A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

t h i s a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a s e is th e re fo re o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 21,200 7 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. T RA VI S L . WI L KE N, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 4042

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t ri ct ofU t ah ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 4 - CR- 6 9 5 - DB) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: * S h a ro n P re s to n , S a lt L a k e C ity, U ta h , fo r D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t. B r et tL . T ol m an, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , and D i ana H agan, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , Sal tL ake Ci t y , U t ah, forPl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efor e B RI S CO E , EBEL, and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. EBEL , C i r cui tJ udge.- 2 -

D efe ndant - A ppel l antT r avi s L . W i l ken pl ed gui l tyt o the cr i m e of p o s s e s s i o n wi t h i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e me th a mp h e t a mi n e , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. §§ 84 1(a) (1) and 84 6. M r. W i l ken no w app eal s hi s sent ence o f 23 5 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm enton gr ounds t hatt he di s tr i ctcour ti ncorr ect l ycal cul at ed the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange ( the “G ui del i nes r ange” ) forhi s offe ns e and t hatt he l ength of the s ent ence i m pos ed w as unr eas onabl e. W e first h o ld th a t M r. W ilk e n d id n o t w a iv e h is rig h t to a p p e a l h is sent ence, despi t e l ang uag e t o the con traryi n h i s pl ea agreem ent, becau se sta tem e n ts m a d e b yth e d istric t co u rt d u rin g h is p lea c o llo q u yc re a ted a m b ig u ity as t o w hetherhi s w ai verw as know i ng and vol unt ary . H ow ever , upon cons i der i ng th e m e rits o f

M r. W ilk e n ’s a p p e a l, w e c o n c lu d e th a t h e h a s fa iled to d e m o n stra te t hathi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e and thatanyerr ori n cal cul at i ng t he G u idelines ran g e fo r his o ffen se w as h arm less. W e the refo re A F F IR M M r. W ilk e n ’s s e n te n c e . I . BA CKGROUND A . F a cts A ccor di ng t o uncont es t ed fa ct s fr om t he pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) pr epar ed byt he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce i n thi s cas e, a conf i dent i al i nform ant( “C I ”) w or ki ng fort he D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s tr at i on ( “D E A ”)- 3 -

arr anged t o s el l a pound of met hamphet ami ne t o M r . W i l ken on the eve ni ng of S ep tem b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 . U tah H igh w ayP atrol (“U H P ”) troo p ers stop p ed M r. W il k en ’s pick u p tru ck en rou te t o the C I’s resi d en ce to co n su m m ate the sale. M r. W i l ken admi t s t hat , dur i ng t hi s s t op, he dr ove aw ayfr om t he tr ooper s as t hey w ere ask ing fo r his iden ti fica ti o n ; ho w ev er, he d ispu tes th e g o v ern m en t’ s al l egat i on t hatt hi s fl i ghtoccurr ed “a ta hi gh r at e of s peed w i th one of the tr o o p ers sti ll h alfw ayin the d ri v er’s d o o r. ” L ater tha t eve n ing , U H P tr o o p ers l ocat ed M r . W i l ken w al ki ng dow n M ai n St r eeti n W oods C r os s , U t ah, and pl ace d hi m underarr es t . T he tr ooper s found $11, 200 i n curr ency , a di gi t al s cal e, and 1 5 .9 g ra m s o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e in h is p o ss e ss io n , an d M r. W ilk e n su b se q u e n tly admi t t ed that“atl eas ts om e of thatdrug w oul d have be en di s tr i but ed, s ol d, or s har ed w i t h fr i ends and/ oras s oci at es had i tnotbeen s ei zed. ” B . T he P l ea A gree m ent and W ai ver of A ppeal M r. W ilk e n w a s c h a rg e d w ith o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss in g w ith in ten t to d istrib u te 5 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f a m ix tu re o r su b sta n c e c o n tain in g a d e tec tab le a m o u n t o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e , an d o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss in g w ith in ten t to d istrib u te 5 gr ams orm or e of a ctual m ethamphet ami ne, both i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) a n d 8 4 6 . P u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t re a c h e d w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t, M r. W ilk e n p led g u iltyo n lyto th e latte r c o u n t, an d th e g o v e rn m e n t m o v e d to di s m i s s t he form ercountats ent enci ng. T he pl ea a gr eemental s o cont ai ned a- 4 -

s t at ementof M r . W i l ken’ s r i ghtt o appea l hi s s ent ence and a purpor t ed w ai verof th a t rig h t: 8. I know t her e i s no appel l at e r evi ew of any law ful s ent ence i m pos ed und er a p lea of gui l t y . I al s o know I m ayappea l the s ent ence i m pos ed upon m e i n t hi s cas e onl y i f t he sent ence i s i m pos ed i n vi ol at i on of l aw o r, in lig h t o f

th e fa c to rs liste d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) , th e s e n te n c e is u n re a s o n a b le . . . . 10 . F u ll y under s t andi ng m yl i m i t ed r i ghtt o appea l m ys ent ence , as expl ai ned above , and i n cons i der at i on of the conc essi ons and/ or c o m m itm e n ts m a d e b yth e U n ite d S ta te s in th is p le a a g r e e m e n t , I know i ngl y , vol untar i l yand expr es s l yw ai ve myr i ghtt o appea l any se n ten c e im p o se d u p o n m e , an d th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e se n ten c e is det erm i ned, on anyof t h e g rou n d s s etfor th i n T i t l e 18, U ni t ed St at es C ode, Sect i on 3742 oron anygr ou n d w h atev er, exce ptI do notw ai ve m yr i ghtt o appea l ( 1) a sent ence above the maxi m um penal typr ovi ded i n t he s t atut e of c onvi ct i on as s etfor th i n par agr aph 2 above . A ta cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng, t he courtas cert ai ned thatM r . W i l ken had r evi ew ed t he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement . H ow ever , i n as ki ng M r . W i l ken w hetherhe under s t ood t he w ai verof appe al cont ai ned i n thatagr eement , t he courtdes cr i bed th e w a iv e r in sig n ifica n tlyd iffe re n t term s th a n a p p e a re d in th e w ritten a g re e m e n t: T HE C OURT : W hen y ou pl ead gui l tyy ou w aive the r i ghtt o appea l any law fu l sen tenc e. S o u n less a se n tenc e is i m p o sed ab o v e the statu tory m ax im u m , w h ich in this case is l ife, or if it ’s i n v iolati o n o f th e fac tors l i sted in the s t atut e, y ou w on’ thave a r i ghtof appe al . D o y ou u n d e r s t a n d t h a t ? T HE W I TNESS [M r . W i l ken] : I do. T HE C OURT : U nl es s i tfal l s i nt o thos e othe r ca t egor i es , y ou w on’ tbe a b le to a p p e a l th e s e n te n c e . . . . ( Em p h a s i s a d d e d ) . La t e rd u r i n g th e s a me h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r tr e i t e r a t e d t h e s a me po i nt i n m ore gen eral t erm s:E nhance m entundert he ca r eeroffe nderpr ovi s i on of the G ui del i nes 1 r equi r es , i nt eral i a, t hat“the defendanthas atl eas tt w o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons of e ith e r a c ri m e o f

