FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 5, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 11 01 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cr-0 03 21 -RAL-M AP-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us JOSHUA WILBERS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 5 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andMARTIN, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo sh uaW il li am W il be rs pl ead edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f po ss es si on of amm un it io n b y

a co nv ic te d fe lo n, a v io lati on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) , andrece iv eda lo w endgu id el in e se nt en ce o f 10 8 m on th s. Wilb ers no w app eal s h is sen te nc e as un reas on ab le . W il be rs ass ert s fi rs t tha t the di st ric t co urt erredwhen itde ni edhi s re qu es t fo r a d own wardva rianc e, fai li ng to co ns id er two p ur po rte d fl aws ina parti cu la r se nt en ci ng gu id el in e. W il be rs ne xtarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt b as edhi s 1 se nt en ce o n “ im

pr op er as su m

pt io ns an d i m

pe rm is si bl e unr el at edcurren t ev en ts ,” rathe r th anhi s u ni qu e ci rcu m st an ces an d fo r th e sp eci fic off en se to whi chhe pl ead edgu il ty. Eachof the arg um en ts fai ls , andwe affi rm W il be rs ’s sen te nc e. I. The pa rty chal le ng in g asen te nc e b ears th e h ig h b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th at th e se nt en ce i s unr eas on ab le . Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Our re as on ab le ne ss rev ie w lo ok s t o wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s
This guide line calls for

an enha nced of fense level of 22 when: 1 (A) the offe nse involved a ( i) semiautomatic firea rm that is c apable of acc epting a larg e capa city mag azine . . . and (B ) the defe ndant committed any part of the instant offe nse subsequent to sustaining one felony conviction of . . . a controlled substance offe nse; U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)( 3). 2di sc ret io n i n i m po si ng th e se nt en ce. Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 46 , 12 8 S. Ct . 58 6, 5 94 (20 07 ). Thi s C ou rt m us t fi rs t re vi ew th e se nt en ci ng to en su re tha t th e “ di st ric t co urt co m

mitte d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r.” Id . at 5 1, at59 7. In do in g s o, we ex am in e whe th er the sen te nc in g c ou rt: (1) pro pe rly calc ul at edth e gu id el in e ran ge , (2) tre at edth e g ui de li ne s as advi so ry , (3) co ns id eredth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, (4 ) se le ct eda se nt en ce b as edonfact s n otcle arl y erro ne ou s, an d (5 ) ex pl ai ne d a de qu at el y

th e ch os ensen te nc e. Id . If the pro cedur es em

pl oyed i n i m

po si ng th e se nt en ce were pro pe r, we th en ev al ua te th e subs ta nt iv e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e in li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e fact or s s etforth in18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Tall ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 . The u lt im at e 2 qu es ti on is “ whe th er the sen te nc e im po se d b y th e d is tri ctco urt fa il s t o a ch ie ve th e pu rp os es of s en te nc in g a s s ta te d i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Id . As summarized in Talley , Section 3553(a) require s consideration of: 2 (1) the nature and circ umstances of the offe nse and the history and char acte ristics of the defe ndant; (2) the need to ref lect the seriousness of the offe nse, to promote respe ct for the law, an d t o p rovi de just punishment f

or the offe nse; (3) the need for deter renc e; (4) the need to p ro tect the public; (5) the need to provide the defe ndant with neede d educa

tional or vocatio n al training or medical car e; (6) the kinds of sentenc es available ; (7) the Sentencing Guidelines rang e; (8) pertinent policy statements of th e S en t encing Commi ssion; (9) the need to avoid unwant ed sentencing disparities; and (10) the need to provide re stitut ion to victims . 431 F.3d at 786; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 3Inth is li m it edsco pe of r ev ie w, a cou rt m ay va cat e a s en te nc e o nl y

if i t i s

“ le ft wi th th e d efi ni te an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d acle ar erro r of jud gm en t i n wei gh in g t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s b y arri vi ng at asen te nc e th at li es ou ts id e th e ran ge of r eas on ab le sen te nc es di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e.” Uni te d S tate s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s om itte d) . Alth ou gh we do no t au to m at ic al ly pres um e a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge to be reas on ab le , we ord in ari ly exp ectitto be so . Uni te d S ta te s v . Hun t, 5 26 F.3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). II. W il be rs ’s firs t cl ai m

in cl ud es a pr oc edur al an d asubs ta nt iv e co m po ne nt . Bec au se W il be rs rai se d o nl y hi s s ub st an ti ve cla im

