## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2574 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. W I L L I A M R. H IB LE , al so known as B ILLY H IB LE , D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 2:10- cr -20015- MPM- DGB-1

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 20, 2012

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 8, 2012

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d M A NI ON a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. W illiam R . H ible ap p ea ls h is sente nce, ar gui ng that h e s houl d have be en se ntenced c on sis te n t w ith th e m or e l e n ien t p en alt ies of th e F air Se ntenci ng Act of20 10 ( the Act orFSA ) , Pub. L. N o. 11 1- 220, 124 Stat. 2372. A lthou gh un d er D o rsey v. U nited Sta tes , ___ U
. S. ___, 132 S
. Ct
. 2321 (2012), th e FSA ’s m ore2 N o. 11

- 2574 lenient p en alties app ly to p re-A ct offend ers w ho w ere se nt en ce d a fte r the Actt o o ke ff ec t, we ag r ee w i ththe g o ve r nm en t th atHibl e ha s wa ived a ny r i g htt o a r g ue th a th e s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s e n t e n c e d u n d e r th e F S A.

I H ib le was char ged i n a three

- count ind i ctm ent with cri m i nal drug conspi ra cy i nvol vi ng the di str ibuti on o f coca i ne and cr ack coc ai ne fro m M ay 2008 thr ough F eb r ua r y 2 01 0 an d wi ththe di st r ibut i o n o fc o ca i ne in O c to b e r 20 09 an d d ist rib u tio n of cr ac k c oc ain e in Decem ber20 09 i n vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. §§ 841 and 846. I n J une 201 0, the gov er nm en t fi l ed noti ce purs uant to 21 U
. S. C. § 851 that i t w oul d s eek an enh an c ed se ntence d u e t o H ible ’s p rior felon y d ru g c on vic tio n . Th e la w in eff ect at the t im e had a m andator y m i ni m um penal ty of10 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm ent a nd a m axi m um pen al ty of l i f e i m pri sonm ent fora de fen dant w ho di str ibuted 5 g r ams o r mor e o fc r ac kcocaine a nd ha d a pr i o rfel o ny d ru g c on vic tio n . See 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1) (B)(i ii ) (2006). OnJ a nu a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 1 , a ma g i s t r a t e j ud g e h e l d a c hange ofpl ea hear i ng. The gov er nm ent s tat ed i ts i ntent to dism i ss Counts 1 and 2 at sente nci ng, and Hib le p l eaded g u i l t y t o C o u n t3 , c h a r g i n gh i m w i th d i s t r ib u t i n g 5 g r a ms orm or e o fcr ack coca i ne. The m agi str ate j ud ge advi sed H ibl e o fthe po te nti alpe na l ti es a nd a sk ed hi m i fhe ha d a ny que st i o ns abo utthe m . Hibl e as se r ted th at he sh o ul d b e se nt ence d unde r the ne w l aw, the F ai r S en te n c in g A c t o f 20 10 . Th e F SA inc re as ed th e th re sh old am ount o fcr ack coca i ne f orcer tai n penal ti es and asN o. 11