v io le n c e o r a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o ffe n s e .” U .S .S .G . § 4 B1 . 1 ( a ) . T h o u g h i tl i s t e d M r . Wi l k e n ’ s p r i o rc o n v i c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a tl e a s tt wo (continued...) - 5 - T HE C OURT : A l s o y ou’ r e agr eei ng t o w ai ve any appeal orcol l at er al at t acks as w e di s cus s ed ear l i er and as out l i ned i n thi s agr eement ; i s that t ru e ? T HE W I TNESS : Y es. ( E m phas i s added) . T he courtt hen conf i r m ed thatM r . W i l ken vol unt ar i l yagr eed t o pl ead gui l t yand had be en “a bl e t o cons ul tw i th [hi s ] att or neyaboutt he d e c isio n to p lea d g u iltya n d a b o u t th is a g re e m e n t,” a c c e p ted M r. W ilk e n ’s g u ilty p le a , a n d d ir e c te d h im to s ig n th e a g re e m e n t. C . The PSR M r. W ilk e n ’s P S R a ss ig n e d h im a b a se o ffe n se lev e l o f 3 2 p u rsu a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 (c )(4 ), b a se d o n th e q u a n tityo f m e th a m p h e tam in e a n d c a sh in h i s p o s s e s s i o n a tth e t i m e o f h i s a rr e s t . T h e P S R a dj u s t e d t h i s u p w a r d s b y 2 leve ls un d er U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1 . 2 fo r ob stru cti o n o f ju sti ce , cit ing the g o v ern m en t’ s a lleg a tio n th a t, du rin g th e tra ffic s to p p rio r to h is a rre st, M r. W ilk e n “ sp e d o ff in hi s vehi cl e w i t h t he U H P t r oopers t andi ng hal f- w ayi n the dr i ver ’ s door ” and s ubs equent l y“enga ged i n a hi gh s peed pur s ui tw i th pol i ce. ” The offe ns e l evel w as fur t heri ncr eas ed undert he “c ar eeroffe nder ” pr ovi s i on atU . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, w hi ch pr es cr i bes an offens e l evel of 37 w her e the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence for t he o ffen se ati ssue i s l i fe i m pri sonm ent. F i nall y , t he P S R reduced t he o ffen se 1(...continued) 1 fel onyconvi ct i ons forcontr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns es , the PSR di d nots peci fy u p o n w h ic h o f

th e s e h is c a re e r o ffe n d e r s ta tu s w a s p re d ic a te d . T yp ica lly , a c o n v ictio n u n d e r 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a )(1 ) fo r p o ss e ss io n w ith 2 inten t t o d istri b u te 5 g ram s o r m o re o f m etha m p h etam ine c arries a statutory m and at orym i nim um sent ence o f fi ve y ears and a m axim um t erm of 4 0 y ears ’ im p ri so n m en t. 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 4 1 (b)(1 )(B )(vii i) . H o w ev er, th e g o v ern m en t here fil ed an info rm ati o n p u rsua n t t o 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 5 1 (a)(1), de m o n str ati n g that M r. W i l ken had pr evi ous l ybeen c onvi ct ed fora fe l onydrug offe ns e, t hus i ncr eas i ng t he s t atut or ym andat or ym i ni m um t o 10 y ear s and the maxi m um t erm t o l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t u n d e r § 8 4 1 (b )( 1 )( B )( v iii) . - 6 - l evel by3 l evel s foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i typur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1, p rod u cing a total o ffen se leve l o f 3 4 . T h e P S R also n o ted th at M r. W il k en ’s cri m i nal hi st oryw ou l d n orm al l ybe in cat ego ryV based o n h i s pri or conv i ct i on s; how ever , beca us e he mett he cr i t er i a fora ca r eeroffe nder , U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( b) c a te g o ri c a lly p re s c ri b e d a c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry o f V I. T hus , bas ed on a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 34 and acr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I , t he G ui del i ne r ange forM r . W i l ken’ s s ent ence as cal cul at ed i n the PSR w as 262 t o 327 m ont hs . T he PSR al s o l i s t ed the s t atut oryl i m i t at i ons on hi s s ent ence , w hi ch pr ovi de fora mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence of 10 y ear s and a maxi m um of life im p riso n m e n t. 2 Pr i ort o s e nt e nc i ng , M r . W i l ke n f i l e d s e ve r a l w r i t t e n o bj e c t i on s t o the PSR and r eques t ed a s ent ence bel ow i t s cal cul at ed G ui del i ne r ange. H e fi r s tar gued th a t th e P S R e rre d b yc o u n tin g tw o o f h is p rio r c o n v ictio n s, d e sc rib e d in p a ra g ra p h s 3 8 a n d 3 9 o f th e P S R , se p a ra telyfo r p u rp o se s o f c a lcu latin g h is- 7 -

cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e; acc or di ng t o M r . W i l ken, thes e convi ct i ons r es ul t ed fr om “r el at ed” c as es ( as defi ned i n U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2) , and ther efor e s houl d have count ed as onl y one poi nt on hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory s cor e. M r . W i l ken conc eded, how ever , t hateven s o cons t rued, hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys t i l l qual i fi ed hi m forcar eer o ffe n d e r s ta tu s u n d e r U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 . Second, M r . W i l ken ar gued thatt he PSR err ed i n appl y i ng the tw o- l evel enh ancem ent for r eckles s endan germ ent purs uan tt o U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 2 b ecause t her e w as i ns uffi ci entpr oof of the governm ent ’ s al l egat i on thathe dr ove aw ay fr om t he tr aff

i c s t op athi gh s peed w i th an off i cerhal fw ayi ns i de the doorw ayof h is v e h icle . W h ile M r. W ilk e n a d m itt e d th a t h e d ro v e a w a yin a n a ttem p t to evade t he pol i ce, he deni ed thathe di d s o athi gh s peed ort hathe enda nger ed offi cer s orany one el s e, conductw hi ch he a r gued fa i l s t o w arr antenhanc ement under§ 3C 1. 2. M r . W i l ken cl ai m ed thathe s oughtas evi dence vi deot apes of the t r aff i c s t op fr om t he H i ghw ayPat r ol vehi cl es i nvol ved, butt hatt he governm ent in fo rm e d h im th a t th e ta p e s h a d b e e n lo s t. M r . W i l ken al s o ar gued thatone of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons , a mi s demeanor convi ct i on forpos s es s i on of m ar ij uana a nd drug par aphernal i a, s houl d nothave been c ount ed i n hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e bec aus e he w as notr epr es ent ed by couns el dur i ng cour tpr ocee di ngs and pl ed gui l ty“j us tt o gett he ca s e behi nd hi m . ” Thus, he cont ended, a cr i m i nal hi s t orys cor e w hi ch i ncl uded tw o poi nt s for- 8 -

t his con vict i on w ou l d “sub st anti al l yov er- repr esent [] the seri ou sness of [his ] cr i m i nal hi s t or y . ” F in a lly, M r. W ilk e n a rg u e d th a t th e P S R ’s a p p lic a tio n o f U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1’ s car eeroffe nderpr ovi s i on w as i nappr opr i at e i n hi s cas e bec aus e hi s pr i or contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns es w er e r el at i vel ym i norand most l yconfi ned t o a oney earper i od of t i m e. H e al s o not ed more gener al l yt hatt he U ni t ed St at es S en tenc ing C o m m issi o n h as it self b ee n crit ical of the c are er o ffen d er p rov isi o n ’s eff i cac yw hen appl i ed t o non- vi ol entdrug offe nder s . T hus , he r eques t ed thatt he s ent enci ng cour tdecl i ne t o appl ycar eeroffe nders t atus and i ns t ead i m pos e a se n ten c e o f

ten y e a rs, th e m a n d a to rym in im u m sta tu to ryse n ten c e a v a ilab le fo r h is p re s e n t o ffe n s e . D . Se nt e nc i ng Ats e n t e n c i n g , M r . Wi l k e n v e rb a l l yr e a s s e r t e d h i s a r g u me n tfo ra b e l o wG ui del i nes s ent ence of t en y ear s , and the courtacknow l edged hi s w r i t t en o bjec tio n s to th e P S R . T h e c o u rt a c c e p ted M r. W ilk e n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t h is cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e over s t at ed hi s actual cr i m i nal hi s t or ys l i ght l yand a c c o rd in g lyd e c re a se d h is c rim in a l h isto rysc o re b yo n e c a teg o ry , b u t d e c lin e d to d e p a r to rv a r yf

