# 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- 28 90

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

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.

Jo se ph Mi ch ael Even so n, al so kn own as J os ep h An de rs on Even so n

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

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

No. 1 6- 32 68

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

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.

Mi gu el Ang el Torr es Alv arez

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Des M oi ne s

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Apri l 3 , 20 17
Fi le d: Ju ly 28, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, LOKEN , and RILEY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

RILEY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

The se are th e co ns ol id at ed se nt en ci ng ap pe al s of two pa rti ci p a n t s i n

ov erl ap pi ng dr ug -d is tri bu ti on co ns pi raci es

. Jo se ph Eve ns on arg ue s the dis tri ct co ur t 1

sh ou ld no t ha ve tre at ed hi m as a care er of fen de r un de r th e ad vi so ry Uni t e d St at es

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es or U.S.S.G.). Mi gu el Torr es Alv arez arg ue s th e
di st ric t co ur t s ho ul d h av e se nt en ced hi m be lo w what th e Gui de li ne s re co m m en de d,

be cau se of hi s di ffi cu lt ch il dh oo d an d m en ta l-h eal th pr ob le m s. W it h ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, we af fir m bo th sen te nc es

.

I. EVENSO N

Jo se ph Eve ns on was cau gh t recei vi ng ab ou t 1 67 gra m s o f m et ha m ph et am in e

fro m so m eo ne un de r po li ce su rv ei ll an ce. H e pl ed gu il ty t o co ns pi rin g to di st rib ut e

a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a ) ( 1 )

, 8 4 6. Eve ns on ’s pr es en te nc e

in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) reco m m en de d se nt en ci ng hi m as a “ care er of fen de r” un de r
Gui de li ne s § 4B 1.1 (a)( 3)

, whi ch req ui red th at he “ ha [d ] at le as t two pr io r fel on y

co nv ic ti on s of ei th er a cri m e of vi ol en ce or a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se .” Eve ns on

in it ia ll y o b

jecte d to th at de te rm in at io n. The po in t tu rn ed on whe th er Eve ns on ’s

co nv ic ti on s fo r th ird

- d e g r e e bu rg la ry an d at te m pt ed bu rg la ry un de r Io wa la w, se e

Io wa Co de §§ 71 3.1 , .2, .6A, .6 B, co un te d a s cr im es of v io le nc e. 2

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1

So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.

Eve ns on al so ha d an Io wa co nv ic ti on fo r as sa ul t o n a ja i l e r, se e Io wa Co de 2 § 7 08 .3A(3 ), whi ch he no lo ng er d is pu te s was a cri m e o f vi ol en ce.

-2

-Befo re se nt en ci ng , Eve ns on reac he d an ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t. If th e

go ve rn m en t reco m

m en de d red uc in g E ve nson ’ s of fe nse le ve l by two le ve ls fo r pl ay in g

on ly a m in or ro le i n t he cri m e, se e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2 (b ), an d if th e di st ric t co ur t

acce pt ed th e reco m

m en da ti on , th en Eve ns on “ w[o ul d] wit hd raw hi s ob jecti on s to th e

care er of fen de r en ha nc em en t.” At Eve ns on ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t

co nf irmed th e pa rti es ’ res ol ut io n of th e care er-o ffen de r is su e. Eve n s o n ’s la wy er

res po nd ed : “ In li gh t of th e go ve rn m en t’s ag reem en t to reco m m en d a d o w n ward

ad jus tm en t red uc ti on fo r m it ig at in g ro l e , w e wil l wit hd raw ou r ob jecti on s to th e

ap pl ic at io n of th e care er of fen de r gu id el in e.” The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e red uc ed

of fen se le ve l an d se nt en ced Eve ns on to th e lo w en d of th e res ul ti ng Gui de li ne s ran ge , 15 1 m on th s i n p ris on

.