- 2574 3

a r es ul t l o wer ed th e pen alty f o r o ff en se s i nv o l ving cra ck. U nd erthe FS A , a defe nd ant who dis tr ibuted 12
. 8 g r ams o fc r ac kand h ad a pr i o r fel o ny dr ugc o nv i c t i o n f a c e d n o ma n d a t o r y mi n i mu m t e r m o fi mpr i so nm ent a nd a m axi m um te rm o fi m p ris onm ent o fnot m or e th an 30 ye ar s. See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( i i i ) , ( C) (2006 & Sup p . I V ). The magi st r at e j udg e sa i d he di d not kno w the s en ten cingj udg e’ s po si ti o n o n the a ppl i cabi l i tyo fthe F SA to defe nd ants such as H ibl e who com m i tte d an off ense pr i o r t o the c hang e i n the l aw b utwho woul d b e se nte n c ed aft er w ar d s, b u t a d vis ed H ible th at h e c ou ld ap p ea l th e d e c i s i o n to se n te n c e h im u n d er th e “ old law ,” i ftha twa s the j ud g e ’ s de c i s i o n. T he p r o s e c ut o r s t a ted th atthe S ev en thCi r cui t ha d r ej ec te d Hibl e’ s argu m en t th at t h e F SA ap p li es to offen se con d uc t occu rri ng before th e la w ’s e n ac tm en t o n A u gu st 3, 20 10 (p re su m a b ly re f er ri ng to U nite d State s v. B el l , 62 4 F .3d 80 3, 81 4- 15 (7t h C ir. 20 10 ), cert. denied , 13 1 S
. Ct. 21 21 ( 20 11 ), and o th er s) , b utno te d that “ th e defen dan t wi l l pr es er ve the r i g htt o make tha t ar g um en t.” Hibl e ag r ee d t o the f actualbas i s for hi s pl ea, i ncl ud i ng tha t o n Decem ber3, 2009 , he sold 12.8 gram s of crac k cocain e to an inform an t. Hibl e pl ed g ui l tyto the c ha r g e o fdi st r ibut i ng 5 g ra m s o r m or e o fcr ack coca i ne. The m agi strat e j ud ge f ound that th er e was a f actualbas i s f orthe ple a, that th e p lea w as kn ow in g a n d vo lu n ta ry , an d t h a t H ible w as gui l ty as charg ed i n Count 3. A pre se nt ence r epo r t was pr epa r ed pr i o r t o s en tenci ng. The r epor t ca l cul ate d H ibl e’ s ba se off ense l eve l4 N o. 11

- 2574 und erthe drug quanti ty gui del i ne, U
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1, re su lting i n a b ase o ff ense l eve l o f36 , bas ed i n parto n re l evantco nd u c t, and afteradj ustm ents, a tot alo ff ense l eve l o f39
. The repor t al so cal cul ate d H ibl e’ s o ff ense l eve l u n d er th e c ar ee r offe n d er gu id elin e, i d. § 4 B1. 1, a ss um i ng the F SA d i d not a pp l y, wh i ch re sul ted i n a c ar eero ff ender l eve l o f37and afteradj ustm ents, a tot alo ff ense l eve l o f 34. I f the FS A appli ed, how eve r, the car eero ff ender gu id elin e t ot al of f e n s e le ve l w ou ld h av e b ee n 31 . H ible h ad n in e c rim in al h i s t o ry p oin ts , w h ich w ou ld p u t h im i n cr i m i nal hi sto rycat ego ryI V. But und erthe car eer offe n d er gu id elin e, ev er y off en d er is inc a te go ry V I. Id. Usi ngthe dr ugqua nt i tyg ui del i ne , o ff en se lev el3 9 an d cri m i nal h istor y c ate gor y VI, H ibl e’ s a dvis or y guideli ne range w as 360 m ont h s to l ife. U nd er the ca reer offend er guid eli ne , offen se level 34 an d crim in al history cate gor y VI, t h e advi sor y guidel i ne r ange w as 262 to 32 7 m o nths

. The r ec o m m en ded o ff en se l ev elwas the hi g he r o fthe t wo l ev el s, tha t is, the o ne unde r the dr ug q u an tit y g u id elin e (3 9). See U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1. 1(b) ( “[ I ] fthe offe n se lev e l for a c ar ee r offe n d er from th e t ab le in th is su b s e c tion is greater th an the offense level otherw ise ap p lica b le, th e o ffen se lev el fr om th e t ab le in th is su bsec tion sh allap p ly. ”). Th us , t he pres en ten ce rep ort re com m ended a gui del i ne r ange of36 0 m onths to l i f e. Pr i o r t o s en te nc i ng, Hibl e o bj ec te d t o the pa r ag r aph s ofthe prese ntence re portdetai l i ng hi s r el evantco nd uct, whi c h g r e a t l y i nc r e a s e d the dr ug qu a nt i t y f o r w hi ch H ibl e co uld b e h eld acc ountabl e. H i s o bj ecti ons did not m enti on the FS A
. I n re sp on se to the obj ecti ons, the gov er n m en t s a i d t h at it “b elie ve d

