# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 36 65

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

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.

Vict or Vick ers

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 7 , 20 17
Fil ed : M ay

3, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Afte r a jury co nv ic te d Vict or Vick ers of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m ari juan a th e
di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to th e st at ut or y m ax im um of 60 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t.

Vick ers ap pe al ed

. W e affi rme d h i s c o nv ic ti on , bu t va cat ed hi s se nt en ce an d

rem an de d fo r res en te nc in g du e to an erro r in th e d i s t r i c t c o ur t's ap pl ic at io n of th e

se nt en ci ng gu id el in es

. See Uni te d St at es v

. Ta yl o r, 81 3 F.3 d 11 39

, 11 51 (8 th Ci r.20 16 ). On rem an d th e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n se nt en ce d V i c k ers to 60 m on th s 1

im pr is on m en t. Vic ke rs ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

In Sep te m

be r 20 14 a jury co nv ic te d Vick ers of co ns pi racy to di st r i b u t e l e ss

th an 10 0 k il og ram s o f m ari juan a. Pri or

to se nt en ci ng th e pr ob at io n o ffi ce p rep ared

a pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t t ha t i nd ic at ed th at Vick ers was fa ci ng ch arg es in

st at e co ur t fo r al le ge dl y pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e m ur de r of a m an na m ed Edwar d Ewin g.

At hi s se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in g th e go ve rn m en t cal le d an of fic er who ha d in ve st ig at ed

th e m ur de r to te st ify an d al so in tro du ced a vi de ot ap ed in te rv ie w of Ewin g's gi rlf rie nd

, who ha d be en pr es en t du rin g th e m ur de r. On th e ba si s of th is ev id en ce th e di st ric t

co ur t fo un d th at Vick ers ha d pa rti ci pa te d in th e m ur de r an d co nc lu de d th at th e m ur de r

was "d ru g- rel at ed act iv it y " th at warra nt ed th e ap pl ic at io n of th e m ur de r cro ss

refe ren ce in th e gu id el in es se ct io n fo r dr ug rel at ed o f f e n s e co nd uc t. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2D1 .1(d )(1 ). The ap pl ic at io n of th e m ur de r cro ss refe ren ce in crea se d Vick ers ' ba se

of fen se le ve l fro m 12 to 43

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Vic k e r s t o t he st at ut or y

m ax im um of 6 0 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t.

Vick ers ap pe al ed

. W e affi rm ed hi s co nv ic ti on bu t con cl ud ed th at th e di st ric t

c ou rt erre d whe n it ap pl ie d th e m ur de r cro ss refe ren ce at Vick ers ' se nt en ci ng

. Se e Tay lo r, 81 3 F.3 d at 1 1 5 0

– 5 1

. W e th us "v acat e[d ] hi s se nt en ce an d rem an d[ ed ] hi s

cas e fo r r e s en te nc in g." Id

. at 11 51

. Afte r ou r m an da te is su ed bu t be fo re Vick ers '

res en te nc in g he ari ng , he was co nv ic te d in st at e co ur t of th e Ewin g m ur de r. Alt ho ug h

th e di st ric t c o u r t h eed ed ou r di rect iv e th at th e m ur de r cro ss refe ren ce was

in ap pl ic ab le

, th e co ur t co ns id ered Vick ers ' in v o l v e m en t in th e Ewin g m ur de r in

res en te nc in g hi m

. Vick ers was ag ai n se nt en ced to 60 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Vick ers

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-ap pe al s, ar gu in g t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t er red in co ns id eri ng th e Ewin g m ur de r at hi s

res en te nc in g pr oc eed i n g an d co nt en di ng th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

II.