be fo re the di st ric t co urt, we rev ie w hi s p ro cedur al cla im forpl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Cas tro , 45 5 F .3d 12 49 , 12 51 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ); s ee F. R. Cr im . P. 52 (b ). W e wil l ad dr es s Wilb ers ’s 3 pr oc edur al cla im

fir st . W il be rs m ai nt ai ns th atth e se nt en ci ng co urt d idno t fu lfi ll Gall ’s adm on it io n to ex pl ai n a de qu at el y

it s ch os ensen te nc e in so far a s i t d idno t ad dr es s h is arg um en ts ab ou t § 2K2 .1(a )(3 ). Duri ng th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , andaft er h eari ng When asked to cla

rify her obje ction at the conc lusion of Wi lbers’s se ntencinghearing, 3 defe nse counse l stated she believe d the sentenc e wa s “substantively unrea sonable.” 4th e p art ie s’ arg um en ts , th e jud ge de ni edth e reque st eddo wnwar d v ari an ce “ in li gh t

of [W il be rs ’s] hi st ory

an d c ha ract eri st ic s an d the na tu re an d c irc um st an ces of t he of fen se s an d t he ot he r st atut ory fact or s.” Whe n apa rty pres en ts a well -g ro un de d re as on forde pa rti ng fro m th e gu id el in es , a jud ge wil l n orm al ly “ ex pl ai n wh y he ha s re jecte d t ho se arg um en ts .” Ri tav. Un it edSta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 57 , 12 7 S . Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8 (2 00 7) . A j ud ge is no t, h owe ve r, requi redto ad dr es s ex pl ic it ly every argu m en t ra is edby the pa rti es in a se nt en ci ng he ari ng . See Un it edSta te s v . Ghertl er, 6 05 F.3d12 56 , 12 62 (11 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (s ta ti ng th atth e se nt en ci ng jud ge ne edon ly “ se t fo rthen ou gh to sat is fy th e ap pe ll at e co urt tha t h e h as co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s o wn d eci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y ”); see als o Un it ed St at es v. Sc ot t, 4 26 F.3d13 24 , 13 29 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (rejec ti ng arg um en t tha t di st ric t co urt i s re qu ire d t o s ta te on th e rec or d t ha t h e h as co ns id eredeach § 35 53 (a) fa ct or ); Un it edSta te s v . Am ed eo , 48 7 F .3d82 3, 8 33 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (n ot in g t ha t the ab se nc e o f ov ertdi sc us si on do es no t m eandi st ric t co urt fa il edto co ns id er m it ig at in g e vi de nc e in de te rm in in g s en te nc e). The s en te nc in g ju dg e cl earl y ful fil le d thi s s ta nd ard . The tran sc rip t m ak es pl ai n t ha t the sen te nc in g ju dg e was qu it e fam il ia r with t he fact s o f th e cas e an d with Wil be rs ’s cir cu m st an ces ; tha t h e acc ou nt edforth os e sp eci fic s; an d tha t h e 5ba se d h is de ci si onon th em . For i ns ta nc e, th e jud ge no t o nl y ex pr es se d h is

“ sym pa th [y ]” for Wilb ers ’s Att en ti on Defi ci t Di so rd er an d h is co nc ernth at W il be rs st op pe d t ak in g h is m ed ic at io n fo r it , bu t al so he ed edW il be rs ’s reque stto be pl acedat afaci li ty whe re h e co ul d b e ev al ua te d a ndtre at edfor th atco nd it io n. The di st ric t co urt co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d p ro vi de d areas on edba si s fo r hi s u lt im at e d eci si on . W e co nc lu de , th eref or e, he m ad e n o p ro cedur al erro r in im po si ng W il be rs ’s sen te nc e. W e n ex t ad dr es s the subs ta nt iv e co m po ne ntof Wil be rs ’s cla im , nam el y , th at th e d is tri ctco urt i m

po se d asubs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e aft er re jecti ng W il be rs ’s reque stfora do wnwar d v ari an ce b as edon th e two pu rp orte d d efec ts ina sp eci fic sen te nc in g g ui de li ne . W il be rs fir stcla im s tha t the di st ric t co urt’s u se of § 2K2 .1(a )(3 ) co ns ti tu te d re ve rs ib le erro r be cau se th e en ha nc em en t h as it s o rig in in a st atut e th atCo ng res s h as si nc e al lo wedto expi re. The Vio le ntCri m e Co nt ro l an d Law En fo rcem en t Actof 1 99 4 (VC CLEA) im po se d aba n o n s em iaut om at ic weap on s an d l arg e cap aci ty mag azi ne s fo r fi rearm s. Pub. L. No. 1 03 -3 22 , §§ 11 01 01 2- 13 , 10 8 S tat. 1 79 6, 1 99 6– 99 (19 94 ). VCCLEA als o d ire ct edth e Sen te nc in g C omm is si on to est ab li sh anen ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si on of any fir earm s b an ne d b y