. . . a se n te n c e t h at is su ffi-N o. 11

- 2574 5 ci en t butno t g r ea te r tha n n ec es sa r y t o a ch i ev e th e se nte n c in g p u rp os es of Se c tio n 35 53 (a) c an be fou n d w ith in th e adv i so r y c ar ee r o ff en derr an g e” o f2 62 t o 3 27months of i m pri sonm ent. A l though the gov er nm ent agr eed with t h e p re se n te n c e re p or t’s rele va n t c on d u c t fin d in gs , i t sai d that a r uling o n H ibl e’ s r el evantco nd uct o bj ecti ons w as unnecessar y. A t s en t e n c i n g on Ju ly 7, 201 1, th e d ist ric t c ou rtsa id that i t had r evi ew ed the prese ntence re port an d n ote d th er e wer e o bj ec ti o ns “ th atb o i l [ ed] do wn to ” wh at th e advi sor y guidel i ne r ange shoul d be. The c ou rtnot ed that the pr ese ntence re portr eco m m ended an off ense l e v e l o f3 9 , c r i mi na l h i s t o r y ca t e g o r y V I, a nd a n a dvi so r y g ui del i ne r an g e o f3 60 months t o l i f e. The cou rt confi rm ed t h at H ibl e had “no obj ecti on t o the c ar eer offen d er [guideline], w hich w ou ld pu t [his] ad visory gui del i ne r ange at 2 62 to 327” m onths. The co urt al so co nfi r m ed th atthe g o ve r nm en t an d pr o ba ti o n h ad no obj ecti on t o usi ng the c ar eero ff ender advi sor y guidelin e ra n ge of 26 2 to 32 7 m on th s a s “ ou r st ar tin g p oin t.” Then the co urt ask ed defe nse c ounsel, “So,
. . . i fIag re e th at ou r starting p oint is th e career o ff e n d er ad visory gui del i ne r a ng e o f2 6 2 t o 3 2 7 [ , ]
. . . wo ul d tha tm ean that ther e would be no ob j ec tions to the prese ntence r epo r t? ” Cou ns ela ns wer ed, “ Tha t’ s co r r ec t, ” an d the pr o se cu tor a nd pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r s ta te d tha t th eyha d no obj ecti on t o that “st artin g point. ” The co urt sai d that “[t ]h e ca re er offe n d er ad vis or y g u id elin e ra n ge w ou ld sta rtato ff ense l eve l 34 , ” a fterf acto ring ac ceptance of r esp ons ibi li ty, an d both the p ros e cu tor and H ibl e’s co unse l a g r ee d. Acco r di ng l y, the c o ur t f o und “ th atthe6 N o. 11

- 2574 sta rt i ng poi nt i n thi s ca se und erthe advi sor y guideline s, b y a gr ee m en t o f co u n se l an d P ro b at ion , i s t h at t h i s is ano ff en se l ev el3 4/ crimin alhi st o r y c at eg o r y VIa nd th at th e a d vis or y g u id elin e ra n ge is 26 2 t o 3 27 .” The cour t r eco nfi rm ed w i th H ibl e, thr ough co unsel an d wi thHibl e di r ec tl y, tha t he wi th dr ew hi s o bj ec ti o ns “w i th the ag re em ent that the C ourtst ar t a t the o ff ense l ev el3 4/ cr i m i na l hi st o r y c at eg o r y VI/ adv i so r y g ui del i ne ran ge 262 to 3 2 7, i ns tead of 360 to li fe. ” Th e cou rt f o und “ th ata l l o bj ec ti o ns ha ve b ee n wi th dr awn” a nd “th e pa rties agr e e that “W il li am H ibl e is a career off ender[ , ]
. . . i s a cr im in alhi sto rycat ego ryVI, and .