W e rev ie w th e se nt en ce im po se d by a di st ric t co ur t fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n an d

pr oc eed "i n t wo s te ps : fi rs t, we re vi ew fo r si gn ifi can t p ro ced ur al erro r; and se co nd

. . . we rev ie w fo r su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss ." Uni te d St at es v. O'Co nn or , 56 7 F.3 d

39 5, 39 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Pro ced ur al err o r s in cl ud e "fa il in g to cal cu la te (o r

im pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , tre at in g th e Gui de li ne s as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d o n cl earl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s, or fail in g to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e ch os en se nt en ce— in cl ud in g a n

ex pl an at io n fo r an y de vi at io n fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ." Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2

U.S. 38

, 51 (2 00 7)

. A di st ric t co ur t m ay im po se a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

se nt en ce if it "fa il s 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 ; 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 co ns id ers on ly

th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t." O'Co nn or , 56 7 F.3 d

at 39 7 (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Sad dl er, 5 38 F.3d 87 9, 8 90 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) ).

A.

Vick ers fir st co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r whe n

res en te nc in g hi m

. His so le arg um en t in th is reg ard is th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by

ta ki ng hi s con vi ct io n for th e m ur de r of Edwar d Ewing in to acco un t wh en weig hi ng

th e fact or s ou tl in ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) an d craf ti ng hi s se nt en ce. Vick ers arg ue s 2

Not ab ly, Vick ers do es no t arg ue th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al 2

erro r by fai li ng ad eq ua te ly to ex pl ai n it s ch os en se nt en ce. See Uni t e d S t a t e s v. W eari ng , 83 7 F.3 d 90 5, 91 0 n.6 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (p er cu ria m) (arg um en ts no t

su ffi ci en tl y

de ve lo pe d i n o pe ni ng bri ef are de em ed waiv ed ).

-3

-th at an y co ns id erat io n of th e Ewin g m ur de r sh ou ld ha ve be en ba rred by ou r m an da te

in hi s pri or ap pe al whi ch he co ns tru es as or de rin g th e co ur t to se nt en ce him "o n th e

reco rd al read y be fo re th e Co ur t, le ss th e Ewin g m ur de r." Vick ers al so co nt en ds th at

hi s co nv ic ti on fo r th e Ewin g m ur de r, whi ch ha pp en ed aft er ou r m an da te was is su ed

bu t b efo re his res en te nc in g, am ou nt ed to "n ew ev id en ce" th at sh ou ld no t hav e be en

in tro du ced or c on si de red

. 3

W e di sa gr ee wit h Vick ers ' co ns tr u c t i o n of th e sc op e of ou r m an da te

. In ou r

op in io n on hi s p rio r ap pe al

, we co nc lu de d si m pl y th at th e fact th at th e di st ric t cou rt

ap pl i e d t h e m

ur de r cro ss refe ren ce whe n se nt en ci ng hi m was erro r an d "t he refo re

va cat e[d ] hi s sen te nc e an d rem an d[ ed ] hi s case fo r res en te nc in g." Tay lo r, 81 3 F.3d

at 11 51

. In ot he r wor ds

, ou r op in io n di rect ed th e di st ric t co ur t to res en te nc e Vick ers
wit ho ut ap pl y in g th e m

ur de r cro ss refe ren ce bu t pl aced no ot he r "l im it at io ns on th e
di sc ret io n of th e

. . . di st ric t co ur t jud ge ." See Pep pe r v. Uni te d St at es , 56 2 U.S. 47 6,

50 6 (20 11 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Our remand was t hu s a gen eral on e

th at co nt em

pl at ed res en te nc in g d e n ov o. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v . Bat es , 61 4 F .3d 49 0,

49 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) ("On rem an d, we m ay pr ov id e in st ru ct io ns li m it in g th e sc op e of

th e d is tri ct co ur t's di sc ret io n o r we m ay rem an d wit ho ut li m it at io ns ."). The d is tri ct

co ur t ad he red to ou r in st ru ct io ns by de cl in in g to ap pl y th e m ur de r cro ss refe ren ce at

res en te nc in g.