r o m th e r e ma i n d e ro f

t h e Gu i d e l i n e s c a l c u l a t i o n s i n t h e P S R: I fin d th a t th e o b stru c tio n o f ju st ice p o in ts a re a p p ro p ria tely cal culat ed and con si dered w hen l oo king atw hat the g uidel i nes sugg est t he s ent ence s houl d be cons i der ed t o be, and I f i nd thatt he pr es ent ence r epor ti n al l ot her r es pect s i s appr opr i at el y cal cul at ed. I do fi nd thatthe- 9 -

c a re e r o ffe n d e r c a lc u la ti o n s a re a p p ro p ria te in th is c a se . I w ill r ecogni ze thatt he cr i m i nal hi s t oryover s t at es the defendant ’ s cr i m i nal h isto ryslig h tlya n d I a m g o in g to ig n o re th e g u id e lin e s re q u ire m e n t to m o v e the d efen d a n t to a ca tego rysix. I w il l kee p h im in a c ateg o ry fi ve. T hathas t he cons equenc e onl yof m ovi ng hi m . . . t o a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof fi ve r atherthan s i x, y i el di ng a s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange of 235 t o 293 m ont hs , w hi ch I fi nd appr opr i at e i n thi s cas e. T h e s e n te n c e w ill b e a t th e lo w e n d o f th a t ra n g e , 2 3 5 m o n th s in c u s to d yo f

th e F e d e ra l B u re a u o f P ri s o n s . . . . T he courtal s o agr eed t o r ecomm end pl ace m enti n an i nt ens i ve drug r ehabi l i t at i on pr ogr am, not i ng M r . W i l ken’ s cl ai m t hat“met hamphet ami ne i s t he r ootof al l of [hi s ] pr obl ems. ” Fi nal l y , t he courtr ei t er at ed i t s bel i ef thatt he G ui del i nes ’ car eer offend er pr ov i si on w as approp ri at el yapp l i ed to M r. W i l ken . “U nd er these ci r cumst ance s I fi nd t haty ou qual i fyas a ca r eeroffe nder , nott o m ent i on y ou have e ndanger ed the l i ves of y ourchi l dr en fory ear s now . I don’ ts ee a nythi ng y ett hathas gi ven y ou enough i ncent i ve t o s t op a very , verydanger ous pr act i ce. ” Ju d g m en t w as e n tered o n M r. W il k en ’s sen tenc e o n F eb rua ry6 , 2 0 0 6 . M r. W i l k e n fi l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t h e fo l l o w i n g d a y. I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . V al i di t y ofM r. W i l ken’ s w ai ver of appeal W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See U ni t ed St at es v. H ah n , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (en b an c) (“[ W ]e h av e statuto ry s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on under§ 1291 overs ent enci ng appea l s even w hen the d e fe n d a n th a s w a i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l i n a n e n fo r c e a b l e p l e a a g r e e m e n t . ” ) . We- 10 -

b e g in b ya d d re ss in g th e p re d ica te is su e o f w h e th e r M r. W ilk e n w a iv e d h is rig h t to appea l ; i f s o, w e mustdi s m i s s hi s appea l w i thoutr eac hi ng i t s m er i t s , s ee i d. at 1328. Ou rr e v i e w o f

a n a p p e l l a t e wa i v e ri s g o v e rn e d b yth e th r e e - p a r ti n q u i rywe ar t i cul at ed i n H ahn: “( 1) w hetherthe di s put ed appe al fal l s w i thi n the s cope of t he w a iv e r o f

a p p e llate rig h ts; (2 ) w h e th e r th e d e fe n d a n t k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily w a iv e d h is a p p e llate rig h ts; a n d (3 ) w h e th e r e n fo rc in g th e w a iv e r w o u ld re su lt i n a m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e . . . .” Id . a t 1 3 2 5 . M r . W i l ken’ s pr i m aryar gum entagai ns tenfor cementof hi s w ai ver im p lica tes b o th th e first a n d se c o n d p ro n g s o f th e H a h n a n a ly sis : h e a rg u e s th a t, al t hough t he l anguage of hi s pl ea a gr eementcont ai ned a c l earw ai verof hi s r i ght to ap p ea l, the s co p e o f th at w aive r be ca m e a m b igu o u s af ter th e se n tenc ing co u rt ’s sta tem e n ts a n d th e re fo re , at th e tim e h e p led g u iltya n d sig n e d th e p lea a g re e m e n t, anyw ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l an unr eas onabl e s ent ence w as notknow i ng or vol unt ary . W e agr ee thatt he s ent enci ng cour t ’ s expl anat i on of the w ai ver di ffe r ed s ubs t ant i al l yfr om t hati n the w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement : w hi l e the w r i t t en w ai verl eftM r . W i l ken w i t h t he r i ghtt o appea l onl y“a s ent ence above the m a x im u m p e n a ltyp ro v id e d in th e sta tu te o f c o n v ictio n ,” th e c o u rt e x p lain e d to M r . W i l ken thathe al s o had the r i ghtt o appea l a s ent ence i m pos ed “i n vi ol at i on of the fa ct or s l i s t ed i n t he s t atut e, ” thus s i gni fi cant l ynarr ow i ng the s cope of t heItis un clea r pre ciselyw h ich s tatu te th e c o u rtinten d ed to refere n ce . M r. 3 W i l ken as s ert s t hatt he court ’ s s t at ement“ca n onl ybe cons trued t o m ean 18 U . S. C . § 3742, ” w hi ch al l ow s forappea l of al l “unr eas onabl e s ent ence s , w hether t heyfal l w i t hi n orout s i de the advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange. ” U ni t ed St at es v. Sanchez - J uar ez, 446 F. 3d 1109, 1114 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . A col or abl e ar gum ent coul d al s o be made, how ever , t hatt he courtm eantt o r efe rt o the s ent enci ng fa c to rs e n u m e ra ted a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). W e n e e d n o t co n c e rn o u rse lv e s w ith t hi s di s t i nct i on, s i nce M r . W i l ken’ s ar gum ent s on appea l conce rn the ca l cul at i on and r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence and ar e ther efor e cogni zabl e underei ther i nt erpr et at i on. - 11 - w ai ver . T he ques t i on her e i s w hethert hats t at ement , m ade dur i ng the pl ea

3 col l oquyj us tpr i ort o M r . W i l ken’ s s i gni ng the pl ea a gr eementand ent er i ng a pl ea o f g u ilty , intro d u c e d a m b ig u ityso a s to p re c lu d e o u r fin d in g th a t th e w a iv e r o f h is r i g h tt o a p p e a l a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e w a s k n o w i n g a n d v o l u n t a ry. W e have pr evi ous l yhel d thata s ent enci ng cour t ’ s “s t at ement s m ade af t er t he entryof the appe al w ai verand the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s acc ept ance of the gui l typl ea c a n n o t o v e rc o m e th e p lain lan g u a g e o f th e a p p e a l w a iv e r” to c re a te a m b ig u ity w her e none e xi s t s i n t he w r i t t en pl ea a gr eement . U ni t ed St at es v. A r eval oJ i m enez , 372 F. 3d 1204, 1206 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( emphasi s added) ( quot i ng H ahn, 359 F. 3d at1328 n. 14) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. Fi s her , 232 F. 3d 301, 304 ( 2d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (“M o st of

