The Honor able William O. Bertelsman, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0065n.06 F iled: Janu ary 29, 2009 No. 06-4482 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. VICTOR MANU EL QUIJADA, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE SOU THER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O

BE F ORE: BO G G S, C hi e f J ud g e , a nd C LA Y , C ir c ui t J ud g e ; BE R TE LS M A N , D istrict

Judge. * CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Pursuant to a plea a g reem en t with the g overnme nt, Defe ndant Victor Manue l Quijada plea ded guilty to conspirac y

to distribute over five kilog rams of c ocaine in violation of 2 1 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1)(A) (ii), and 846. Quijada now appe als the November

9, 2006 judgme nt of the Un i t ed S t at es District Court for the Southern D istrict of Ohio, imposing a 156-month sentenc e of imprisonment. Quijada argues that t h e s en t en ce imposed was both proc edura lly and substantively

unrea sonable. F or t h e rea sons that follow, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.No. 06-4482

-2- BACK GR OUND A. P roce dural Hi story On Octobe r 27, 2005, a f eder al g rand jury

returne d a five -count super seding i n d i ctm ent char g ing V ictor Manue l Quijada and f our other de fenda

nts wit h v i o lations of fede ral na rcotics laws

. T h e in d ic tm e n t c h ar g e d Q u ij a d a w it hc o n s p ir a c y

to d is tr ib u te o v e r

f iv e k il o g r a ms of
coca ine and with possession with intent to dist ribute coc aine in vio l at i on of in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1)(A) (ii), and 846, a nd 18 U.S.C. § 2. T h e i n d i ct m en t also soug ht the forf eiture of $2,115,566.99 in United States curr ency seized by the g overnme nt. On May 25, 2006, pursuant to a plea ag ree ment, Quijada plea ded guilty to the conspirac y count, ac cepte d responsibi lity for the of

fense , and agree d to the forf eiture of the funds that we re
se ize d. Qu ija da

a lso a g reed th at hi s rele va nt c on du c t f

e ll w ith in a

dr ugqu anti ty

ra ng e of 50 to 150 kilogr ams of coc aine. Quijada’s final Presente nce I nvestig ation Report ca lculated a n advisory

sentenc ing g uid e lin e s ( “ Gu ide lin e s” ) r a ng e of 18 8 to 23 5 mo nth s o f i mpr iso nme nt, ba se d o n a tot a l of fe ns e level of 33 a

nd a cr iminal hist ory

cate g ory of I V. Quijada f

iled objections t o t h e report, ar g uing that he wa s entitled to a lower se ntence based on mitig ating offe n d er char acte ristics and cir c u ms ta n c e s , in c lu d in g h is f

ami ly o b li g a ti o n s , h is mi n im a l r o le in th e o f f e n s e , an d h is le vel of cooper ation. He a lso argued that the a ssigne d criminal history cate g ory signific antl y

overrepr esente d the seriousne ss of his criminal history . He soug ht a Guidelines off en s e l evel of 21 and a c riminal history

cate g ory of I , which would have resul t ed in a Guidelines ra ng e of 37 to 46 months.No. 06-4482

-3- At sentenc ing, the district court re duced Q uijada’s c riminal history ca t ego ry b y one leve l bu t d e n ie d a mi ti g a ti n g r o le r e d u c ti o n , th e r e b y e s ta

b li s h in g a n e w G u id e li n e s r an g e o f 1 6 8 to 210 months. The court sente nced Q uijada t o 156 months of imprisonment and five y ear s of supervised r elea se, and Q uijada filed a timely notice of a

ppeal. B. Sub stantive F acts At Quijada’ s plea he aring , the g overnme nt summarized the fac ts of the ca se and Q uijada ag ree d with the fac ts as stated. The r eleva nt fac ts are pr ovided below. I n J uly 200 5 , a cooperating individual informed the Columbus pol ice na rcotics bur eau that a man identifie d as Walter B rown wa s rec eiving larg e sh i p m en t s o f coca ine from a trac tortrailer that parke d in a par king lot on the f

ar e ast side of Col u m b u s . A surveillanc e team was established, and on July 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , Br o wn was se en mee ting a number of times with Edg ardo Flore s, who was dr iven to a number of lo ca tions by