th e la w, as l is te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. 9 21 (a)( 30 ). Id. at§ 1 10 50 2, 1 08 St at . at 2 01 5. Fo ll owi ng th is di rect io n b y Co ng res s, the Co m

mis si on crea te d a 6two -le ve l ad di ti on to th e b as e o ffen se lev el forpo ss es si on of s em iaut om at ic

as saul t weapo ns an d l arg e cap aci ty feedi ng de vi ces . See U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (a)( 3) . VCCLEA was wri tt ento ex pi re t eny ears aft er i ts en act m en t an d, ab se ntfurth er Co ng res si on al act io n, the law ex pi redin20 04 . Nev erthe le ss , when rev ie win g t he gu id el in es in20 06 , th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on ele ct edto ret ai n t he sen te nc in g e nh an cem en t en ge nd eredby the st atut e, de le ti ng th e ref

eren ce t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 1( a)(3 0) an d re pl aci ng itwith t he ph ras e “ a se miaut om at ic fir earm th atis cap ab le of a ccep ti ng a la rg e cap aci ty m ag azi ne .” See U.S.S.G., App . C, am en d. 6 91 (Nov . 1, 2 00 6) . The rev is io n, d on e ou t o f co nc ern“ reg ard in g i nc on si st en t ap pl ic at io n . . . inli gh t o f [VCCLEA]’ s ex pi rat io n,” m ad e cl ear t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on ’s in te ntto ke ep th e en ha nc em en t i n p la ce. Id . W il be rs ne xtco nt en ds th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s u se of t he gu id el in e p ro vi si on co ns ti tu te d re ve rs ib le erro r be cau se th e en ha nc em en t i s “ no t b as edon em pi ric al ev id en ce.” He re fers to a stud y by T he Urban In st itut e fi nd in g tha t as saul t weap on s b an s h av e “ on ly a lim it edeffec t o n t ot al gu n m ur de rs ” an d p ro du ce n o de te ct ab le reduc ti oninth e “ two types of g un m ur de rs th atare tho ug htto be cl os el y ass oc ia te d wi th ass au ltweap on s, tho se with m ul ti pl e v ic ti m s i n asi ng le

7in ci de ntan d t ho se pro du ci ng m ul ti pl e b ul le t wo un ds pe r vi ct im .” W il be rs ti es 4 th is arg um en t t o h is pre vi ou s p oi nt , saying th atif the re were ev id en ce s up po rti ng th e n ot io n t ha t as saul t weapo ns pre se nta ri skto publ ic saf ety , “ a p ol it ic al co ns en su s wo ul d h av e d ev el op edto co nt inue th e b anon th em .” W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ap pl ic at io n a ndleg al in te rp ret at io ns of the gu id el in es de no vo an d i ts factua l d et erm in at io ns forcle ar erro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Zald iv ar, 6 15 F.3d13 46 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ), cert . den ie d, 1 31 S. Ct. 9 59 (2 01 1) . Our p rece de ntpro vi de s tha t a l ackof s up po rti ng em pi ric al ev id en ce d oe s no t, al on e, ren de r a g ui de li ne pro vi si on in va li d. Un it edSta te s v . Sni pe s, 6 11 F.3d 85 5, 8 70 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). W il be rs ackno wled ge s thi s i n h is bri ef, as well he sh ou ld , bec au se th e Supr em e Co urt i ts el f ha s re co gn iz edth atno t al l g ui de li ne s pr ov is io ns are t ie d t o e m

pi ric al ev id en ce. Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 4 6 n .2, 1 28 S. Ct. at 59 4 n .2. At ro ot , W il be rs ’s subs ta nt iv e cl ai m fau lt s the Sen te nc in g C ommis si on ’s po li cy de ci si on to ret ai n t he en ha nc em en t fo r po ss es si on of s em iaut om at ic ass au lt weap on s an d l arg e cap aci ty feedi ng de vi ces . Butth is Co urt ev al ua te s o nl y th e reas on ab le ne ss of t he jud gm en t i m po se d upo n t he in di vi du al , no t the See Roth, Koper, e t. al., The Ur ban Institut e, Impact Eva luation of the Public Safety and 4 Recre ational Fir ear

ms Use Protections Act of 1994, 2, 97 (1997), http://www.ur

ban.org/publications/406797.htm l . 8reas on ab le ne ss of t he sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s the m se lv es . See Tal le y , 43 1 F .3dat