Two week s la te r, th e Su pr em e Co ur t de ci de d Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es , ho ld in g

an Io wa bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on do es no t co un t as a “ vi ol en t fel on y ” co nv i ct io n fo r

pu rp os es of tri gg eri ng th e Arm ed Care er Cri m in al Act’s fif te en -y ear m an da to ry

m in im um se nt en ce. See Mat hi s v. Uni te d St at es , 57 9 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 6 S. Ct

. 22 43

, 22 57 (2 01 6) (ap pl y in g 18 U.S.C

. § 92 4( e)). Bec au se we ge ne ral ly tre at “ vi ol en t

fel on ie s” un de r th at st at ut e as in te rch an ge ab le wit h “ cri m es of vi ol en ce ” u n d e r th e
Gui de li ne s, se e, e.g ., U n i t e d S t at es v. Bo os e, 73 9 F.3 d 11 85

, 11 87 n.1 (8 th Ci r.

3

20 14 ), Eve ns on arg ue s it “ fo ll ows in ex or ab ly” fro m Mat hi s th at se nt en ci ng hi m as a

ca r e er of fen de r was a m is ta ke

. In Eve ns on ’s vi ew, we sh ou ld rem an d fo r

res en te nc in g un de r Fed eral Ru le o f Cri m in al Pro ced ur e 52 (b ), whi ch au th or iz es us

Neit he r Eve ns on no r th e go ve rn m en t m en ti on s th e so -cal le d “ res id ua l cl au se ” 3

of Gui de li ne s § 4 B1 .2(a )(2 ) (as in effe ct at t he ti m e o f se nt en ci ng in May 20 16

, se e U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 1( a)), whi ch ex te nd ed th e de fin it io n of “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” to in cl ud e cri m es th at “ ot he rwis e in vo lv e[] co nd uc t th at pr es en ts a se rio us po te nt ia l ris k

o f ph y si cal in

jury to an ot he r”— an d whi ch

, si nc e ab ou t a y ear earl ie r, ha d no v a l i d

st at ut or y an al og ue , se e Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 57 6 U.S.

__ _,

__ _, 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51

, 25 63 (20 15 ). W e wil l t he refo re i gn or e it as we ll

.

-3

-to co rrec t “ pl ai n erro r th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l r i g h t s

. . . ev en th ou gh it was no t

br ou gh t to th e [d is t ric t] c ou rt’s at te nt io n.” See ge ne ral ly J oh ns on v. Uni te d St at es , 52 0 U.S. 4 61 , 46 6- 70 (19 97 ).

Pl ai n erro r rel ie f is no t av ai la bl e in cas es of waiv er, be cau se waiv in g an is su e

“ ex ti ng ui sh [es ]” an y po te nt ia l erro r an d le av es no th in g to co rrec t. Uni te d St at es v.

O l a n o , 5 0 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 2- 33 (1 99 3)

. Thi s is su ch a cas e. By rai si ng an d t h e n
wit hd rawi ng an ob

jecti on to cl as si fy in g hi s bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on s as cri m es of

vi ol en ce, Eve ns on de m on st r a t e d “ th e ‘int en ti on al rel in qu is hm en t or ab an do nm en t

of ’” h is rig ht to arg ue th e po in t. Uni te d S t a t e s v

. H arri so n, 39 3 F.3 d 80 5, 80 6 (8 th

Ci r. 20 05 ) (q uo ti ng Olan o, 50 7 U.S. at 73 3) ; acco rd

, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 28 9 F .3d 52 4, 5 26 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) . That is , he wai ve d i t.

W e reco gn iz e th at “ [w]aiv er i s di ffer en t from fo rfei tu re.” Olan o, 50 7 U.S. at

73 3. Bu t Eve ns on di d no t si m pl y “ fai l[] to m ak e th e ti m el y as se rti on of [th e] rig ht .”

Id

. The two Si xt h Ci rcu it de ci si on s Eve ns on ci te s, Uni te d St at es v. Cl em en ts

, 14 2 F.
App ’x 22 3 (6 th Ci r. 20 05 ), an d Uni te d St at es v. St in es , 31 3 F.3 d 91 2 (6 th Ci r. 20 02 ),

th ou gh su pe rfi ci al ly si m il ar to th is cas e, are no ba si s fo r us to ho ld ot he rwis e. Tho se

cas es in vo lv ed de fen da nt s who

, ha vi ng at f i r s t di sp ut ed th e qu an ti ty of dr ug s th ey

were res po ns ib le fo r an d th en dr op pe d th os e fact ua l ch al le ng es at se nt en ci ng , so ug ht

on ap pe al to arg ue th at le t t i n g th e di st ric t co ur t rat he r th an a jury m ak e th e dr ug

qu an ti ty fin di ng vi ol at ed th ei r Fi fth an d Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht s. See Cl em en ts