L aTrisha Evans. On the sa

me day , office rs observe d B r o w n , F lo r e s , an d E v an s dr iv e to th e p ar k in g lo t th a t h a d b e e n d e s c r ib e d b y the informant, followe d by

a Chevrole t Tahoe dr iven by Carlos Villavisencio. Shortly befor e the two ve hicles ar rived at the parkinglot, a black F ord F 150 and a r ed truck pulling a silver tra iler p u l l ed i n t o the lot. The F 150 was drive n by Quijada a

nd J esus Contrera s-Cordova, a

nd the re d truck wa s driven by Migue l Rey es-Gue vara

and F ranc isco J avier S an ch ez -P er ez . S u rv ei l l an ce o f f i c e r s o b s erv edt h e p ar t i es ex i tt h e t ru ck s an d m ee tn ea r t h e l ar ge t r u c k , a tw h i c h p o i n ta

l aw e n f o r c e m e n tt e a mt o o k

t h e e i g h ti n d i v i d

u a l s i n t o c u s t o dy. Of fi c e rs re tr iev ed a sw itc h f ro m th e F 15 0 d

ri ve n b y Qu ija da . T he sw itc h p lug g e d in to the re ar o f t he tra iler beingpulled by the re d truck a

nd operated a hydraulic lift that conc eale d a
numbe r o f h idd e n c omp artme nts . T he of fi c e rs fo un d 1 26 .9 kilogr a ms o f c oc a ine de te rm ine d toNo. 06-4482

-4- be of 82 pe rce nt purity

in the trailer. O ffice rs also re co v ere d over $2,100,000 of U.S. curre ncy from the ba ck of the Tahoe driven by Villavisencio. Sub se qu e nt i nv e sti g a tio n r e ve a le d th a t ma ny of the a fo re me nti on e d in div idu a ls, inc lu d in g Q u ij a d a , h a d s ta y e d in Co lumb u s h o te ls in M ay , Ju n e , an d Ju ly o f 2005. The g ov e rnme nt a lle g e d th a t on the se oc c a sio ns , mo re tha n 1 00 kil og ra

ms o f c oc a ine were bro ught t o Columbus and dist ri b u ted to Br own by Flore s. As to the rele vant conduc t of the involved parties, it was de termined that Quijada drove Contre ras- Cordova to C o l u m b u s three times and that his truck ca

rried the hy draulic switch. Th e go v er n m ent had no information that Quijada wa s
an owne r of a

ny of the c ocaine or that he w as to rec eive a ny of the proc eeds f

rom its sale. Th e g ov e rnme nt a lso le arn e d th a t on a t le a st o ne oc c a sio n in J un e 20 05 , a la rg e qu anti ty of United States cur

renc y was pa cked i n t o the trailer and drive n to Phoenix by Rey es-Gue vara and re moved by

the people who owned the trailer , who wer e not any of the de fenda

nts charg ed in this case. Many of the a fo re ment io ne d p art ie s r e c e ive d s e nte nc ingde pa rt ur e s b a se d o n th e ir
c oo pe ratio n w iththe g ov e rnme nt, but th e g ov e rnme nt d e te rm ine d th a t Q uij a da fa ile d to cooper ate a

nd that he wa s not eligible f or a se ntencingreduc tion on that basis. DI SCU SSIO N On appe al, sentenc es ar e re viewed f or re asonable ness under an abuse of di s cretion standard. United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 2 60 -6 1 ( 20 05 ); Un ite d S ta te s v . S e do re , 512 F.3d 819, 822 (6th Cir. 2008). To dete rmine over all rea sonab l eness, this Court must ex amine the proce dural a

nd substantive aspec ts of the sentenc ing c ourt’s dec ision. United States v. J ones , 445 F.3d 865, 869 ( 6th Cir. 2006).No. 06-4482

