ll in s un de r su rv ei ll a n ce an d ob se rv ed hi m se nd in g a pa ck ag e to an ad dr es s in Mi nn es ot a. Offi ci al s in te rcep te d th e pa ck ag e, us ed a dr ug -s ni ffi ng do g to de te ct th e
pr es en ce o f dr ug s, and ev en tu al ly di sc ov ered 8.1 3 k il og ram s o f m ari juan a an d 1 .48 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne in si de

. Co ll in s was arre st ed in Mi nn es ot a, an d he la te r en te red in to a pl ea ag reem en t wi th th e Uni te d S ta te s.

The pl ea ag reem en t an d p re-s en te nc e rep or t b ot h s ta te th at Co ll in s's cri m in al hi st or y was cat eg or y VI an d hi s of fen se le ve l was 34
, wh i c h in cl ud ed a th ree- le ve l ad jus tm en t fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. Co ll in s ha d two pr e v i o u s fed eral

co nv ic ti on s an d was on su pe rv is ed rel eas e at th e ti m e of hi s arre st

. Co ll in s's res ul ti ng
gu id el in e ran ge was 26 2– 32 7 m on th s' im pr is on m en t. Dur in g th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e go ve rn m en t req ue st ed a se nt en ce of 29 6 m on th s an d Co ll in s req ue st ed 12 0

m on th s, th e m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce. The di st ric t co ur t im po se d a se nt en ce of 26 4 m on th s. On ap pe al
, Co ll in s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ta ke in to acco un t

The Hon or ab le Jo an N. Eric ks en , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-a l l o f th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, ga ve in su ffi ci en t weig ht to th e effe ct s of Co ll in s ' s

di ffi cu lt up br in gi ng , an d ig no red th e rem or se he ex pr es se d at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng

.

II.

W e us e an ab us e-o f-d i s c r e t i on st an da rd whe n rev ie win g se nt en ces fo r

su bs ta nt iv e r e a s o na bl en es s. Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7)

. "[S ]ubs ta nt iv e ap pe ll at e rev ie w in se nt en ci ng cas es is na rro w an d de fere nt ia l.

. . . [I]t wil l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev ers e a di st ric t co ur t se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge —as su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le ." Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) ( e n b a nc ) (in te rn al
qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. On ap p e a l
, a ci rcu it co ur t can pr es um e th at a se nt en ce wit hi n th e gu id el in es ran ge is reas on ab le

. Uni te d St at es v. Nas h, 62 7 F.3 d 69 3, 69 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Ri ta v. Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S. 33 8, 34 7 (2 00 7) ). The di st ric t

co ur t abu se s its di sc ret io n when it
, am on g ot he r th in gs , "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 g n i f i c an t weig ht ." Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

Afte r a care fu l, in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 , 82 –8 3 (1 98 8)
, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y weig he d
ap pr op ria te se nt en ci ng fact or s an d im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le se nt en ce. The
pr e-s en te nc e rep or t de sc rib ed Co ll in s's p e r so na l ba ck gr ou nd
, in cl ud in g a tro ub le d ch il dh oo d an d ab s e n c e o f a fat he r fig ur e. Dur in g Co ll in s's se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Co ll in s's at to rn ey ag ai n pr es en te d th is in fo rm at io n to th e co ur t, an d Co ll in s ex pr es se d hi s rem or se fo r ha vi ng co m m it te d th e of

fen se an d ap ol og iz ed to hi s fam il y

. The di st ric t co ur t ad d r e s s e d t he earl y ch al le ng es Co ll in s face d, st at in g: "[I ]t's ve ry ha rd

to co m e fro m th e so rt of back gr ou nd th at y ou di d. .

. . The re's no qu es ti on at al l th at th is —t ha t's a to ug h way to s ta rt o ut in li fe."

-3

-The di st ric t co ur t ba se d Co ll in s's se nt en ce on hi s li ke li ho od of reci di vi sm ,

de m on s t r a te d by Co ll in s's pr ev io us dr ug co nv ic ti on s an d th e fact th at he co nt in ue d

to co m m it cri m es whi le on su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th e fact th at th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran g e was hi gh fo r a th ird of fen se , st at in g: "[T]he fact th at th e care er offen de r gu id el in es are so m uc h hi gh er m ak es se ns e if y ou th in k ab ou t [it ]

. . . You kn ow y ou do it
, y ou do it ag ai n, y ou do it ag ai n. So rt of m ak es y ou th in k,

. . . f

r o m th e po in t of vi ew of co m m un it y sa fet y an d th e li ke li ho od th at th e
pe rs on is real ly g oi ng to tu rn th ei r li fe aro un d a nd tak e ad va nt ag e o f th e th in gs th at we're of feri ng y ou , y ou kn ow, it 's jus t no t a go od si gn ." We ig hi ng Co ll in s's li ke li ho od of reci di vi sm an d th e se rio us na tu re of hi s of fen se s ov er Co ll in s's pe rs on al ch arac te ris ti cs an d bac kg ro un d was with in th e co ur t's di sc ret io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Wise carv er, 6 44 F.3d 76 4, 7 74 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

III.

T he dis tr ic t co ur t pr op erl y cal cu la te d th e ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge fo r Co lli ns,
to ok in to acco un t Co ll in s's § 35 53 (a) fact or s, an d se nt en ced C o l l i n s w it hi n a ran ge
pr es cri be d by th e Gui de li ne s. W e co n c l u d e th at th e se nt en ce im po se d was no t

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e affi rm th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t, an d we
gr an t co un se l's m ot io n t o wi th dr aw.

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

-4

-