78 5; Uni te d S ta te s v . Dorm an , 48 8 F .3d93 6, 9 38 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). Thu s, b y th is arg um en t, Wilb ers ha s i de nt ifi edno subs ta nt iv e p ro bl em with h is sen te nc e. II. W il be rs rai se s a s eco ndsubs ta nt iv e o bjec ti on to hi s s en te nc e, na m el y , th at th e d is tri ctco urt b as edhi s s en te nc e o n “ im pr op er as su m

pt io ns an d i m

pe rm is si bl e un rel at edcurren t ev en ts ,” rathe r th anhi s uni qu e ci rcu m st an ces an d t he sp eci fic of fen se to whi chhe ha d p le d g ui lty . Sp eci fic al ly, W il be rs all eg es th athi s s en te nc e

“ was ba se d i n s ig ni fic an t p arton th e im pr op er as su m

pt io n t ha t Wilb ers po se d a si gn ifi can t d an ge r to hi s g irl fri en d, an d i n re act io n t o t he rece ntki ll in gs of t wo po li ce o ffi cers , nei th er o f whi chare p erm is si bl e se nt en ci ng fact or s.” At s en te nc in g, “ [a] di st ric t co urt ab us es it s d is cret io n wh enit. . . gi ve s si gn ifi can t wei gh t t o a n i m pr op er o r in ap pr op ria te fact or . . . .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 612 F.3d11 60 , 11 89 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (enbanc ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Non ethe le ss , th e sc op e o f pr op er an d app ro pr ia te fact or s i s g reat . The d is tri ct co urt h as bro addi sc ret io n t o c on si de r “ th e fu ll es t i nf orm at io n p os si bl e co nc ern in g th e d efen da nt ’s li fe an d c ha ract eri st ic s.” Pe pp er v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 62 U.S. —, 13 1 S . Ct. 1 22 9, 1 23 5– 36 (20 11 ) (quo tati on m ark s o m it te d) ; s ee al so 18 U.S.C. §

936 61 . Thu s, fo r a d is tri ctco urt’s co m m en t t o c on st itut e rev ers ib le erro r, itm us t co m pe l u s “ to co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctjud ge clo se d h is m in d t o e vi de nc e fav or ab le to ap pe ll an t b efo re the sen te nc in g p ro ceed in gs were co nc lu de d.” Uni te d St at es v. Gree nm an , 70 0 F .2d13 77 , 13 79 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). The di stric t co urt i n t hi s ca se di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n b y co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce re ga rd in g Wil be rs ’s pas t d om es ti c v io le nc e arr es ts . Sect io n 3 35 3( a)(1 ) es tabl is he s as a pe rm is si bl e fac to r th e “ hi st ory an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt .” The ju dg e co ul d re as on ab ly hav e co nc lu de d t ha t the ev id en ce co nc ern in g Wil be rs ’s “ supp os edlo vi ng rel at io ns hi p wi th hi s g irl fri en d” refl ect eda m eas ur e o f rel at io na l i ns tabi li ty andpe rs on al vo la ti li ty, un de rcu tt in g Wil be rs ’s cl ai m th atfam il ia l s up po rt m ak es hi m les s l ik el y

to reci di va te . Neit he r di d t he di stric t co urt’s m en ti on of o ffi cer k il li ng s amoun t t o a n ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Here a de fen da ntwas b ei ng sen te nc edforsel li ng weap on s il le ga ll y , andth e jud ge refe ren ceda rece ntin st an ce i n wh ic h p ol ic e o ffi cers were ki ll ed“by a y ou ng m anwho purch as eda weap on il le ga ll y .” The ju dg e m ad e th e co m m en t dur in g aco ll oquy with W il be rs , in qu iri ng whet he r he ha d c on te m pl at ed th e p os si bl e co ns eque nc es of d eal in g i n i ll eg al weap on s. It was , infact , an ex am pl e o f th e p os si bl e co ns eque nc es th atcanflo w fro m be ha vi orsu chas t ha t fo r whi chW il be rs was c on vi ct ed . A j ud ge m ig htwell co ns id er the se po ss ib le 10co ns eque nc es when weig hi ng § 3 55 3( a)(2 –4 ): ( 2) th e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se ; (3 ) de te rren ce; an d (4 ) th e n eedto pro te ctth e p ub li c. Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e se nt en ci ng co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y m en ti on in g t o o ut si de ev en ts when im po si ng sen te nc e upo n Wil be rs . III. W e co nc lu de th atW il be rs ’s 10 8- m on th sen te nc e is ne ithe r pr oc edur al ly de fect iv e n orsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . AFFIRMED.

11