, 14 2

F. App ’x at 22 4- 25

, 22 8; St in es , 31 3 F.3 d at 91 6- 17

. The co ur t fo un d fo rfei tu re, no t

waiv er— an d th us un de rto ok pl ai n er ro r re vie w —e m pha siz ing tha t the Su pr em e Co ur t

de ci si on s on whi ch th e ap pe al s were ba se d (in Cl em en ts

, Uni te d St at es v. Bo ok er,

54 3 U.S. 2 20 (2 00 5) ; in St in es , Ap pr en di v. New Je rs ey , 5 30 U.S. 4 6 6 ( 20 00 )) ha d

no t be en is su ed ye t a t th e ti m e of se nt en ci ng

. See Cl em en ts

, 14 2 F. App ’x at 22 9;

St in es , 3 1 3 F .3d at 91 7. Tha t fact was si gn ifi can t be cau se th e co ur t ap pa ren tl y
be li ev ed a de fen da n t c ou ld no t rai se a Bo ok er ch al le ng e be fo re Bo ok er, or an App ren di ch al le ng e be fo re App r e n d i

, so th e ti m in g of th e Su pr em e Co ur t ru li ng s

-4

-co nc lu si ve ly es ta bl is he d th at th e arg um en ts th e de fen da nt s ha d rai se d, an d th en gi ve n

up at se nt en ci ng , m

us t ha ve be en di ffer en t fro m th os e th ey were ad va nc in g on ap pe al

. See C le m en ts , 14 2 F . App ’x at 2 29 ; St in es , 31 3 F .3d at 9 17

.

Mat hi s di d no t es ta bl is h a n e w s o r t of ch al le ng e in th e sa m e way

. As th e

Su pr em e Co ur t pr es en te d it

, th e d e ci si on si m pl y refl ect ed th e “ st rai gh tfo rward ”

ap pl ic at io n of de cad es of pr eced en t. Ma t h i s , 57 9 U.S. at

__ _, 13 6 S. Ct

. at 22 57

. Mo re to th e po in t, th e su bs ta nc e of Eve ns on ’s Mat hi s arg um en t to da y is th e sa m e as
wha t he arg ue d, wit ho ut Mat hi s, in hi s ob jecti on to th e PSR— th at “ hi s p r e di cat e

of fen se s .

. . are no t q ua li fy in g ‘ fel on y cri m es of vi ol en ce’ fo r pu rp os es of U.S.S.G.

se ct io n 4B 1.1 (a)” be cau se “ Io wa’s bu rg la ry st at ut e is no t cat eg or ic a l l y a c rime of

vi ol en ce.” Cf. Cl em en ts

, 14 2 F. App ’x at 22 9 (ex pl ai ni ng th e su bs ta nt iv e di ffer en ce

4

be twee n th e ch al le ng e th e de fen da nt m ig ht ha v e waiv ed at se nt en ci ng an d wha t he

arg ue d on ap pe al ); St in es , 31 3 F.3 d at 91 7. At m os t, Mat hi s st ren gt h e n s t h a t

arg um en t. The po ss ib il it y of pu rs ui ng su ch a ch al le ng e an d be ne fit ti ng fro m a ru li ng

li ke Mat hi s is pr eci se ly wha t Even so n trad ed away when he ag reed to wit hd raw h is

ob jecti on in ex ch an ge fo r th e cert ai nt y of an of fen se le ve l red uc ti on th at im m ed ia te ly

to ok m or e th an th ree years o ff h is Gui de li ne s ra ng e.

Eve ns on , as th e sa y in g go es , op te d fo r th e bi rd in ha nd at th e ti m e of

se nt en ci ng

. On ap pe al

, he as ks th is co ur t to gi ve hi m th e two bi rd s fro m th e bu sh as
well , aft er s om eo ne els e cau gh t t he m . W e si m pl y ho ld hi m to hi s ch oi ce.