Hav in g de te rm in ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t's co ns id erat io n of th e Ewin g m ur de r

was no t ba rred by ou r pr io r m an da te

, we ne xt ad dr es s th e q u es ti on of whe th er

Neit he r be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t no r on ap pe a l h as Vick ers arg ue d th at hi s 3

co nv ic ti on fo r th e Ewin g m ur de r sh o u l d n o t h a ve be en us ed whe n cal cu la ti ng hi s cri m in al hi st or y un de r th e gu id el in es ; hi s on ly ob jecti on is to th e di st ric t cou rt' s us e of th at co nd uc t whe n weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s. Si nc e th e is su e is

no t be fo re us , we ex pr es s no op in io n as to whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by u si ng th e Ewin g co nv ic ti on in it s cal cu la ti on of Vick ers ' cri m i n a l hi st or y

. See W eari ng , 83 7 F .3d at 9 10 n.6

.

-4

-ev id en ce of Vick ers ' in vo lv em en t in th e m ur de r co ul d pr op erl y be co ns id ered ou ts id e

th e co nt ex t of the m

ur de r cro ss refe ren ce pro vi si on of th e gu id el in es

. W e co nc lu de

t h at it co ul d. W he n we rem an d a cas e fo r res en te nc in g de no vo , a di st ric t c o u r t i s "p erm it te d to co ns id er an y rel ev an t ev id en ce th at it co ul d ha ve rece iv ed at [th e
de fen da nt 's] fir st se nt en ci ng he ari ng ." Uni te d St at es v. Rei d, 82 7 F.3 d 79 7, 80 1 (8 th

Ci r. 20 16 ). In th is cas e th e di st ric t co ur t no t on ly co ul d ha ve , bu t di d, rece iv e

ev id en ce rel at ed t o t h e Ew in g m ur de r at Vick ers ' fir st se nt en ci ng he ari ng

. Thi s

ev id en ce in cl ud ed te st im on y fro m an of fic er who ha d in ve st ig at ed th e m ur de r an d a
vi de ot ap ed in te rv ie w of th e vi ct im 's gi rlf rie nd who ha d be en pr es en t du r i n g th e

m ur de r. Vick ers al so pr es en te d te st im on y fro m an at to rn ey who ha d rep res en te d hi m

in co nn ect io n wit h th e st at e m ur de r ch arg es an d who be li ev ed in Vick ers ' in no cen ce.

At th e co nc lu si on of th e ev id en ce, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at Vick ers was in vo lv ed

in th e m ur de r.

Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in us in g th is fin di ng to ap pl y th e m ur de r cro ss

r e f e r e nc e at Vick ers ' fir st se nt en ci ng , no th in g wou ld ha ve pr ecl ud ed it fro m
de te rm in in g at th at pr oc eed in g th at th e Ewin g m ur de r was rel ev an t to it s weig hi ng of

th e § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact o r s

. We ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld th at "p rio r cri m in al

co nd uc t, whe th er or no t rel at ed to th e of fen se of co nv ic ti on , . . . is pa rt of 'th e hi st or y

an d ch arac te ris ti cs of t h e d e fen da nt ' th at th e co ur t 'sh al l co ns id er' in im po si ng an

ap pr op ria te se nt en ce, 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) , a nd it m ay be rel ev an t in a pa rti cu la r

cas e to th e fact or s en um erat ed in § 35 53 (a)( 2) ." Uni te d St at es v. Loa iz a-Sa nc he z,

62 2 F.3 d 93 9, 94 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Su ch cri m in al co nd uc t m ay be co ns id ered

reg ard le ss of whe th er th e de fen da nt ha s be en ch arg ed or co nv ic te d fo r th at co nd uc t.

