FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT MAY 16, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12454 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 9 9 - 0 8 1 2 5 - C R - DT KH U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G A R L A N D H O G A N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 16, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: G ar l and H og an, proceedi ng pro se, appeal s hi s 276 -m on th sent ence ,2

im p o s e d o n r e s e n te n c in g f o rh is c o n v ic tio n s o n o n e c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c yto c o m m it m a il a n d w ir e f

r au d in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , n in e c o u n ts o f m a il f r au d in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 1, on e c ou ntof conspi ra cyt o com m i tm on ey l aunde r i ng i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1956( h) , and one c ountof m one yl aunde r i ng i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1957. H oga n c ont e nds tha t : ( 1) hi s S i xth A m e ndm e nt r i ghtt o aj ury tr i a l w a s vi ol a t e d be c aus e the j udge e nha nc e d hi s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c ts n e ith e rf

o u n d b y th e ju ry n o ra d m itte db yh im ; a n d ( 2 ) h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le b e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to c o n s id e rth e d is p a r ityb e tw e e n h is s e nt e nc e a nd the s hort e rs e nt e nc e s r e c e i ve d byone of hi s c o- de f

e nda nt s a nd by m an y o th er d efen d an t s co n v i ct ed o f si m i l ar frau d -rel at ed o ffen ses. A s t o H oga n’ s f

i r s tc ont e nt i on, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), es t abl i shed thatse nt ence enhancem ent s bas ed sol el y on j ud i ci al f a c t- f in d in g p u r s u a n t to th e m a n d a to rys e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s v io la te s th e S ix th A m e ndm e nt . I d. a t233–35, 259–60, 125 S . C t . a t749–51. H ow e ve r , “ [ w ] he n the di stri ctcourtappl i es the G ui del i nes i n an adv i sorym anner, no thi ng i n B oo ker proh i bi t s di stri ctcourt s f rom m aki ng , un der aprepon derance- of-the-e vi dence st andard, addi t i on al fa ctual fi nd i ng s thatgo beyond a def endant ’ s a dm i ss i on s. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . S m ith , 4 8 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 1 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 8 S . C t. 1 7 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . “[ A ] d is tr ic t c o u rt m a ye n h a n c e as e n te n c e b a s e d u p o n ju d ic ia l f a c t-3

fi nd i ng prov i ded thati t s f i nd i ng s do n oti ncre as e the se nt ence beyond the st atut ory m axi m um autho ri ze d b y f ac t s det erm i ned i n a gu i l ty pl eaor j ury ver di ct . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D e a n, 487 F . 3d 840, 854 ( 11th C i r . 2007) , c e rt . de ni e d, ___S . C t . ___ ( 2 0 0 8 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t v io la te H o g a n ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . A t h is r e s e nt e nc e he a r i ng, the c ourtr e c ogni z e d tha tthe gui de l i ne s a r e a dvi s orya nd s e nt e nc e d H oga n t o at ot a l of 276 m onths i m pr i s onm e nt , w hi c h w a s be l ow the st atut ory m axi m um se nt ence he coul d h ave r ec ei ved. A cc ordi ng l y, the courtw as en t i t l ed t o en h an ce h i s sen t en ce b ased o n fi n d i n g s o f facti tm ad e b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . S e e S m ith , 4 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 1 . H oga n’ s othe rc ont e nt i on i s tha thi s s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s be l ow the g u id e lin e s r a n g e , is u n r e a s o n ab le b e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f a ile d to c o n s id e rth a t it i s s i gni f i c a nt l y l onge rtha n the s e nt e nc e s r e c e i ve d byone of hi s c ode f

e nda nt s a nd by m any other i nd i vi du al s c on vi ct ed of si m i l arfr aud-rel at ed offens es . W e r evi ew the f i na l s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc ourtf orr e a s onabl e ne s s . B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t264, 125 S . C t . a t767; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1179 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “O u rr e v ie w f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s is d e f e r e n tia l, a n d th e p a rty chal l engi ng the se nt ence has the bu rden of es t abl i shi ng un re as on abl enes s. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . C la y , 4 8 3 F .3 d 7 3 9 , 7 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) .4

T he di s tr i c tc ourtm us ti m pos e as e nt e nc e tha ti s both pr oc e dur a l l ya nd s ubs t a nt i ve l y r e a s onabl e . G a l l v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 552 U . S . ___, ___, 128 S . C t . 586, 5 9 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . A f

te rB o o k e r , w e e s tab lis h e d atw o - s te p p r o c e s s f o rd is tr ic t c o u rts to use i n sent enci ng : fi rs t , the di stri ctcourtm ustconsul tthe se nt enci ng gu i del i nes an d co rrect l y cal cu l at e th e g u i d el i n es ran g e; seco n d , th e d i stri ctco u rtm u st c o n s id e rth e f