-5- First, an a

pp el l at e court must ensure that the district cour t did not commit signific ant pr oc e dura l e rr or , s uc h a s: failing to calculate (or imprope rly calc ulating) the Guidelin es rang e, tre ating the Gu ide lin e s a s m and a tor

y , f a ili ngto c on sid e r t

he [18 U .S. C.] § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s, se le c tin g a

se nte nc e ba se d o n c le arl y e rr on e ou s f

acts, or fa ili ngto a de qu a te ly explain the chosen sent en ce - i n cluding an explanation for a ny deviation from the Guidelines ra

ng e. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007). Assuming that the district c o u rt ’s sentenc ing de cision is procedur ally sound, this C ourt should then consider the substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentence. Id. Substantive
rea sonablene ss turns on whether the leng th of the sentenc e is unrea sonable be cause the
se nte nc ingc ourt

“ se le c t[e d] th e sente nc e arb itr ari ly , b a s[e d] th e se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fac tors, . . . or [gave] an u n re asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 385 (6th Cir. 2005)

. This Court g rants a presumption o f subs tantive
rea sonablene ss to sentence s withi n t h e advisory Guidelines ra

ng e. United States v. W illiams , 43 6 F .3 d 7 06 , 7 08 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; see also Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct
. 2 456, 2467 (2007) (appr oving of

presumption). I. On a pp e a l, Q uij a da

fi rs t argue s th a t th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the di st ri c t c ourt

is pro cedu ral ly

unre a so na

ble du e to t

he e rr on e ou s d e nia l of

a mit ig a tin g ro le a dju stm e nt t o Quijada’ s Guidelines offe nse leve l. A district court’s f

actua l findings r eg ardinga denia l of mit i gat i n g role a djustment are revie wed f

or cle ar e rr o r wh i l e it s leg al conc lusions are re viewed de novo

. United States v.No. 06-4482

-6- Ro be rts , 223 F.3d 377, 379-80 (6th Cir. 2000). To qua lify for a mitigatingrole re duction, a defe ndant must be less culpable than most other par ticipants and “substant i ally less culpable tha

n th e a v e r a g e p articipant.” Un ite d S tates v . O wus u , 199 F.3d 329, 337 ( 6th Cir. 2000) (quoting U.S. S. G
. § 3 B 1
. 2 c mt
. n . 3 )

. T h is d e te r mi n a ti o n is “ h e a v il y d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e f a c ts ,” and the defe ndant must prove a mitig ating role by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Id. I n his s en t encing memor andum, Quijada a rgued that he w as a minor player in the char g ed co n s p i ra cy . He submitted that he wa s urg ed by Contrera s, his wife’s c ousin, to drive him to C olumbus, that he rec eived no f i n an cial compe nsation other than money for g as and lodging , and that he w as not orig inally awa re of t h e p u rpose of

the trip. He a dmitted that he later lear ned t h at t h e trip was for the pur pose of de livering coca ine and that his truck c arr ied the switch that opera

ted the hydraulic lift. B ut he ar g ued that he w as n o n et h el es s a minor participa nt, beca use the off

ense w ould have take n place even if Quijada ha d ref

used t o bring Contrera s to Colum bus. Quijada fur ther a rgued t hat other pa

rticipants org anized, purcha sed, and distributed the coca ine and we re h eavily involved in the org anization, and that he wa s “substantially

less culpable” than the ave rag e par ticipant. At sentenc ing, the go v er n m en t argued that, in ef fec t, Quijada had a lrea dy rec eived a

twole ve l r e du c tio n b e c a

us e the re wa s e vid e nc e that, o n thre e oc casi on s, Qu ija da wa s th e dr ive r i n transac tions invol ving similar qu an t i t i es of c ocaine , but that the g overnme nt had limited Quijada’ s rele vant conduct to the coca ine which was found on the third trip. T h e go v ernment
a lso a ss e rt e d th a t, p e r t

he ind ic tme nt, Qu ija da

wa s o ne of

the fe w p e op le wh o p art ic ipate d in a ll three trips, so he was not substantially less culpable than the other participan t s . QuijadaNo. 06-4482