the c ir cu it s tha t hav e c o n side red w h ethe r a d istri ct j u d g e’s po st -s entence adv i ce as t o ap pell at e ri gh t s r end ers i neffect i ve an otherw i se en fo rce ab le w aive r of su ch ri g h ts ha v e ru led th at th e w aive r rem ains v ali d . ”). M r. W i l ken’ s ar gum ent , how ever , pr es ent s us w i th a di ffe r entques t i on, one w e haveT h e re lev a n t p o rtio n o f R u le 1 1 re q u ire s th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt, p rio r to 4 acc ept ance of a gui l t ypl ea, addr es s t he defendantper s onal l yt o “i nform t he defe ndantof, and det erm i ne thatt he defendantunder s t ands , . . . t he t erm s of any pl ea- agr eementpr ovi s i on w ai vi ng t he r i ghtt o appea l ort o col l at er al l yatt ack the sent ence.” Fed . R . C ri m . P . 11 (b) (1) (N ). In addit i on , t he co urtm ustal so “det erm i ne thatt he pl ea i s vol unt aryand di d notr es ul tfr om for ce, t hr eat s , or p rom ises (oth er tha n p rom ises in a p lea a g ree m en t) . ” F ed . R . C ri m . P . 1 1 (b)(2 ). - 12 - nevers quar el yfac ed: w hethert he s ent enci ng court ’ s m i s char act er i zat i on of an a p p e lla te w a iv e r d u ri n g a p le a c o llo q u y , pri or t o s i gni ng of the pl ea a gr eementor entryof a g uil t yplea, can creat e a m at eri al am bigui tyas t o an otherw i se unambi guous w ai veri n t he pl ea a gr eement . See U ni t ed St at es v. Sal aza r , 188 Fed. A ppx. 787, 790 n. 3 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) ( not i ng t hatthe i ns t ant issue “a p p ea rs t o b e a n u n sett led q u esti o n ”), cert. d en ied, 12 7 S . C t. 1 0 1 7 (20 0 7 ). O urpr ece dent , t hough notaddr es s i ng thi s ques t i on di r ect l y , pr ovi des gui dance bydi r ect i ng t hi s courtt o l ook “pr i m ar i l yt o tw o fac t or s ” i n det erm i ni ng w hetheran appe l l at e w ai verw as m ade know i ngl yand vol unt ar i l y : ( 1) the l anguage of the pl ea a gr eement , and ( 2) the pl ea c ol l oquyr equi r ed byFeder al R ul e of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 11. U ni t ed St at es v. Sandoval , 477 F. 3d 1204, 1207 4 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) ; H ahn, 359 F. 3d at1325. W e have t hus cl ear l ycont empl at ed an expl anat or yr ol e fort he pl ea c ol l oquy , al though ourpr i oropi ni ons have a ddr es s ed th is ro le in th e c o n tex t o f c lar if y in g th e p a rticu lar s o f a d e fe n d a n t’s a p p e llate w ai ver , r athert han obfus cat i ng t hem. See U ni t ed St at es v. C havez - Sal ai s , 337 F .3 d 1 1 7 0 , 1 1 7 3 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e p lea c o llo q u yis a “ w a yin- 13 -

w h ich th e c o n ten t o f

a d e fe n d a n t’s w a iv e r o f a p p e a l rig h ts c a n b e m a d e k n o w n to h im ” ). N ev erthe less, log ic i n d icates tha t i f w e m ayrelyo n the s en tenc ing co u rt ’s st at em ents t o eli m i nate am bigui t ypri or t o acce pti ng a w ai ver of ap pell at e ri gh t s, w e mustal s o be pr epar ed t o r ecogni ze the pow erof s uch s t at ement s t o achi eve t he oppos i t e effec t . I f i ti s r eas onabl e t o r el yupon the court ’ s w or ds for cl ari fi cat i on , t hen w e cann ot expect a defend ant t o d i st i ng uis h an d d i sr egard t ho se sta tem e n ts o f

th e c o u rt th a t d e v iate f ro m th e lan g u a g e o f

a p a rticu lar p ro v isio n in a l engthypl ea a gr eement— es peci al l yw her e, as her e, nei therthe governm entnor d efen se c o u n sel ap p are n tl yn o ti ce d the e rror at th e ti m e. A ssu m ing that M r. W i l ken under s t ood the court ’ s s t at ement s as br oadeni ng hi s r i ghtof appe al under t he w ai ver— an under s t andi ng t he court ’ s l anguage cl ear l ys uppor t s — he cert ai nl ycoul d notbe fa ul t ed forr el y i ng upon the court ’ s expl anat i on, r atherthan h is o w n u n d e rsta n d in g , as th e d e fin iti v e c o n stru c tio n o f th e a g re e m e n t h e w o u ld a lm o s t im m e d ia te ly sig n . T his i m m ediacy , w i t ho ut obj ect i on or t i m e t o co nsultw i th co un sel , i s a f u rth e r fa c to r su p p o rtin g o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t th e se n ten c in g c o u rt’s s tate m e n ts c re a ted a m b ig u ityin M r. W ilk e n ’s w a iv e r. H a d e ith e r p a rty ’s c o u n se l o bjec ted to t he court ’ s s t at ementors oughtcl ar i fi cat i on, then the courtcoul d have a m ended i t s s t at ementand r es ol ved anyambi gui ty . A l t ernat i vel y , i f an a dequat e i nt ervalT he s ent enci ng cour tdi d i nqui r e, pr i ort o M r . W i l ken’ s s i gni ng of the pl ea 5 agreem ent and h i s guil t yplea, w hetherhe h ad “b een ab l e t o co nsultw i th [h i s] a tto rn e ya b o u t th e d e c isio n to p lea d g u iltya n d a b o u t th is [ p lea ] a g re e m e n t,” to w hi ch M r . W i l ken r es ponded “Y es , I have. ” Thi s excha nge fa i l ed t o cur e the a m b ig u ity , h o w e v e r, b e c a u se it i n d ica tes o n lyth a t M r. W ilk e n w a s a b le to c o n su lt h i s a t t o r n e y pr i orto th e c o u rt’s e rro n e o u s d e sc rip tio n o f th e a p p e llate w a iv e r; it does notas cert ai n thatM r . W i l ken had the opportuni tyt o r ece i ve anyadvi ce af t er t he ambi gui t yar os e, ort hathe under s t ood thathe w oul d be bound byt he w r i t t en a g re e m e n t ra th e r th a n th e c o u rt’s v e rb a l in terp re tatio n o f it. - 14 - had occ ur r ed af

t ert he court ’ s s t at ement s butpr i ort o the entryof a gui l typl ea or sig n in g o f

th e a g re e m e n t d u rin g w h ich M r. W ilk e n c o u ld h a v e c o n su lted w ith couns el r egar di ng anyconfus i on overthe s cope of the appe l l at e w ai ver , then ar guabl ycouns el w oul d have c l ear ed up anyambi gui ty . B uther e, nei ther clarificati o n n o r an o p p o rtu n itythere fo r w as o ffere d b etw ee n the c o u rt ’s e rro n e o u s s tate m e n ts a n d M r. W ilk e n ’s s ig n in g o f th e p lea a g re e m e n t. 5 W e a re th u s le f

t w ith a m b ig u itye x istin g a t th e tim e M r. W ilk e n sig n e d h is pl ea a gr eementand pl ed gui l t y : the w r i t t en agr eementenumer at es a br oad w ai ver of hi s appel l at e r i ght s , butt he court ’ s s t at ement s dur i ng the pl ea c ol l oquy descri be a m uch narr ow er w ai ver. U nd er s uch un cert ai n cir cum st ances, w e m ust c o n stru e th e w a iv e r n a rro w ly , “a c c o rd in g to . . . w h a t th e d e fe n d a n t re a so n a b ly under s t ood w hen he e nt er ed hi s pl ea. ” C havez - Sal ai s , 337 F3d at1172; s ee i d. at 1173 ( “Li ke mostw ai ver s , a defendant ’ s w ai verof hi s r i ghtt o appea l . . . i s t o be cons t rued narr ow l y . ”) ; H ahn, 359 F. 3d at1325 ( “I n det erm i ni ng a w ai ver ’ s s cope, w e w ill stric tlyc o n stru e a p p e a l w a iv e rs a n d a n ya m b ig u iti e s in th e se a g re e m e n tsB e c a u se w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t M r. W ilk e n k n o w in g lya n d v o lu n tar ily 6 w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o br i ng t hi s appea l and thus w e dec l i ne t o enfor ce the w ai veron t hi s gr ound, w e nee d notaddr es s hi s al t ernat i ve ar gum entt hatenfor cementof the w a iv e r w o u ld re s u lt in a m is c a rr ia g e o f ju s tic e . T he PSR r efe r r ed t o t he adj us t m entunder§ 3C 1. 2 as an “A dj us t m entfor 7 O b stru c tio n o f