The fact th at at th e ti m e Eve ns on was se nt en ced

, ci rcu it pr eced en t he ld Io wa 4

th ird -d eg ree bu rg l a r y t o b e a cri m e of vi ol en ce un de r th e Gui de li ne s, se e Uni te d
St at es v. St ev en s, 14 9 F.3 d 74 7, 74 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ), di d no t m ean Eve ns on “ ha d no rig ht t o o b

je ct at se nt en ci ng to th e us e of hi s bu rg la ry co nv ic ti on as a qu al ifyin g of fen se ,” as he as se rts

. Afte r al l, Eve ns on di d in fact ob ject to jus t th at po in t.
A l t h ou gh he m ig ht ha ve th ou gh t th e od ds were ag ai ns t hi m , Ev en so n cert ai nl y ha d

ev ery rig ht to m ai nt ai n hi s ob jecti on , arg ue hi s cas e, an d try to co nv in ce th e en ba nc

co ur t or th e Su pr em e Co ur t to ov erru le ou r p r e c e d e n t ( o r jus t wait an d ho pe fo r a fav or ab le rul in g i n M at hi s, wh ic h was du e to be rel eas ed an y da y ).

-5

-II

. TORRES ALVAREZ

Mi gu el Torr es Alv arez so ld m et ha m ph et am in e to a po li ce inf or m an t and was

arre st ed on hi s way t o a fo ll ow- up sa le

. The po li ce fo un d 21 7 gr am s of

m et ha m ph et am in e in Torr es Alv arez ’s car. At hi s res id en ce, th e po li ce fo un d an ot he r

59 2 gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e (an d 12 5 gr am s of ic e m etha m ph et am in e), 58 3 gr am s

of co cai ne , 3,7 78 gr am s of m ari juan a, c as h, a ha nd gu n, an d am m un it io n. Lik e

Eve ns on , Torr es Alv arez pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st r i b ut e a co nt ro ll ed

s u bs ta nc e. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 6. The Gui de li ne s reco mm e n d e d a

se nt en ce be twee n 16 8 an d 21 0 m on th s. The go ve rn m en t arg ue d fo r 16 8 m on th s.

Torr es Alv arez ask ed th e d is tri ct co ur t t o v ary do wn t o 1 00 m on th s.

Torr es Alv a r e z’s arg um en t fo r a va ria nc e (to th e ex te nt he m ai nt ai ns it on

ap pe al ) was ba se d on th e tra um as an d di ffi c u l t ie s he face d in th e pa st

, in cl ud in g

“ pa ren ta l ab an do nm en t, ph y si cal ab us e, se xu al ab us e, an d s ub st an ce ab us e.”

Gro win g u p , To rres Alv arez was pe rm an en tl y ab an do ne d by hi s fat he r, ab an do ne d
by hi s m ot he r fo r se ve ral ye a r s , c au si ng hi m to be li ev e an ot he r wom an was hi s

m ot he r un ti l he was fo ur or fiv e y ears ol d, be at en by st aff at th e or ph an ag e whe re he

li ve d fo r a ti m e, m ol es te d by hi s co us in s, tri ck ed by hi s m ot he r in to go in g to Mex ic o

to wor k in th e fie ld s, an d co m pe ll ed to dr op ou t of sc ho ol aft er be in g st ab be d an d sh ot

at by ga ng m em

be rs

. As an ad ul t, Torr es Alv arez st ru gg le d w i th dr in ki ng , us in g

c o c a i n e an d ot he r dr ug s, an d ga m bl in g, le ad in g to de bt s he tri ed to p a y b y

tra ns po rti ng dr ug s. I n l ig ht of th at ba ck gr ou nd

, Torr es Alv arez ’s la wy er arg ue d

“ [t]he la ck of tru st an d lack of un de rs ta nd in g of ho w hu m an in te ract io ns [wo rk ]

. . . Mr. To rres m

us t s uf fer i s s ub st an ti al .”