At se nt en ci ng , t he d i s t r ic t co ur t ne ed on ly fi nd by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce

th at th e de fen da nt co m

m it te d th e cri m e at is su e f o r t h e co nd uc t pr op erl y to be

co ns id ered in co nn ect io n wit h th e co ur t's an al y si s of th e b r o a d a nd in cl us iv e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. See Uni te d St at es v. W al le r, 68 9 F.3 d 94 7, 96 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (p er

cu ria m ). Sin ce t he di st ric t co ur t co ul d h av e fo un d th at Vick ers was in vo lv ed in th e
Ewin g m ur de r an d pr op erl y co ns id e r e d th at co nd uc t whe n weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a)

-5

-fact or s at hi s fir st se nt en ci ng , it di d no t co m m it pr oc ed ur al erro r whe n it di d so at hi s

res en te nc in g. See Rei d, 82 7 F.3 d at 80 1; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Tid well

, 82 7 F.3 d

76 1, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (n ot in g th at a co nv ic ti on th at oc cu rred be twee n a se nt en ci ng

an d a res en te nc in g c ou ld pro vi de gro un ds for an in crea se d s en te nc e).

B.

Vick ers al so arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un re a so na bl e. He

ad va nc es m

ul ti pl e arg um en ts in su pp or t of th is al le ga ti on

. Fi rs t, he arg ue s th at hi s

in vo lv em en t in th e Ewin g m ur de r was an "i m

pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ," O'Co nn or , 56 7 F.3 d at 39 7, to whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve si gn ifi can t weig ht

. As di sc us se d at

le ng th ab ov e, ho wev er, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ul d pr op erl y co ns id er th e
Ewin g m ur de r in co nn ect io n wit h it s weig hi ng of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. See Uni te d

St at es v. Ri ch art

, 66 2 F.3 d 10 37

, 10 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The co ur t's co ns id erat io n of

th e Ewin g m

ur de r in craf

ti ng Vick ers ' se nt en ce th eref or e do es no t ren de r hi s se nt en ce

su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

Vick ers al so arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se it

is gr eat er th an ne ce s sa ry to sa ti sf y th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d is di sp arat e fro m th e

se nt en ces gi ve n si m il arl y si tu at ed de fen da nt s. Afte r care fu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at

th es e arg um en ts fai l to es ta bl is h th at th e di st ric t co ur t a b u s e d it s di sc ret io n in

se nt en ci ng Vick ers

. Dis tri ct co ur ts ha ve an "'i ns ti tu ti on al ad va nt ag e' in fin di ng fact s

an d judg in g th ei r im

po rt un de r § 35 53 (a)" th at en ti tl es th ei r se nt en ci ng de ci si on s to

co ns id erab le de fere nc e. Ri ch art

, 66 2 F.3 d at 10 55

. W e are no t pe rm it te d to "s et as id e

a se nt en ce m er e l y be cau se we wou ld ha ve de ci de d th at an ot he r on e is m or e

ap pr op ria te ." Id

. at 10 54 (q uo ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Irey , 61 2 F .3d 11 60

, 11 91 (1 1t h

Ci r. 20 10 ) (en ba nc )). At Vick ers ' res en te nc in g th e di st ric t co ur t reci te d th e rel ev an t
§ 35 53 (a) fact or s an d in fo rm ed Vick ers th at it was im po si ng th e m ax im

um se nt en ce

al lo wed by st at ut e be cau se Vick ers "l ed a ve ry de st ru ct iv e li fe th at was ve ry m uc h a
da ng er to th e co m

m un it y as e v i d e n ced by" hi s in vo lv em en t in th e dr ug co ns pi racy

-6

-a n d t h e Ew in g m ur de r. W e can no t sa y th at th is de te rm in at io n, or th e se nt en ce

im po se d in rel ia nc e on it

, was an ab us e of th e co ur t's di sc ret io n. In d e ed

, we ha ve

pr ev io us ly up he ld si m il ar se nt en ci ng de ci si on s in co m pa rab le cas es

. See, e.g ., id

. at

10 53 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Ro be rs on , 33 4 F. App 'x 78 7, 78 9– 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 )
(p er cu ria m ) (u np ub li sh ed ).

III.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

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

-7

-