-7- dis a g re e d w iththi s c ha

ract eri zat ion

of his a c tiv iti e s, arguin g that a lth ou g h h e dr ov e Con tr e ra s to Ohio three times, he had ne ver tra nsported coc aine, a

nd that it w as Contrera s and not Quijada who had possession of the hy draulic switch. The c ourt deter

mined that Qu i

j ada was not entitled to a mitigating r ole re duction,
ex p l ai n i n g, This is gove rne d b y sentenc ing guideline 3B 1.2. And counsel, you may

reme mber ther e wa s a cha n ge in the comm e n ta

r y . A t o n e ti me , p arti c u la r ly in a dr u gc o n s p ir a c y

c ase, if the def endant wa s only

held accountable for the amount he or sh e pe rs on a lly

sto re d o r t

ra ns po rt e d, the n th e a

pp lic a tio n o f t

his g uideline in the d efendant’s fa vor wa s prohibited, or discoura g ed a t le a st. Th e g uid e lin e s n owsay that th is d oe sn ’t

ne c e ssa ri ly prohibit [ a re duction], but it certa inly does n ’t requir e it. So we ar e back to just eva luating what kind of role this defenda nt play ed . . . . [H] e did drive a

tru ck t h at was a

n integ ral pa

rt of this drug transac tion. And on that bas i s I fi n d that attributing to him the amoun t t h at was in the other vehicle is appropriate, first of a ll, and is also consistent with his role. (Joi nt Appendix (“J .A.”) 117-118.) Qu ija da argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to pr op e rl y

we ig h h is r ela ti ve c ulp a bil ity ag ainst that of the other

participa nts and that the cou rt ru l ed entirely on its finding that Quijada ’s duties as a dr iver we re integ ral to th e s u cc ess of Cont rer as’ tra nsport of coc aine. Quijada
rea sons that under the c ourt’s stated log ic, it would improperly conclude that an y

driver or drug
c ouri e r s ho uld

be de nie d a

mit ig a tin g ro le be c a

us e the re is a

c a us a l li nk in the ch a in o f e ve nts that r e su lte d in

the c ri me , r e g ard le ss o f t he le ve l of

c ulp a bil ity in r e latio n to oth e r p art ic ipa nts
.No. 06-4482

-8- To su pp or t th is p ro po sit ion , Q uij a da c ite s Un ited Sta te

s v . I saza -Z ap ata , a Th ir d Ci rc uit
c a se wh e re a

dis tr ic t c ourt

de nie d a

mit ig atin gro le re du c tio n becaus e it d e te rm ine d th a t a courie r’s role was “ essential for t h e co m m ission of the crime,” without providing other rea sons for its ruling . 148 F.3d 236, 237 (3d Cir. 1998). The Third Circ uit vacate d the def endant’ s sentenc e and r emande d for f urther pr ocee dings, statingthat “bec ause the determ i n at i o n of whether a def endant is entitled to a minor role adjustment is highly depende nt on th e fa cts of particula r ca ses, . . . a mec hanica l app l i cation of the g uidelines by which a c ourt alwa

y s denies min or ro le a dj us tm ent s to c ouri e rs be c a us e the y a re ‘e sse nti a l’

. . . w ou ld b e inc on sis te nt w ith this guidanc e.” Id. a t 23 7- 38 ; see also United States v . Rodriguez , 342 F.3d 296, 3 0 0 (3d C ir. 2003) (r ever sing a

nd rema nding when a district c ou rt d enied a mitigating role re duction to a drug courie r under

simil ar c ircumstance s). Whil e this Court ag ree s that the minor-r o l e ad justment inqui ry

is highly fac t sensitive, we have he ld that a def

endant simi l arly

situated to Quijada is not entitled to the reduc tion. I n United States v. Salas , the defe ndant arg ued that the district c ourt err ed when it f ailed to grant a t wol ev el d o wn wa rdad

j u s t m en tb ec au s e h i s r o l e i nt h e o ff en s e w as l i m i t edt o t h e a ct o f c arry i n g a container from one loc ation to another a nd he had no f

oreknow ledg e of the am o u n t o r the extent of the illeg al conduc t. 455 F.3d 637, 644 (6th Cir. 2006). A p an el o f t h i s Court rejec ted the defe ndant ’s arg ument, rea soning that although Sala s was convic ted base d on a sing le incident of transportingcoca ine, he was n o t h el d accountable f or other c onduct and he did not establish that he pla y e d a re lativ e ly

min or rol e with r e g ard

to t his sh ipm e nt. Th e Court state d th a t “ [s]imp ly beca use the c ourt could have applied a minor r ole adjustment under the fac ts of this case . . .No. 06-4482

