T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A p ril27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H 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, N o. 06- 1100 v. ( D . C ol or ado) L I OVAR DO GAL VAN VA L GAR A,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR - 3 5 8 - N)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , C ir c u it J u d g e , M c W I L L I A M S , Seni orJ udge, and HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge.

I . I nt roduct i on A ppel l antL i ovar do G al van V al gar a pl eade d gui l tyt o a cha r ge of be i ng a fel on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm . Pur s uantt o the t erm s of a pl ea a gr eement , t he G overnm entagr eed t o r ecomm end a s ent ence cons i s t entw i th the appl i cat i on of a bas e offens e l evel of fourt een. T he Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) c a lc u la te d V a lg a ra ’s c ri m in a l h is to ry a t V I a n d h is b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l a t tw e n ty.-2-

T he bas e offens e l evel w as affect ed byV al gar a’ s pr i orC ol or ado convi ct i on for t hi r d- degr ee a s s aul t . V al gar a fi l ed a r es pons e t o the PSR , s eeki ng both a dow nw ar d departur e and a var i ance fr om the advi s or ygui del i nes r ange unde r18 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). T h e d istri ct co u rtlow ere d V alga ra’s C ri m inal H ist o ry C at egoryt o V butr ej ect ed hi s r eques tfora var i ance . T he courts ent ence d V al gar a t o for t y - s i x m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , the l ow end of the advi s orygui del i nes ra n g e . V a lg a ra th e n filed th is a p p e a l, arg u in g h is s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le b e c a u s e i ti s g r e a t e rt h a n n e c e s s a ryt o s a t i s f yth e g o a l s s e tfo r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e affi rm V a lg a ra ’s s e n te n c e . I I . Backg r ound O n Ju ly3 , 2 0 0 5 , a p o li ce o fficer in G ree ley , C o lorad o , o b serv ed V alga ra wa l k i n g t h r o u g h t h e p a rk i n g l o to f t h e Gr e e l e yM a l l t o wa r d a b r o k e n - d o wn vehi cl e. T he off

i cers us pect ed V al gar a w as as s oci at ed w i th the vehi cl e and deci ded t o cont acthi m . D ur i ng t he s ubs equentencount erbetw een the off i cerand V alga ra, th e o fficer o b serv ed the b u tten d o f a h an d g u n p rotrud ing fro m V alga ra’s w ai s tband. V al gar a w as arr es t ed att he s cene and the unl oaded w eapon w as s ei zed. W hen V al gar a w as i nt ervi ew ed, he admi t t ed t o pos s es s i ng the w eapon but t ol d offi cer s he t ook i tfr om a man w ho had us ed i tt o thr eat en hi s fr i end dur i ng an arg u m en t. V alga ra f u rth er stated h e w as a p p reh en d ed o n lya sh o rtti m e later, a s h e w a lk e d f