. . has an advi sory gui del i ne r ange of26 2 t o 327 m onths beca us e he i s ano ff en se l ev el3 4 as a dj us te d. ” The n the cour t a dopted the pre sente nce r epor t’ s fi nd i n gs, as am ended by the part i es’ ag re em ent. H ibl e o ff er ed m i ti gat i on e vi dence, wh i ch i n c lu ded ev i den ce t o m i ti g at e hi s ca r ee r o ff en ders ta tu s

— te st i m o ny that alth ough he w as convi cted o fa cri m e o fvi ol ence o cc ur r i ngi n 2 00 5, he di d no t ac tu al l y c o m m i t th e cr i m e, b utpl ed g ui l tyf o r o th err ea so ns . The g o ve r nm en t requ ested a w ithin-gu id eli ne sent en ce of 25 years ( 3 0 0 mo n th s )
. Hib l e ’ s a t t o r n e y r e c o mme n d e d a b e l o wgui del i ne se ntence of15 ye ar s (1 80 m onths)

. The di str i ct c ou rtga v e H ible a “fin al b re ak ” a n d co n sid er ed h im to have a cr i m i nal hi sto rycat ego ryI V, wh i ch pro vi ded ana dvi so r y g ui del i ne r an g e o f2 10 t o 2 62 months

. The cour t dete rm i ned that “the appropri ate and re as onable ” sente nce was 240 m onths.N o. 11

- 2574 7 II H ibl e a pp eal s hi s s entence , ar gui ng tha t th e d i str i ct co ur t sh o ul d ha ve s en te nc ed hi m c o ns i st en t wi ththe m o r e l en i en t pen al ti es unde r the F S A. The g overn m en t ar gu es t h a t H ible h as w aiv ed h is rig h t t o a p p ea l th is i ssue. H ibl e r esponds thathe p re ser ved the i ssue f or re vie w by ob j ec tin g, athis plea he ar i ng, t o b eings en te n c ed u n d er th e o ld law a n d as se rt in g t h ath e s h ou ld be senten ced un d er th e FSA
. H e d oes not, h o w e v er, ar gu e tha th e a s s e r t e d a nyr i g htt o b e s e nt e nc e d under th e F S A at hi s sen t e nc i ng . W e ag r ee wi ththe g o ve r nm en t th atHible ha s wai ve d the r i g htt o a r g ue tha t he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n s e n t e n c e d u n d e r th e F S A. “[ W ] ai ve r o cc ur s when a d efen dan t i nt en ti o na l l y r el i nquis hes o r ab an d ons a know n ri ght. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gaona , ___F .3d
___, N o. 12 -20 39 , 201 2 W L 47 47 19 6, at *3 (7t h C ir. Oct. 5, 20 12) ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om i tted)

. W e wil l fi nd waive r w hen a d efe nd ant “ [ f ] or st r at eg i c r ea so ns . . . e l ec t[ s] t o purs ue o ne a r g um en t w hi l e f or ego i ng ano ther

. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fa r m er, 54 3 F.3 d 3 63 , 3 71 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); see also U nited Sta tes v. Jaim esJa im es , 4 06 F
. 3d 84 5, 8 48 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) (“[ W ] he n the defe nd ant sele c ts [ f ro m am ong ar gum ents] as a m att er ofst ra tegy, he a l so w ai ves thos e a rgum ents he deci ded no tt o p r e s e nt
. ” ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d) )
. Wai v e r p r e cl ud es ap p ella te rev iew
. U nite d State s v. D oyle, 69 3 F.3 d 769, 77 1 (7th C ir. 2012). H ibl e knew o fthe FS A ; athi s pl ea hear i ng, he ask ed to be s en te n c ed u nd eri t. Yet at hi s s entenci ng, he di d not as se r t a r i g htt o b e s ent en ce d unde r the F S A. I ns te ad, he8 N o. 11