The di st ric t co ur t be ga n it s ex pl an at io n of th e se nt en ce by no ti ng th e di ffi cu lt y
of th e se nt en ci ng de te rm in at io n in th is cas e, te ll in g Torr es Alv arez : “ I acce pt th at y ou

ha ve be en on a pr et ty ro ug h ro ad an d y ou ’re de al in g wit h so m e m en ta l he al th is su es

pe rh ap s as a res ul t of th at

, pe r h a p s be cau se of ot he r ex po su res as well .” Yet th e
di st ric t co ur t fo un d th os e fa c t o rs co un te rb al an ced by th e se rio us ne ss of Torr es

-6

-Alv arez ’s cri m e, pa rti cu la rly th e la rg e qu an ti ti es of dr ug s in vo lv ed —“ a lo t of po is on

av ai la bl e to a lo t of pe op le an d a lo t of da m ag e to a lo t o f li ve s” —an d t he pre se nc e

of a gu n, as well as th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed di sp ari ti es wit h th e se nt en ces ot he r
de fen da nt s rece iv ed

. S e e ge ne ral ly 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) (li st in g se nt en ci ng

co ns id erat io ns ). Th e d i s t r ic t co ur t “ co nc lu de [d ] th at a va ria nc e is si m pl y no t

su pp or te d un de r t h e r e c o r d of th is cas e.” The di st ric t co ur t “ ag ree[ d]

. . . th at th e
bo tt om of th e gu id el in e ran ge cert ai nl y is fu ll y su ffi ci en t” an d th e r e f o r e s en te nc ed

Torr es Alv arez to 16 8 m on th s.

Affo rd in g du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t, we di sc ern no ab us e of di sc ret io n

in th at an al y si s or co nc lu si on

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w); se e al so id

. (“ If th e de fen da nt ’s

se nt en ce is wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , th en we ‘m ay , bu t [are ] no t req ui red to

, ap pl y

a pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss .’ ” (al te rat io n i n o r ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d

St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 5 1 (2 00 7) )). The re is no in di cat io n th e di st ric t cou rt “ ‘g[a]ve[ ]

si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ’” or “ ‘com m it [te d] a cl ear erro r

of jud gm en t’” in weig hi ng th e rel ev an t se nt en ci ng fact or s. Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Kan e, 55 2 F.3 d 74 8, 75 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ), va cat ed

, 56 2 U.S. 12 67 (2 01 1) ). Nor di d

th e di st ric t co ur t “ ‘fail [] to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha v e rece iv ed

si gn ifi can t weig ht ,’ ” id

. (q uo ti ng Kan e, 55 2 F

. 3 d a t 75 2)

, by “ erro ne ou sl y

m ini m iz [i ng] the eg reg io us na tu re of ” Torr es Alv arez ’s ci rcu m st an ces or de nyin g him

th e “ pa rti cu la riz ed co ns id erat io n” to whi ch he was en ti tl ed

, as To rres Alv arez

as se rts

. To th e co nt rary, th e di st ric t co ur t’s e x p l a n a t io n m ak es cl ear it fu ll y

5

On ap pe al

, Torr es Alv arez al so fau lt s th e di st ric t co ur t fo r no t ad dr es si ng th e 5

ro le of ad di ct io n as a co nt rib ut in g cau se of hi s cri m es

. Torr es Alv arez di d no t cl earl y
pr es en t th is is su e to th e di st ric t co ur t in hi s or al or writ te n arg um en ts —t he on ly

ment io n of ad di ct io n was in th e ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on he at ta ch ed to hi s

se nt en ci ng m em or an du m

. Fu rth er, we th in k th e di st ric t co ur t’s refe ren ce to To r r es Alv arez ’s “ m en ta l he al th is su es ” is be s t u n d ers to od

, in co nt ex t, as an ack no wled gm en t o f Tor res Alv arez ’s st ru gg le s wi th ad di ct io n.

-7

-ap pr eci at ed th e co ns id erat io ns Torr es Alv arez id en ti fie d, care fu ll y weig he d th em

ag ai ns t co un te rv ai li ng f

a c t o rs , an d si m

pl y st ru ck a di ffer en t ba la nc e th an Torr es
Alv arez

. Tha t is no gr ou nd s fo r rev ers al

. See, e.g ., U n i te d St at es v. Bri dg es , 56 9

F.3 d 3 74 , 37 9 (8 th Cir . 20 09 ).

II I. CONCLUSI ON

Eve ns on waiv ed th e arg um en t th at hi s Io wa bu rg la rie s were no t cri m es of

vi ol en ce un de r th e Gui de li ne s, fore cl os in g app el la te rel ie f. Torr es Alv arez was no t

e n t i tl ed to a se nt en ce be lo w hi s Gui de li ne s ran ge

. Bo th of th ei r se nt en c e s a r e

affi rm ed

.

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

-8

-