Ju stic e ,” a n d b o th M r. W ilk e n a n d th e c o u rt a d o p ted th is n o m e n c latu re w h e n re fe rrin g to th is a dju stm e n t. S e c tio n 3 C 1 .2 , h o w e v e r, is e n title d “ R e c k le s s E n d a n g e rm e n t D u ri n g F lig h t” ; it is th e p re c e d in g p ro v is io n , § 3C 1. 1, w hi ch i s ent i t l ed “O bs t ruct i ng orI m pedi ng the A dm i ni s tr at i on of J us t i ce. ” W e ther efor e di ver ge fr om t he di s tr i ctcourtand r efe rt o the § 3C 1. 2 adj us t m ent a s a lle g in g re c k le s s e n d a n g e rm e n t, r a th e r t h a n o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e . - 15 - w ill b e re a d a g a in st th e G o v e rn m e n t an d in fa v o r o f a d e fe n d a n t’s a p p e llate rig h ts.” ). A s a re su lt, w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t M r. W ilk e n ’s w a iv e r o f h is rig h t to a p p e a l a n a l l e g e d l yu n r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e wa s k n o wi n g a n d v o l u n t a ry , a n d we th e re fo re h o ld th a t M r. W ilk e n d id n o t w a iv e h is rig h t to b rin g th e in sta n t ap p e a l. 6 S e e C h a v e z -S a lais , 3 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 4 . W e th e re fo re p ro c e e d to c o n sid e r th e m e rits o f h is a p p e a l. B . M er it s 1. C alcul ati on of t h e G u i d el i n es ran ge incl u d i n g the re ck l ess e n d a n g e r m e n t p r o v is io n a t U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .2 7 In d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyc a lcu late d th e a p p lica b le G ui del i nes r ange, “w e r evi ew fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand l egal d eterm ination s d e n o v o . ” U n it ed S tat es v . K ri stl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2006) ( percur i am). E ven w her e w e fi nd an err ori n cal cul at i ng the G ui del i nesU . S . S . G . § 3 C 1 . 2 p rov ides fo r a tw o -l ev el i n cre ase in a d efen d an t’ s 8 offense l evel cal culat i on “[i ]f the d efen dan treckl essl ycreat ed a sub st anti al ri sk o f d e a t h o rs e r i o u s b o d i l yi nj u r yt o a n o th e rp e r s o n i n t h e c o u r s e o f fl e e i n g f

r o m a l aw enfor cementoffi cer . ” - 16 - r ange, how ever , w e nee d notvaca t e and r emand t he s ent ence i f the err orw as h a rm le s s . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . G ra h a m , 4 6 6 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 3 9 -4 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M r . W i l ken cha l l enges onl yone as pectof the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s cal cul at i on of t he G ui del i ne r ange forhi s s ent ence : i t s appl i cat i on of the r eckl es s endange r m ent adj us t m entatU . S. S. G . § 3C 1. 2, bas ed on the governm ent ’ s al l egat i on t hathe dr ove aw ayfr om a tr aff i c s t op t hatpr ece ded hi s arr es tathi gh s peed, “w i th [a] U H P t r ooper s t andi ng hal f- w ay i n the dr i ver ’ s door ” of hi s vehi cl e. H e ar gues t hatt he courterr ed i n appr ovi ng t he PSR ’ s appl i cat i on of the tw o- l evel enhanc ementt o hi s bas e offens e l evel overhi s obj ect i on, beca us e the governm ent fa iled to p ro d u c e e v id e n c e o f th e c o n d u c t su p p o rtin g it. 8 M r. W il k en ap p ea rs t o h av e a v ali d p o int. “A t sen tenc ing , the d istri ct co u rt m a yre lyo n fa c ts s tate d in th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt u n les s th e d e fe n d a n t o bjec ted to t hem. W hen a de fenda ntobj ect s t o a fa cti n a pr es ent ence r eport , t he governm ent m us tpr ove thatfac tata s ent enci ng hear i ng bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence . ” U ni t ed St at es v. K ei fer , 198 F. 3d 798, 800 ( 10th C i r . 1999) . H er e, M r . W i l ken o bjec ted to th e P S R ’s a p p lica tio n o f th e re c k les s e n d a n g e rm e n t en h a n c e m e n t, admi t t i ng t hathe dr ove aw aydur i ng the tr aff i c s t op but“den[ y i ng] t hatone of the- 17 -

offi cer s w as hal f- w ayi n hi s vehi cl e w hen he dr ove aw ayorthathe enga ged i n a high-s peed chase — and t hu s den[ y i ng ] that hi s cond uct cr eat ed a sub st anti al ri sk of s er i ous bodi l yi nj uryt o t he off i cer s orany one el s e. ” M r . W i l ken cl ai m s he r eques t ed vi deot ape e vi dence fr om the patr ol car s i nvol ved i n the s t op, butthe governm enti nform ed hi m t hat“the t apes w er e appa r ent l yl os tbythe pol i ce a g e n c y .” T h e re c o rd c o n tain s n o e v id e n c e o ffe re d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t to over come t hi s obj ect i on, and M r . W i l ken’ s admi s s i on m er el yt hathe fl ed the tr affic stop is no t, in an d o f it self, sufficien t t o su p p o rten h an ce m en t un d er § 3C 1. 2. U ni t ed St at es v. C onl ey , 131 F. 3d 1387, 1390 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( “N ot ev eryfli g h t from a c ri m e sc en e . . . w il l con sti tute rec k less en d an g erm en t un d er § 3C 1. 2. ”) . T hus , i tappea r s t hatt he di s tr i ctcourterr ed bys i m pl yadopt i ng the PSR ’ s appl i cat i on of § 3C 1. 2 overM r . W i l ken’ s obj ect i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. F a rn sw o rth , 9 2 F .3 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 1 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ W e re p e a ted lyh a v e h e ld th a t a di s t r i ctcour tm aynots at i s fyi t s obl i gat i on [t o m ake a fi ndi ng as t o contr overt ed fac tual al l egat i ons r egar di ng s ent enci ng] bys i m pl yadopt i ng the pr es ent ence rep o rtas it s fin d ing . ”). H o w ev er, as itturn ed o u t, the § 3 C 1 . 2 en h an ce m en t had n o effe ct on M r. W i l ken ’s sent ence. O nce the cou rtdeterm i ned , based o n fac t s unrel at ed to tho se under l y i ng t he r eckl es s endange r m entenhanc ement , t hatM r . W i l ken qual i fi ed as a c a re e r o ffe n d e r, it s p re v io u s o ffe n se lev e l ca lcu latio n s b e c a m e irre lev a n t; §M r. W ilk e n a rg u e s th a t, ev e n if th e e rro r h a d n o e ffe c t o n h is s e n ten c e , it 9 i s notharm l es s beca us e i tw i l l affectt he s ecur i tydes i gnat i on as s i gned t o hi m by the B u rea u o f P ri so n s. P rec ed en t i s clea r, h o w ev er, th at w e d eterm ine w h ethe r a s e n te n c in g e rr o r i s h a rm le s s w ith re fe re n c e o n ly to th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d . W i l l i ams v. U ni t ed St at es , 503 U . S. 193, 202- 03 ( 1992) ( “[R]e m and i s r equi r ed (continued...) - 18 - 4 B 1 . 1 ca tego ri ca ll yp resc ri b es a n o ffen se lev el of 3 7 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof V I t o car eeroffe nder s convi ct ed of a n offe ns e ca rry i ng a maxi m um s ta tu to ry se n te n c e o f