- 2574 affi rm ati vel y withd re w al l o bj ecti on s to the pr ese ntence re p or t and agr eed thati n sent enci ng ( he had not obj ecte d th at th e p re s e n t en c e re p or t d id n otu tiliz e t h e F SA in proj ecting hi s s entence ) , the dist ri ct c ourtsh oul d use as a “sta rting p oint” an offen se level of 34, crim inal history ca te g o r y VI, a nd the c ar ee r o ff en dera dvi so r y g ui del i ne ra nge of 262 to 327 m onths. That thi s w as a consci ous, str ate gi c deci si on i s i nescapabl e. By agr eei ng to the car eero ff ender gu id eli ne r ange, H ibl e av o i ded a he ar i ngo n r el ev an t co nduc t an d the po te nt i al l y hi g he r o ff en se l ev elc al cul at ed unde r the dr ug q u a n t i t y g u i d e l i n e b a s e d o n th a tr e l e v a n tc o n d u c t
. He al so ar gued f orm i ti gat i on o fhi s ca re ero ff en d erst atus. H ibl e ha d l i tt l e to g ain i n a r g ui ngf o r a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe F S A wi th no m an dat o r y m i ni m um an d a m axi m um sen t e nc e o f 3 0 y e a r s whe n he f a c e d a n a dv i s o r y gui del i n e r a n g e o f3 6 0 m o n th s t o l i f e a n d h i s c o u n s e l r e c o mm ended a 15- yea r sente nce. H ibl e’ s s tr ate gi c deci si on pai d o ff : the di s t r i c tc o ur ta pp l i e d the c a r e e r o ff e nd er gui del i ne with i ts l ower o ff ense lev el a nd co nsi dered H ibl e to ha ve a c r i m i na l hi st o r y c at eg o r y o fI V. H ible arg u es th at h e p re se r v e d th e is su e b y ra isin g it at hi s chang e o fp lea h ear i ng. A s the pro secuto r note d at the pl ea hear i ng, H ibl e w ou ld “pre ser ve the r i ght to m ake ” th e ar g um en t to b e se nt en ce d unde r the F S A. But Hib l e n e v e r m a de the a r g ume nta ts e nt e nc i ng . I ns t e a d, he chos e t o agree w i th the go ver nm ent that he w as a car eero ff ender and that the “s tar ti ng p oin t” w as off ense l eve l 34 , cr i m in al his tor y c ate gor y VI, and the car eer offender gui del i ne ra nge of 262 to 327 m onths. T h isN o. 11

- 2574 9

am ou n ts to w aiv er . SeeU nite d State s v . Harris , 23 0 F
. 3d 10 54, 1 05 9 (7th Ci r . 2 00 0) ( ho l di ngtha t defen dan t wai ve d a ny r i g htt o a do wnw ar d de par tu re u nd erthe safety
- val ve provi si on w here the i ssue w as ra i sed in the p lea agre em ent, but the pr ese ntence re portdi d not m enti on the sa f ety
- val ve provi si on, and w hen questi oned by the di str i ct c ourt, b ot h the def endant and hi s co unsel state d the y ha d no o bj ec ti o ns t o the pr es en te nc e r epo rt o th ertha n a no th er, di ff er en t o bj ec ti o n)
. As n o te d, the dist ri ct c ourtga ve H ibl e a “fi nal brea k” a nd se ntenced hi m as i f he w as i n cri m i nal hi sto ry cate go ry IV to 240 m onths.

III W e A FFIRM H ibl e’s sent en ce an d the d istri ct cou rt’s j ud gm ent.

11- 8- 12