ro m th e f

ri e n d ’s a p a rt m e n t to h is v e h ic le .-3-

A fede r al gr and j ur yi ndi ct ed V al gar a forpos s es s i on of a f i r earm bya fe l on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) . V al gar a ent er ed i nt o a w r i t t en pl ea a gr eementw her ei n he agr eed t o pl ead gui l tyt o the cha r ge and the G overnm entagr eed t o r ecomm end a thr ee- l evel r educt i on i n hi s offe ns e l evel for acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t yi f hi s offe ns e l evel exce eded s i xt een. V al gar a and t he G overnm ental s o acknow l edged thatV al gar a’ s pr i orC ol or ado convi ct i on for t hi r d- degr ee a s s aul tw oul d l i kel ybe tr eat ed as a cr i m e of vi ol ence forpurpos e of t he ca l cul at i on of hi s bas e offens e l evel , r es ul t i ng i n a bas e offens e l evel of tw e n ty. See U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 (a )(4 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. P axton , 422 F. 3d 1203, 1207 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ). T he G ov ernm ent and V al gara agreed t hat “apply i ng a base offe ns e l evel of tw entyr es ul t s i n a s ent ence gr eat erthan nec es s aryt o s at i s fythe goal s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” A ccor di ngl y , the G overnm entfur ther agr eed t o r ecomm end thatt he di s tr i ctcour ti m pos e a s ent ence cal cul at ed by a p p lyin g a to ta l o ffe n s e le v e l o f tw e lv e . A PSR w as pr epar ed and i tcal cul at ed V al gar a’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryat C at egoryV I bas ed on s event een c r i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s . T he PSR cal cul at ed V al gar a’ s bas e offens e l evel att w enty , w i th a thr ee- l evel r educt i on foracc ept ance o f re sp o n sibil ity , resu lt ing in a to tal o ffen se lev el of sev en teen . N eith er V alga ra nort he G overnm entfi l ed an obj ect i on t o the PSR . V al gar a, how ever , fi l ed a r es pons e t o t he PSR , m ovi ng fora dow nw ar d departur e and r eques t i ng a s ent ence b elow the a d v isoryg u idelines ran g e. In su p p o rto f h is r eq u est fo r a d o w n w ardA l t hough V al gar a cha r act er i zes hi s offe ns e l evel as i ncl udi ng a s i x- l evel 1 “ in c re a se ” o r “ e n h a n c e m e n t” b e c a u se o f h is p rio r a ss a u lt co n v ictio n , h is char act er i zat i on i s i ncorr ect . Pur s uantt o U SSG § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 6) , a pr ohi bi t ed person w i t ho ut a pr i or cr i m e-of-vi olence con vict i on i s ass i gn ed a b ase offen se l evel of fourt een. A pr ohi bi t ed per s on w i th a pr i orcr i m e- of- vi ol ence convi ct i on, l i ke V a l ga r a , i s a s s i gn e d a ba s e offe ns e l e ve l of t w e ntypu r s ua ntt o USSG § 2 K 2 . 1 (a)(4)(A ). -4- d e p a rtu re , V a lg a ra a rg u e d (1 ) C rim in a l H isto ryC a teg o ryV I o v e rre p re se n ted h is cr i m i nal hi s t or yand ( 2) hi s fami l yt i es and r es pons i bi l i t i es w er e pr es entt o an exce pt i onal degr ee. I n s uppor tof hi s r eques tfora var i ance bas ed on the appl i cat i on of 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , V al gar a as ked the di s tr i ctcourtt o cons i der th e n a tu re o f

th e o ffe n s e a n d h is h is to ry a n d c h a ra c te ri s tic s . See 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) ( 1) . Speci fi cal l y , V al gar a r efe r ence d the unus ual ci r cumst ance s s ur r oundi ng t he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on, hi s exempl arybehavi orw hi l e on pr etr i al r el eas e, hi s exce l l entempl oym enthi s t or y , and hi s s ucce s s i n over comi ng a d rin k in g p ro b lem . H e a lso a rg u e d th e im p o sitio n o f a six -le v e l in c re a se in h is bas e offens e l evel r es ul t ed i n an unfa i rs ent enci ng di s par i tybetw een hi m and ot herdefe ndant s s ent ence d fors i m i l arconductbeca us e hi s C ol or ado thi r d- degr ee as s aul tconvi ct i on w as notas s er i ous as m anyothercr i m es of vi ol ence w hi ch trig g e r th e six -le v e l in c re a se . V a lg a ra e x p re ss lya sk e d th e d istric t co u rt to 1 s ent ence hi m “as i f the s i x- l evel enhanc ementdi d notappl y . ” A ft ercons i der i ng V al gar a’ s r es pons e, t he pr obat i on offi cerw ho author ed t he PSR fi l ed a Sent enci ng R ecomm endat i on adopt i ng the pos i t i on thatC r i m i nal H i s t or yC at egoryV bett err epr es ent ed V al gar a’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . T he-5-

Sent enci ng R ecomm endat i on fur therr ecomm ended the i m pos i t i on of a for ty - s i xm ont h s ent ence , r eas oni ng t hatV al gar a’ s pr i ors ent ence s of pr obat i on and i ncar cer at i on had notdet err ed hi m fr om cont i nued cr i m i nal behavi or . A tthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tadj us t ed V al gar a’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yfr om C at egoryV I t o C at egoryV , concl udi ng V al gar a’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yw as overr epr es ent ed. T he court , how ever , det erm i ned V al gar a’ s fami l yt i es and re sp o n sib ili ties w e re n o t ex tra o rd in a rya n d , ac c o rd in g ly , the c o u rt re f u se d to d e p a rt d o w n w a rd b a s e d o n th o s e g ro u n d s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. McC lat chey , 316 F .3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (“ T h e fa c t th a t a d e fe n d a n t ca re s fo r a fa m ily m emberw i t h a ment al orphy s i cal di s abi l i tyi s notbyi t s el f s uffi ci entt o m ake the ci r cumst ance s ‘ exce pt i onal . ’ ”) . T he di s tr i ctcour tal s o r efus ed t o i m pos e a sen tenc e b elow the lo w en d o f th e a d v isoryg u idelines ran g e, st ati n g , “T h e C o u rt bel i eves t hatt he gui del i ne s ent ence adequa t el yr efl ect s the bal anci ng of al l the fa ctors sp ec ifi ed in T it le 18 U n it ed S tat es C o d e S ec ti o n 3 5 5 3 (a). ” T h e c o u rt sen tenc ed V alga ra to fo rty -si x m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t, the lo w en d o f th e a d v isory gui del i nes r ange ba s ed on C r i m i nal H i s t or yC at egoryV and an offens e l evel of s event een. V al gar a then br oughtthi s appea l , chal l engi ng the s ent ence i m pos ed by th e d istric t co u rt. I I I . D i s cus s i on T h is c o u rt re v ie w s V a lg a ra ’s s e n te n c e fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 0 -6 1 (2 0 0 5 ). B e c a u se “ [ r]e a so n a b len e ss h a s b o th-6-

pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve component s , ” ourr evi ew “enc om pas s es both the r eas onabl enes s of the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as the m ethodbyw hi ch the s ent ence w as cal cul at ed. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C age , 4 5 1 F . 3 d 5 8 5 , 5 9 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). V alga ra a rg u e s h is s e n te n c e is b o th p ro c e d u ra lly a n d s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . A . P rocedu ralR eason ab l eness V a lg a ra b a se s h is first c h a llen g e to th e p ro c e d u ra l re a so n a b len e ss o f h is se n ten c e o n h is a ss e rtio n th e d istric t co u rt m isa p p re h e n d e d th e n a tu re o f its sen tenc ing d iscreti o n . A fter B ooker , a s ent enci ng courtm us tcons i derboth the pr oper l ycal cul at ed gui del i nes r ange a nd the s ent enci ng fac t or s art i cul at ed i n 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Lynch , 3 9 7 F . 3 d 1 2 7 0 , 1 2 7 2 (10 th C ir . 20 05 ). A tsent encing, V al gara di d n ot chal l eng e t he calcul at i on of h i s base o ffe n s e le v e l p u rs u a n t to U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 (a )( 4 )( A ). See Paxt on , 422 F. 3d at1207 ( hol di ng C ol or ado’ s t hi r d degr ee a s s aul ts t atut e i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence under U SSG § 4B 1. 2( a) ( 2) ) ; U SSG § 2K 2. 1 cmt . n. 1 ( s t at i ng the t erm “cr i m e of vi ol ence ” forpurpos es of the bas e offens e l evel of tw entys etouti n § 2K 1. 2( a) ( 4) “has t he meani ng gi ven thatt erm i n § 4B 1. 2( a) and A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1 of the C om m ent aryt o § 4B 1. 2”) . V al gar a, how ever , ar gued he s houl d be s ent ence d bel ow t he advi s or ygui del i nes r ange ba s ed on a c ons i der at i on of the § 3553( a) fa c to rs .Forpurpos es of §2K 2. 1( a) ( 4) and ( a) ( 6) , a pr ohi bi t ed per s on i s “any 2 p e rs o n d e s c ri b e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g ) o r § 9 2 2 (n ).” U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 , c m t. n .3 . -7- S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) re q u ire s d istric t co u rts to c o n sid e r “ th e n e e d to a v o id unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es among defendant s w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho h av e b ee n fo u n d g u il tyo f sim il ar c o n d u ct. ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(6). V alga ra argued his pri or conv i ct i on for thir d-degree assaul tw as a r el at i velym i no r offense and contr as t ed s harpl yw i t h t he more s er i ous natur e of othercr i m es tr i gger i ng t he a p p lic a tio n o f

th e b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f tw e n ty u n d e r U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 (4 )( A ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. Truj i l l o- Ter r az as , 405 F. 3d 814, 819- 20 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( concl udi ng t hatan ana l y s i s of the fa ct or s s etouti n § 3553( a) pr oper l yi ncl udes c o n sid e ra tio n o f