life im p ri s o n m e n t. M r. W ilk e n d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t th e d istric t co u rt su b sta n tiv e lye rre d in its fac tual fi ndi ngs orl egal det erm i nat i on r el at ed t o hi s qual i fi cat i on as a ca r eer offe nderunder§ 4B 1. 1. I ndeed, he conc edes thathi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycont ai ned the tw o p rev iou s co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce fe lon yco n v ict ion s n ec essa ryto tr igg er § 4B 1. 1, and ther efor e thatt he ca r eeroffe nderenhanc ement“w as pr oper l yappl i ed i n a t echni cal s ens e” byt he di s t r i ctcourt . T hus , beca us e § 4B 1. 1 contr ol l ed the G ui del i nes r ange forhi s s ent ence , anyerr ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of § 3C 1. 2 w as harm l es s . See U ni t ed St at es v. M ont gom ery , 439 F. 3d 1260, 1263 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (“H arm less erro r i s tha t w h ich d id n o t affec t th e d istri ct co u rt ’s s el ect i on of the s ent ence i m pos ed. ” ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sher w i n, 271 F. 3d 1231, 1235- 36 ( 10th C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng thati tw as unnece s s aryfort hi s cour tt o addr es s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s err oneous appl i cat i on of a § 3C 1. 2 enhanc ementbeca us e on r emand, t he s ent ence i m pos ed w oul d not ch an g e). 9(...continued) 9 onl yi f the s ent ence w as i m pos ed a s a re su lt of an i ncorr ectappl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes . ” ( quot at i on om i t t ed, emphasi s added) ) ; M ont gom ery , 439 F. 3d at 1263 ( “H arm l es s err ori s t hatw hi ch di d notaffectthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s s el ect i on of t he s ent ence i m pos ed. ” ( quot at i on om i t t ed) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M ar s hal l , 432 F. 3d 1157, 1162 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( “I f the s ent enci ng err ordoes notaffectthe s ent ence t hatw oul d have be en i m pos ed bythe di s tr i ctcour t , i tdoes notaffects ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ”) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. B r ow n, 221 F. 3d 1336, 2000 W L 876382 at *14 ( 6t h C i r . 2000) ( unpubl i s hed) ( hol di ng thaterr or s i n a PSR ’ s G ui del i ne cal cul at i ons t hatdo notaffectt he defendant ’ s s ent ence ar e harm l es s even i f they a ffe c t th e d e fe n d a n t’ s B u re a u o f P ri s o n s c la s s ific a tio n ). - 19 - W e ther efor e dec l i ne t o vaca t e orr emand M r . W i l ken’ s s ent ence bas ed on err ori n t he ca l cul at i on of the appr opr i at e G ui del i nes r ange.

2. R eas onabl enes s oft he s ent ence H avi ng found no r ever s i bl e err ori n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cal cul at i on of the G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w e re v iew th e re su lti n g se n ten c e fo r “ re a so n a b len e ss .” K ristl, 437 F. 3d at1053. A s ent ence i m pos ed w i thi n the pr oper l ycal cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange i s acc or ded a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s , w hi ch i s “a defe r ent i al s t andar d t hatei t hert he defendantort he governm entm ayr ebutby demonstr at i ng t hatt he s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e w hen vi ew ed aga i ns tt he other fa c to rs d e lin e a ted in § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” I d . at 1 0 5 4 ; se e R ita v . U n ited S tate s, 1 2 7 S . C t. 2456, 2462 ( 2007) ( hol di ng t hat“a c our tof appe al s m ayappl ya pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o a di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence t hatr efl ect s a pr operappl i cat i on of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ”) . M r . W i l ken ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i m pos i t i on- 20 -

of a 235- m ont h s ent ence bas ed, i n par t , on appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nder e n h a n c e m e n t, U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 , w a s u n re a s o n a b le .

a. P res um pti on of reasonab l eness A s an i ni t i al m att err egar di ng ours t andar d of r evi ew , w e ar e fa ced w i th t he vexat i ous ques t i on of w hethert he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s acc or ded t o a w i t hi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence appl i es i n thi s cas e. T he G ui del i nes r ange a s cal cul at ed i n t he PSR , bas ed on M r . W i l ken’ s s t atus as a ca r eeroffe nder , w as 262 to 3 2 7 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t. H o w ev er, atsen tenc ing , the c o u rtag ree d w ith M r. W i l k e n t h a th i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y s c o r e “ o v e r s t a t e s [ h i s ] c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry s l i g h t l y” a n d t h e r e fo r e , r a t h e rt h a n a p p l yi n g c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry V I a s p r e s c r i b e d b y § 4 B 1 . 1 , ap p li ed ca tego ryV . B ase d o n this ch an g e, th e c o u rtrec alcu lat ed M r. W i l ken’ s s ent enci ng r ange t o be 235 t o 293 m onths and i m pos ed a s ent ence att he b o tto m o f

th is re v is e d ra n g e . T he court , how ever , di d nots t at e the bas i s fori t s di ver gence fr om t he c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryse t o u t in § 4 B 1 .1 . T h e c o u rt m ig h t h a v e in ten d e d to departfr om t he G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed on U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 3( b) , w hi ch pr ovi des fo r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re o f o n e c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ry“ [ i]f re liab le in fo rm a tio n in d ica tes th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o rysu b sta n tially over - r epr es ent s t he s er i ous nes s of the defendant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory. . . . ” A l t ernat i vel y , t he courtm i ghthave meantt o gr anta var i ance bas ed on the- 21 -

se n ten c in g fa c to rs a t 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ), w h ich re q u ire th e se n ten c in g c o u rt to cons i der“the hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defendant ” and “ the nee d forthe se n ten c e im p o se d . . . to a ffo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t” a n d “ to p rotec t th e p u b li c f

rom fu rth er c ri m es o f th e d efen d an t. ” A cc o rdin g ly , w e a re unabl e t o det erm i ne w hethert he court ’ s di ver gence fr om the s ent ence s pr es cr i bed b y§ 4 B 1 .1 re p re s e n ts a “ d e p a rt u re ” o r a “ v a ri a n c e ” f ro m th e G u id e lin e ra n g e . See U ni t ed St at es v. A t enci o, 476 F. 3d 1099, 1101 n. 1 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( “[W ] hen a courtr eac hes a s ent ence above orbel ow the r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange t hr ough appl i cat i on of C hapt er s FourorFi ve of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , the resu lt ing incre ase o r de cre ase is r eferred to as a ‘d ep arture.’ W h en a c o u rt enhanc es ordetr act s fr om t he r ecomm ended r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors, ho w ev er, th e inc rea se o r de cre ase is call ed a ‘v arian ce . ’”). T hi s di s t i nct i on i s i m por t antbeca us e i ti s pot ent i al l ydet erm i nat i ve of our s t andar d of r evi ew . A s pr evi ous l ys t at ed, w e appl ya r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of re a so n a b len e ss w h e n re v iew in g a se n ten c e th a t “fa lls w ith in th e p ro p e rly cal cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange. ” K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d at1053. I ti s w el l s et t l ed that w h e n a d istric t co u rt var i es fr om the G ui del i nes r ange ba s ed onl yon nonG u id e lin e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, th e re su lti n g se n ten c e lies o u tsid e o f th e “ p ro p e rly cal cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange” and ther efor e i s notpr es um ed t o be r eas onabl e. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. V al t i err a- R oj as , 468 F. 3d 1235, 1238- 39 ( 10th C i r . 2006)- 22 -

( hol di ng t hata s ent ence bas ed on a va r i ance fr om the G ui del i nes r ange, i nvoki ng th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, is n o t en tit led to a p re su m p tio n o f re a so n a b len e ss , tho u g h it is no t presu m p ti v elyu n rea so n ab le), ce rt . d en ied, 12 7 S . C t. 2 9 3 5 (20 0 7 ). H ow ever , i ti s l es s cl earw hethera s ent ence bas ed on a dep art ure th a t is i t s el f r ecogni zed unde rt he G ui del i nes i s cons i der ed a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence fo rp u rp o s e o f

a p p l yi n g a p r e s u m p t i o n o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o n r e v i e w . F o r tu n a t e l y, th is d e ter m in a tio n is n o t n e c e ss a ryto o u r re so lu tio n o f th is c a se , fo r th e re su lt i s t he sam e ei t her w ay ; even w i t ho ut the b enefi tof a p res um pti on of reasonab l eness, w e n ev erthe less co n clud e tha t M r. W il k en ’s sen tenc e is reas o n ab le. W e the refo re res erve for ano t her dayt he q uest i on of w hethera presum pti on of reasonab l eness a p p lies to a se n ten c e th a t d e p a rts, in e ith e r d ire c tio n , fr o m th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e ra n g e u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 .