a c to r s lis te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) in a rr iv in g a t ar e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . U n ite d S ta te s v . T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . A s e n te n c e m a y b e p r o c e d u r a llyu n r e a s o n ab le if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p r o p e r ly ca l cul at es the gu i del i nes r ange, tre at s the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes a s m andat ory rath er th an ad v i so ry, fai l s t o co n si d er th e ap p ro p ri at e st atu t o ry fact o rs, sel ect s a se nt ence base d o n cl earl y e rr on eous fa ct s, or fa i l s t o adequ at el y e xp l ai n the chosen se nt ence . G al l , 55 2 U . S . at___, 12 8 S . C t . at59 7. A ft erw e have det erm i ned that the s e nt e nc e i s pr oc e dur a l l y s ound, G a l l di r e c t s us t o r e vi e w the s ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s of

as e nt e nc e unde ra n abus e of di s c r e t i on s t a nda r d. I d. T he r e vi e w f ors ubs t a nt i ve r e a s onabl e ne s s i nvol ve s e xa m i ni ng the t ot a l i tyof the ci rc um st ance s, i ncl ud i ng an i nq ui ryi nt o w hether the st atut ory f ac t ors i n § 35 53 (a ) s u p p o rt th e c h a lle n g e d s e n te n c e . I d . a t _

__ , 1 2 8 S . C t. a t 5 9 7

– 6 0 0 . In i t s c on si dera t i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, the di stri ctcourtdo es no tneed t o di s c us s ors t a t e e a c h f a c t ore xpl i c i t l y . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324,5

13 29 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). Inst ea d, an ac kn ow l edgm entby the di stri ctcourtthati thas consi dere d the defendant ’ s argum ent s and the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors w i l l suff i ce . Id. at 1330. W e w i l l de f

e rt o the j udgm e ntof

the di s tr i c tc ourti n the w e i ghtgi ve n t o the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s unl e s s the di s tr i c tc ourtha s m a de “ ac l e a re rr orof j udgm e nt ” a nd has i m po se d “ a s ent ence thatl i es ou t si de the rang e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s di ct at ed b y th e f a c ts o f th e c a s e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . M c B r id e , 5 1 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 3 , 1 2 9 7

– 9 8 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T h e § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors includ e th e n atu re an d ci rcu m st an ces o f th e o ffen se and the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , the ki nd s of s ent ence s a va i l abl e , the gui de l i ne s r a nge , the pe rt i ne ntpol i c ys t a t e m e nt s of the S e nt e nc i ng Co mmi s s i o n , a n d th e n e e d t o p r o v i d e r e s t i tu t i o n t o v i c t i ms . Se e 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( 3 )

– ( 5 ) , ( 7 ) . A n o th e rf a c to rth e s e n te n c in g c o u rt m u s t c o n s id e ris

“ the need t o avo i d u nw arrant ed se nt ence di spar i t i es am on g d ef endant s w i th si m i l ar r e c o r d s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u iltyo f

s im ila rc o n d u c t.” I d . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 6 ) . H og an has notshow n thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e. A thi s r es ent ence hear i ng , the di stri ctcourt , af t ercorr ec t l y c al cul at i ng the gu i del i nes r ange, st at ed thatthe courtw as aw ar e thati tw as re qu i re d t o con si der a l l of the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors and i tw enton t o d i sc uss s ever al of them , i ncl ud i ng the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the de f e nda nt , the s e r i ous ne s s of the of f e ns e , the ne e d t o de t e rothe r s f r om6

c o m m ittin g s im ila rc r im e s , a n d th e n e e d to p r o te c t th e p u b lic . H o g a n h a s n o t p r e s e n te d a n ye v id e n c e o f s im ila r lys itu a te d d e f

e n d a n ts re ce i vi ng short erse nt ence s. T he on e c od ef endanthe po i nt s t o, Je ff re y P ai ne, p le a d e d g u iltyto as in g le c o u n t o f c o n s p ir a c yto d e f

r au d th e U n ite d S ta te s in vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 371, w hi c h c a rr i e d as t a tut orym a xi m um of 60 m onths im p r is o n m e n t. I n a d d itio n , a lth o u g h H o g a n a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e w a s w e ll abov e the avera ge se nt ence re ce i ved b y other defe nd ant s c on vi ct ed of fr aud-rel at ed cr i m es , he has f

ai l ed t o p re se ntany e vi dence thattho se defe nd ant s had si m i l ar r e c o r d s a n d w e r e c o n v ic te d o f s im ila rc o n d u c t. F or these re as on s, H og an has notshow n thathi s 276 -m on th sent ence , w hi ch w as w el l bel ow the gu i del i nes r ange of 32 4 t o 4 05 m on ths i m pri sonm ent , i s e i ther p r o c e d u r a llyo rs u b s ta n tiv e lyu n r e a s o n ab le . S e e C la y , 4 8 3 F .3 d a t 7 4 3 . AF F I RME D.