-9- do es n o t m ean that the district court wa s require d to apply the adjustment.” Id. (quotations and citations omitt ed). Her e, as in Salas , the cour t could have a

pplied a minor role a djustment but was not require d to do so. Quijada ag ree d that the re l ev an t co n d u ct in the case involved larg e quantities of c oc a ine , a

nd a dmi tte d th a t pr ior

to h is a rr e st, he ha d le arn e d th a t th e tr ip w a s f or the purp os e
o f d el i v er i n g co ca i n e a n d t h at h i s t ru ckca rr i edt h e h y drau l i c s wi t ch

. Fu rt h erm o re , al t h o u gh Qu ija da de nied t hat he ha d e ve r t ra ns po rt e d c oc a ine , h e a dmi tte d th a t he ha d d ri ve n Co ntr e ra s to Ohio three times. There was e vi dence that other pa rticipants play ed role s that were simil ar to or le ss than Quijada’ s role. F or example, in the sentenc ing he aringfor Quijada and Villavisenc io, the g overnme nt stated that it had no information that co- def en d an t Villavisencio was involved a s an
owner , manag er or

distributor of any

of the c ocaine

. I n ad d i t i o n , the g overnme nt indicated that
c o - d e f e n d an tE v an s ’ r o l e w a s t h a to f a dr i v e r f o r B r o w nan d

F l o r e s . A l t h o u g ht h e s e de fe nd a nts
rec eived lowe r sentenc es than Quijada , they still support a fi n d i n g that Quijada wa s not “substantially

less culpable tha

n the ave rage p ar t icipant” a s require d by U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. Considering these c ircumstance s, the trial cour t did not err by

co n cl u d i n g that Quijada ha d not
me t hi s b ur de n o f e sta

bli sh ingthat he wa s a

min or pa rt ic ipa nt. II. Qu ija da a lso argue s th a t hi s 1 56 -m on th s e nte nc e is s ub sta nt iv ely unre a so na

ble be c a us e it is lon g e r tha

n ne c e ssa ry to satis fy the purp os e s of fe de ra l se nte nc ing and is dis pr op or tio nat e to the sentenc es of c o-def

endants who e ng ag ed in similar conduct.No. 06-4482

-10- Qu ija da ’s argum e nts fo c us on the “ pa rs imo ny” re qu ir e me nt o f § 35 53 (a )( 2) wh ic h d ir e c ts
a s en tencingcourt to “impose a sentenc e suff

icient, but not gr eate r than ne cessa ry . . . to refle ct the se ri ou sn e ss o f t

he of fe ns e .” 18 U. S.C. § 35 53 (a)(2 ). He a lso c ite s th e ne e d to avo id

u n w ar r an te d s e n te n c e d is p ar it ie s amo n g c o - d e f e n d ants. See18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) . More specific ally , he ar g ues th at his 156-month sentence is not parsimonious because , aside fr om Br own, a lea der in the c onspiracy who was se ntence d to 200 months i n prison, the re m ai n i n g codefe ndants rec eived pr ison terms within the rang e of 41 to 90 months. A re view of the rec ord support s t h e d i s trict court’ s decision. At sentenc ing, the district court articulated rea sons that it believed justified the sentenc e and that supported i t s co nclusion that an y v ar ia n c e s b e tw e e nQ u ij a d a ’ s s e n te n c e an d th o s e o f h is c o - d e f

e n d an ts w e r e w ar

r anted. First, the district cour

t expl icitly

ag ree d with th e go v er n ment’s statement that Quijada ’s cr iminal history was pe rsistent and continuous. Afte r noting t h at Quijada’ s history included one f