b . U n re a s o n a b le n e s s b a s e d o n th e e ffic a c yo f § 4 B 1 .1 I n at t empt i ng t o s how t hathi s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e, M r . W i l ken ar gues t hatt he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, the bodyr es pons i bl e for cr eat i ng t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , “has acknow l edged thatthe ca r eeroffe nder pr ovi s i on, as i tappl i es t o drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns es , does noteffect i vel ys erve the se n ten c in g g o a ls” o f § 3 5 5 3 (a ). T h e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n , in a 2 0 0 4 re p o rt, not ed thatoffe nder s w ho qual i fi ed for§ 4B 1. 1’ s car eeroffe nderenhanc ement based o nlyup on pri or drug o ffen ses di spl ay ed low er r eci divi sm rat es than t ho se- 23 -

car eeroffe nder s w ho w er e s o cl as s i fi ed bas ed on pr i orcr i m es of vi ol ence , and c o n c lu d e d th a t th e u s e o f p ri o r d ru g o ffe n s e s to q u a lif yo ffe n d e rs u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 had “unw arr ant ed adve r s e i m pact s on m i nor i tygr oups w i thoutcl ear l yadvanc i ng a purpos e of s ent enci ng. ” U . S. Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, Fi ft een Y ear s of G ui del i nes Sent enci ng: A n A s s es s m entof H ow W el l the Feder al C r i m i nal J us t i ce Sy s t em i s A chi evi ng t he G oal s of Sent enci ng R eform at134 ( 2004) , avai l abl e at ht tp: //w w w . us s c. gov/ 15_y ear/ 15_y ear_s tudy_ful l . pdf [he r ei naft er“Sent enci ng C o m m is s io n R e p o rt ” ]. B e thatas i tm ay , t he fa ctr emai ns thatC ongr es s has noty etbeen pe r s uaded t o r emove pr i ordrug offe ns es as qual i fi er s forthe ca r eeroffe nderpr ovi s i on, and “a sen tenc e is n o t r en d ere d u n rea so n ab le m ere lyb ec au se o f a d istri ct co u rt ’s re f u sa l to d e v iate f

ro m th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e ” b a se d o n d isa g re e m e n ts w ith t he pol i ci es under l y i ng a part i cul arG ui del i ne pr ovi s i on. U ni t ed St at es v. M cC ul l ough, 457 F. 3d 1150, 1171 ( 10th C i r . 2006) , cert . deni ed, 127 S. C t . 988 ( 2007) . I ndeed, i n M cC ul l ough w e cons i der ed and r ej ect ed a ve rys i m i l ar ar gum entr egar di ng t he di s par i t yi n the G ui del i nes betw een c r ack c ocai ne and pow dercoca i ne — a di s par i t y , w e not e, of w hi ch the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on expr es s ed s i m i l ardi s appr oval i n the s ame r eportci t ed byM r . W i l ken. See Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on R epor tat131- 32 ( not i ng that“the C om m i s s i on has r epea t edl yr ecomm ended thatt he quant i tythr es hol ds forcr ack c ocai ne be r evi s ed- 24 -

upw ar d, ” and thatt hi s change “w oul d dr amat i cal l yi m pr ove the fa i rnes s of the fe d era l sen tenc ing sy stem ”). I n M cC u ll o u g h , w e thu s h eld th at a d istri ct co u rt do es not err byrefusi ng t o d epartor varydo w nw ard based o n the G uidel i nes’ di s par at e tr eatm entof cr ack a nd pow dercoca i ne. 457 F. 3d at1171. T he s ame r eas oni ng appl i es t o M r . W i l ken’ s di s agr eementw i th the pol i cy un derl y i ng § 4 B 1. 1 in this case. W hil e t here m ayexis tcog ent ar gu m ents against t he i ncl us i on of pr i ordrug offe ns es under§ 4B 1. 1, a di s tr i ctcour tdoes noterrby decl i ni ng t o departorvaryfr om a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence on thi s gr ound. See U nit ed S t at es v. P rui t t , 48 7 F . 3d 12 98 , 13 16 -17 (10t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( M cC on nell , J. c o n c u rrin g ) (d isc u ss in g th e p e rc e iv e d in e q u iti e s o f § 4 B 1 .1 a s a p p lied b a se d o n ly on pr i ordrug offe ns es , butr ecogni zi ng thatappl i cat i on of § 4B 1. 1 i n s uch a c o n tex t is “ re a so n a b le” u n d e r T e n th C irc u it p re c e d e n t). W e th e re fo re c a n n o t h o ld h is s e n ten c e u n re a so n a b le b a se d o n su c h a b ro a d p o licyd isa g re e m e n t.

c. U nr eas onabl enes s bas ed on M r . W i l ken’ s cr i m i nal h ist o ry M r . W i l ken al s o ar gues , bas ed more s peci fi cal l yon the fa ct s of hi s cas e, t hathi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ydoes notw arr antthe s ent ence enhanc ementr es ul t i ng fr om hi s bei ng l abel ed a car eer offe nder under § 4B 1. 1. H e not es t hathe pr ocee ded pr o s e i n pl eadi ng gui l tyt o a mi s demeanorchar ge of pos s es s i on of m ar ij uana a nd ar gues t hatt hi s pr i orconvi ct i on s houl d ther efor e nothave c on t r i bu t e d t o h i s c r i mi na l hi s t orys c or e . H e a l s o c on t e nd s t ha t , a l tho ug h the PSR- 25 -

l i s t ed thr ee fel onyconvi ct i ons fordrug offe ns es i n hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , tw o of t hese co nv i ct i on s occurred i n “rel at ed cases” and shou l d ther efore be tr eat ed as a s i ngl e s ent ence ; t hus , he “onl yhad tw o pr evi ous offe ns es thatqual i fi ed hi m for a p p lic a tio n o f” § 4 B 1 .1 . I ti s notcl eart hatM r . W i l ken’ s char act er i zat i on of hi s pr i orconvi ct i ons as “r el at ed” i s acc ur at e, as t he r ecor d does notdemonstr at e thatanyof the pr i or c o n v ictio n s liste d in th e P S R o c c u rre d o n th e sa m e o c c a sio n , w e re p a rt o f a sin g le comm on s cheme orpl an, orw er e cons ol i dat ed fort r i al ors ent enci ng. See U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 2( c) ( defi ni ng t he “tw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons ” r equi r ed for car eeroffe nders t atus t o r equi r e thatt he convi ct i ons be count ed s epar at el yunder § 4A 1. 1’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orypr ovi s i ons ) ; U . S. S. G . § 4A 1. 2, cmt . 3 ( defi ni ng

“ r e l a t e d c a s e s , ” w h i c h a r e n o tc o u n t e d s e p a r a t e l y fo rp u rp o s e s o f c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, as th o se re su lt ing “f

rom o ffen ses th at (1) o cc u rred o n the s am e o cc asio n , (2) w ere par tof a s i ngl e comm on s cheme orpl an, or( 3) w er e cons ol i dat ed fort r i al or s e n te n c in g ” ). I n anycas e, even i f w e w er e t o adoptM r . W i l ken’ s ver s i on of hi s cr i m i nal h isto ry , the tw o p rio r fe lo n yc o n v ictio n s fo r d ru g o ffe n se s th a t h e a c c e p ts a re still s uffi ci entt o s upportt he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nder enhanc ement . See U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( a) ( r equi r i ng a ca r eeroffe ndert o have, i nt er ali a, “at least tw o p ri o r fe lon yco n v ict ion s o f e ith er a crim e o f v iolen ce o r aW e d isa g re e w ith M r. W ilk e n ’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e c o u rt’s d e c isio n to 10 r educe hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ys cor e di d nott ake i nt o acc ounthi s ar gum entt hat cert ai n of hi s pr i oroffe ns es w er e r el at ed. T he court ’ s expl anat i on i ndi cat ed that itb ase d the a djustm en t on o v er-rep rese n tat ion o f M r. W il k en ’s crim inal h ist o ry gener al l y , noton anypart i cul arconvi ct i on ther ei n. W e ther efor e under s t and the cour tt o have he ar d M r . W i l ken’ s ar gum ent s r egar di ng hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand a d d r e s s e d t h e m w i t h t h e d o wn wa r d a dj u s t me n tf r o m c a t e g o ryVI t o c a t e g o ryV. - 26 - contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e”) . A s M rW i l ken conc edes thatthi s r epr es ent s the

“ m in im u m n u m b e r o f o ffe n se s trig g e rin g th e p ro v isio n ,” w e fa il t o se e h o w h is char act er i zat i on of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yi n anyw ayi ndi cat es t hatappl i cat i on of § 4 B 1 .1 w o u ld b e u n re a s o n a b le . Fur t herunder cutt i ng M r . W i l ken’ s ar gum enti s t he fa ctt hatt he di s tr i ct co u rt , at th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , “re co g n ize[ d ] th at th e [ P S R ’s] cri m inal h ist o ry over s t at es [M r . W i l ken’ s ] cr i m i nal hi s t or ys l i ght l y , ” and ther efor e gr ant ed a d o w n w ard adjustm en t from § 4 B 1 . 1 ’s pro v isi o n o f c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryV I, opt i ng i ns t ead t o keep M r . W i l ken i n cat egoryV . M r . W i l ken thus r ece i ved a s ent ence t hatt ook i nt o acc ountt he r el at i ve l ack of s ever i tyof hi s cr i m i nal h i s t o r y. 10 W e ther efor e hol d t hatM r . W i l ken’ s s ent ence i s notunr eas onabl e bas ed on hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand hi s qual i fi cat i on as a ca r eeroffe nderunder§ 4B 1. 1.

d. T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s expl anat i on of the s ent ence Fi nal l y , M r . W i l ken br i efl ybr i ngs w hatw e cons true as a pr ocedur al ch all en g e to th e re aso n ab lene ss o f h is sen tenc e, arg u ing that the d istri ct co u rt ’s- 27 -

s t at ed r eas on forappl y i ng § 4B 1. 1’ s car eeroffe nderpr ovi s i on and i m pos i ng a 2 3 5 -m o n th se n ten c e w a s n o t su p p o rte d b y th e re c o rd . B e c a u se M r. W ilk e n d id notobj ecton t hi s gr ound att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, w e r evi ew t hi s cl ai m onl yfor p lai n erro r. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . L o p ez -F lores, 44 4 F . 3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 1 (10 th C ir . 2006) , cert . deni ed, 127 S. C t . 3043 ( 2007) . “Pl ai n err oroccur s w her e ther e i s ( 1) e rro r, (2 ) th a t is p lain , w h ich (3 ) a ffe c ts s u b sta n tial rig h ts, a n d w h ich (4 ) se rio u sly affect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t y , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” I d. at 1 2 2 2 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). A t th e e n d o f th e se n tenc ing h ea ri n g , af ter pro n o u n cing sen tenc e, th e c o u rt s t at ed:U n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s I find that y o u q u a lif yas a ca ree r offe n d er, n o t t o m en ti o n y o u h av e e n d an g ere d the lives o f y o u r ch il d ren fo r y ea rs now . I d o n ’t see anyt hi ng thathas gi ven y ou enough i ncent i ve t o s t op a very , verydanger ous pr act i ce. M r. W i l ken focu ses on t he st at em ent that he “end ang ered the li ves of [his ] chi l dr en, ” al l egi ng t hatt hi s s t at ementi s uns uppor t ed byt he r ecor d. T o the c on t r a r y , w e fi nd a mpl e s up po r ti n the r e c or d fort hi s s t a t e ment . The PSR des cr i bes a cha r ge pendi ng agai ns tM r . W i l ken att he t i m e of hi s t r i al i ndi cat i ng th a t h is tw o so n s, a g e d 6 a n d 8 , w e re fo u n d d u rin g a ra id o f h is h o m e a lo n g w ith m etha m p h etam ine, dru g p ara p h ern ali a, an d ch em icals use d to m an u fa cture m ethamphet ami ne. A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, M r . W i l ken’ s att orneyconce ded th a t d u e to h is c lien t’s u se o f m e th a m p h e tam in e , “h is ju d g m e n t w a s to tally- 28 -

wr e c k e d a n d h i s c h i l d r e n ’ s l i v e s [ we r e ] wr e c k e d . ” I n d e e d , d u r i n g h i s o wn s t at ement s att he s ent enci ng hear i ng, M r . W i l ken i ndi cat ed thathe w as aw ar e of t he effec t s of hi s drug abus e on hi s chi l dr en: “I have ne verhad anyi nt ent i on of hur t i ng anybodyorendange r i ng m yki ds ’ l i ves . I gues s I j us tdi dn’ tr eal i ze the p o w e r th e d ru g s h a d o v e r m e . . . . T h e re is [ sic ] a lo t o f th in g s I w o u ld d o o v e r if I coul d. ” W e a lso d o n o t re a d th e c o u rt’s s tate m e n t as p ro v id in g e n d a n g e rm e n t o f h is ch il d ren as th e so le reaso n fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed . T h e c o u rtstat ed , “I d o n ’t s ee a nyt hi ng t hathas gi ven y ou enough i ncent i ve t o s t op a very , verydanger ous pr act i ce, ” emphas i zi ng t he r ecurr i ng natur e of M r . W i l ken’ s drug abus e and t r oubl es w i t h t he l aw and not i ng thatnone of hi s pr evi ous s ent ence s had appar ent l ybeen s uffi ci entt o det erhi s behavi or . T hi s r eas oni ng i s w el l s uppor t ed byM r . W i l ken’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand i s i t s el f s uffi ci entt o expl ai n the i m pos i t i on of ca r eeroffe nders t atus . See, e. g. , Prui t t , 487 F. 3d at1310 ( “W hen a de fenda nt fac es a s ent ence forherfour t h drug- r el at ed convi ct i on, i ti s r eas onabl e t o i nfer th a t s h e is n o t e a s ily d e te rr e d f ro m e n g a g in g in u n la w f u l c o n d u c t.” ). W e ther efor e do notfi nd the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s t at ementof i t s r eas ons for im p o sing a 2 3 5 -m o n th se n tenc e to c o n sti tute erro r, letalon e p lai n erro r. I I I . CO NC L US I ON- 29 -

Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatM r . W i l ken’ s w ai verof h is a p p e llate rig h ts w a s k n o w in g a n d v o lu n tar ya n d w e th e re fo re d e c lin e to en fo rce that w aive r. O n the m erit s o f h is ap p ea l, w e a g ree that the d istri ct co u rt i ni t i al l ym i s cal cul at ed M r . W i l ken’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orybyappl y i ng an enha ncement forr eckl es s endange r m entpur s uantt o § 3C 1. 2 overhi s obj ect i on, w i thout e v i d e n c e o f

c o n d u c ts u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o r tth i s e n h a n c e me n t ; h o we v e r , we concl ude thatt hi s err orw as harm l es s i n l i ghtof the court ’ s conce dedl ypr oper appl i cat i on of the ca r eeroffe nderpr ovi s i on at§ 4B 1. 1, w hi ch amel i or at ed the effect s of the pr evi ous err or . Fi nal l y , w e hol d thata 235- m onth s ent ence w as re a s o n a b le g iv e n M r. W ilk e n ’s c ri m in a l h is to ry. A c c o rd in g ly, M r. W ilk e n ’s s e n te n c e is A F F IR M E D .