th e fa c tu a l n a tu re o f

p rio r c o n v ictio n s). V a lg a ra a ss e rte d h is s i tuat i on i s m or e anal ogous t o t hat of a pr ohi bi t ed per s on w i thouta pr i orcr i m e- 2 o f-v io le n c e c o n v ic tio n s u b s e q u e n tly c o n v ic te d o f v io la tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). A ccordi ng l y , he u rged t he d i stri ctcou rtt o sentence him as tho ug h a b ase offen se l evel of fourt een a ppl i ed, ar gui ng s uch a s ent ence w oul d achi eve the obj ect i ve of im p o s in g u n ifo rm s e n te n c e s o n d e fe n d a n ts c o n v ic te d o f s im ila r c o n d u c t. See U SSG § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 6) ( as s i gni ng a bas e offens e l evel of fourt een t o pr ohi bi t ed p e rs o n s c o n v ic te d o f

u n la w f u l p o s s e s s io n o f

a fir e a rm ). T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed V al gar a’ s r eques t , s t at i ng: T h e B a s e O ffe n s e L e v e l is 2 0 . T h e re is s im p ly n o w a yto a v o id th a t. T o do as t he part i es ar e s ugges t i ng her e w oul d be j us ta fl agr ant m isap p li ca ti o n o f th e g u idelines . T h e T en th C ir cu itis ve ryclea r, t hi s i s a cr i m e of vi ol ence , and w e mi ghtas w el l t os s t he gui del i nes-8-

ou tt he w i nd ow i f w e do n’tapp l ythem i n an i ntel l ectuall yho nest m a n n e r. A n d I j u s t d o n ’t th in k th a t’ s in te lle c tu a lly h o n e s t. V a lg a ra a rg u e s th e d istric t co u rt’s s tate m e n t “e v id e n c e s a c o m p lete m isa p p re h e n sio n o f

th e d isc re tio n th a t B ookerexpl i ci t l yr es t or ed t o s ent enci ng j udges . ” W e di s agr ee. A r evi ew of the compl et e tr ans cr i ptof the s ent enci ng hear i ng demonstr at es t he di s t r i ctcour tw as ful l yaw ar e of i t s s ent enci ng d i s c r e t i o n a n d i t s o b l i g a t i o n t o c o n s i d e rth e fa c t o r s s e tfo r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) . V al gar a, qui t e s i m pl y , w as as ki ng the di s tr i ctcourtt o us e that di s cr et i on as an end- run ar ound the appl i cat i on of U SSG § 2K 2. 1( a) ( 4) ( A ) by appl y i ng a gui del i nes r ange i dent i cal t o one ca l cul at ed w i thoutr egar d t o hi s pr i or t hi r d- degr ee a s s aul tconvi ct i on. T he court ’ s comm entats ent enci ng r efl ect s the cour t ’ s vi ew t hats uch an a ppr oach w oul d be t ant amount t o w hol l yi gnor i ng the effectof V al gar a’ s pr i orconvi ct i on on t he ca l cul at i on of hi s bas e offens e l evel a n d , h e n c e , h is a d v iso ryg u id e lin e s ra n g e . T h e d istric t co u rt w a s u n w ill in g to t ake thi s appr oach, concl udi ng i tw oul d be a “ fl agr antm i s appl i cat i on of the gu i deli nes” an d a d i sr egard o f ci rcui tpreceden t . T he co urt ’s refusal t o ex erci se its d is c re tio n in th e m a n n e r s o u g h t b yV a lg a ra w a s n o t p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le . V a lg a ra a lso a rg u e s th e d istric t co u rt fa iled to a d e q u a telye x p lain its r eas oni ng fordeny i ng hi m a var i ance fr om the advi s or ygui del i nes r ange. A ft er ent er t ai ni ng al l V al gar a’ s ar gum ent s , the courts t at ed, T he defendanthas m oved foran i m pos i t i on bel ow the gui del i ne r ange r ecomm ended byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on on the gr ounds-9-