elony
and th ir tee n mi sdem e ano rs , mo st o f whic h w e re a lc oh ol- re late d o ff e ns e s, the c ourt

state d “ thi s is
one wh er e I h av e some discr etion, and it’s a diff icult issue beca

use I don’t treat driving unde r the influence as a minor matter, but I don’t look a t this defe ndant as a harde ned cr i m i n al ei ther,” prior to the instant offe nse. (J.A. 118-20.) He noted that “ty p i ca lly when you g et to a categ ory I V, y ou are looking at least sever al serious o ff en s es i n the form of

felonies or

crimes of

violence

. . . a nd Ia m g oin g to .
. . mov e him to a c a te g or y I I I .” (J.A . 1 20 -21 .) Th ese st a te me nts ind ic a te that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

re c og nize d it s d isc re tio n a nd est abl is hed

the c ri min a l hi sto ry

le ve l th a t it tho ug ht w a s a

pp ro pr iate un de r t

he c ir c ums tanc e s.No. 06-4482

-11- Th e c ourt a lso pa id d

ue a tte nti on

to d isp ari tie s bet ween the se nte nc e s o f Q uij a da and his
c o - d e f e n d an ts
. T h e c o u rt i n qu ir e d a b o u t t h e c ir c u ms ta

n c e s s u r r o u n d in g e a c hc o - d e fenda nt’s crime, a nd inquired about e ach de fenda nt’s criminal history

and leve l of co o p er ation with the g overnme nt. The cour

t then stated that “e ssentially the other six co-defe ndants all coope rate d. At le a s t thr e e h it th e s a f e ty
- v a lv e b e n e f

it , w h ic h c a

u s e s a s h ar

p r e d u c ti o n in th e s e n te nce, but also means they

had n o s i gnificant c riminal history . So it s eems to me ther e ar e diffe renc es [between Quijada ] and all these defenda nts.” (J.A. 124-25.) The court then concluded, given the differ ence s betwee n Quijada a nd his co-def

endants a nd th e larg e amount of dr ug s and money involved in the crime, that it would not be in the interests of justice to g rant Qu i j ada a var iance

. Th e c ourt

pr oc e e de d to dis c us s e a c h o f t he 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s, con clu dingthat a sentenc e of 156 months was justified. Ulti mate ly , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d e c is io n to g r an t o r d e n y a v ar ia n c e is d is c r e ti o n ar

y . See United States v. Simmons , 501 F.3d 620, 624 ( 6th Cir. 2007)

. T h i s C o u rt has held that differ ence s in the criminal histories and in the l ev el o f cooperation betwe en co- defe ndants justify a sente ncing disparity

betwee n co-de fenda

nts. See U

nited States v. Phinazee , 5 1 5 F. 3 d 5 11, 520 (6th Cir. 200 8 ) (s en t en cing disparity justified by

differ ence s in criminal histories and depa rtures for substantial assistanc e); Uni t ed S tates v. Conatser , 514 F.3d 508, 522 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (“D isparities betwe en th e s en tence s of coc onspirators ca n exis t for valid re asons, such a s dif fe re nc e s in

c ri min a l hi st or ie s, the of fe ns e s o f c on vic tio n, or

on e c oc on sp ir a tor ’s de c isi on to plead guilty

and coope rate with the g overnme nt.”).No. 06-4482

-12- Her e, unlike his coc onspirators who r ece ived less er sentenc es, Quijada failed to g ive the g ov e rnme nt s ub sta

nti a l a ssi sta

nc e and ha d a n e xten siv e c ri min a l hi sto ry . U nd e r t he se circ umstances, the c o u rt could properly conclude that the sentenc e wa s “suffic ient, but not g reater than ne cessa

ry . . . to refle ct the ser iousness of the o ff en s e” under 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a)(2)
a n d t h a ti td i d

n o tc r e a t e anu n w ar

r an t e d s e n t e n c i n g d i s p ar i t y

u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, we f ind that the sentenc e imposed by the district court wa s not unreasona ble. CO NC LU SION For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.