th a t th e s ta tu to ry fa c to rs d o n o t ju s tif yfo llo w in g th e g u id e lin e s h e re . T he C our tdi s agr ees w i t h the exc ept i on of the gui del i ne depa r tur e for overr epr es ent at i on of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . T he C our tbel i eves that t he gui del i ne s ent ence adequa t el yr efl ect s the bal anci ng of al l the fa c to rs s p e c ifie d in T itle 1 8 U n ite d S ta te s C o d e S e c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a ). B eca us e V al gar a di d notr ai s e thi s pr ocedur al chal l enge dur i ng the s ent enci ng h e a ri n g , th e is s u e is re v ie w e d fo r p la in e rr o r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. R uiz - Ter r az as , 4 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 1 9 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T h u s, V alga ra m u st de m o n str ate “ (i ) error, ( i i ) t hati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( i i i ) affect s [hi s ] s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( i v) s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” Id . I ti s unnece s s aryforthi s courtt o anal y ze a l l fourpl ai n err or fac t or s beca us e i ti s cl eart he di s tr i ctcour tdi d notcomm i terr orw hen i ts ent ence d V a lg a ra . W e h av e re ce n tl yh eld th at “a sp ec ifi c d iscu ssion o f S ec ti o n 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors i s notr equi r ed fors ent ence s fal l i ng w i thi n the r anges s ugges t ed bythe G ui del i nes . ” Id . a t 1 2 0 2 . B e c a u se V a lg a ra d o e s n o t d isp u te h is s e n ten c e fa lls w ith in a p ro p e rlyc a lcu late d g u id e lin e ra n g e , the d istric t co u rt w a s n o t re q u ire d to sp e c ifica llye x p lain w h yit reje c ted e a c h a rg u m e n t h e m a d e in su p p o rt o f h is re q u e s t fo r a b e lo w -g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Jar r i l l o- Luna , 478 F .3 d 1 2 2 6 , 1 2 3 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ [ A ] d istric t co u rt’s d u tyto e x p lain w h yit cho se the g i ven sent ence d oes no tal so requi re i tt o ex plai n w hyi tdecided ag ai nst a d iffe ren t sen tenc e.”). Itis cl ea r fro m the re co rd, i n clud ing the d istri ct co u rt ’s s t at ement , t hatt he courtcons i der ed V al gar a’ s ar gum ent s , the G ui del i nes , and the-10-

fac t or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . T hus , the courts at i s fi ed i t s pr ocedur al obl i gat i on t o i ndi cat e i tdi d not“r es ton the gui del i nes al one, butcons i der ed w hethert he gui del i ne s ent ence actual l yconform s , i n the ci r cumst ance s t o the s t atut or yfac t or s . ” Id . ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , Va l g a r a h a s n o ts h o wn th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s p ro c e d u ra lly u n re a s o n a b le . B . Su bstan t i ve R eason ab l eness V al gar a conc edes hi s s ent ence fal l s w i thi n a pr oper l ycal cul at ed gui del i nes r ange butnevert hel es s ar gues i ti s s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. W hen a di s tr i ct cour t“corr ect l yappl i es t he G ui del i nes and i m pos es a s ent ence w i thi n the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange, t hats ent ence i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Tow nl ey , 4 7 2 F . 3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 6 (10 th C ir . 2007) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . C ons i s t entw i th B ooker , our“[r ] eas onabl enes s r evi ew i s gui ded byt he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at 1053. T hos e fa ct or s “i ncl ude the natur e of the offens e and c har act er i s t i cs of the defe ndant , as w el l as t he nee d forthe s ent ence t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the cr i m e, t o pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence , t o pr ot ectthe publ i c, and t o pr ovi de the defe ndantw i t h neede d t r ai ni ng ortr eatm ent . ” Id . V al gar a pr es ent s s ever al argum ents t hat hi s sent ence is un reas on able i n li gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors, i ncludi ng (1) his cri m i nal hi st oryov ers t at es the seri ou sness of his cri m i nal past a n d is n o t p re d ictiv e o f f u tu re re c id iv ism , (2 ) h is S o c ial S e c u rityre c o rd s in d ica te he has an exc el l entempl oym enthi s t ory , ( 3) he i s the s ol e s our ce of s uppor tforE ven i n t he abs ence of the Kris tlpr es um pt i on, w e w oul d concl ude 3 V al gar a’ s s ent ence i s s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. -11- hi s w i fe a nd fourchi l dr en, ( 4) t he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on w as atypi cal beca us e the gun w as notl oaded a nd i tw as notus ed i n the comm i s s i on of anotheroffe ns e, and ( 5) hi s cr i m i nal act i vi tycea s ed thr ee y ear s ago w hen he a ddr es s ed hi s al cohol a b u s e p r o b l e m. Ha v i n g r e v i e we d a n d c o n s i d e r e d Va l g a r a ’ s a r g u me n t s , we concl ude theyar e i ns uffi ci ent , both i ndi vi dual l yand i n the aggr egat e, t o r ebutt he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s r egar di ng hi s s ent ence . 3 I V . C onc l us i on T he s ent ence i m pos ed bythe di s tr i ctcourti s both pr ocedur al l yand su b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le. A c c o rd in g ly , the ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt is affi rm ed . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge