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

### F e b r u ary9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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, v. N o. 05- 2383 P AM E L A M E DL E Y,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO

( D. C. NO. CR- 0 1 - 4 3 M V) Ja c q u e lyn R o b in s, A lb u q u e rq u e , N e w M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. F red Joseph F ederi ci II I, A ssi st ant U nit ed S t at es A t t orney , (D avid C . Igl esi as, U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on the br i ef) , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, for Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. B efo re HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. Pam el a M edl eycompl ai ns t hatt he 97- m onth s ent ence i m pos ed af t erour r emand forr es ent enci ng i s har s hert han the or i gi nal 78- m onth s ent ence t hats he appea l ed. O n bot h occa s i ons t he di s tr i ctcourts ent ence d herw i thi n theW e a ss u m e th a t all G u id e lin e s c a lcu latio n s o n re m a n d w e re c o rre c t, 1 b e c a u s e M s . M e d l e yma k e s n o c h a l l e n g e t o t h e m. -2- s ent enci ng r ange c om put ed under the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . T he fir s t s e n te n c e w a s a t th e to p o f th e ra n g e ; th e s e c o n d s e n te n c e w a s a t th e b o tto m . T h e in c re a se in h e r G u id e lin e s s e n ten c in g ra n g e re su lted f ro m tw o c h a n g e s. F irst, att he s ent enci ng on r emand t he courtus ed the 2000 ver s i on of the G ui del i nes r athert han the 2001 ver s i on us ed att he i ni t i al s ent enci ng; on heror i gi nal appea l M s . M edl eyhad ar gued thatt he 2000 ver s i on s houl d have be en us ed. Second, at t he s ent enci ng on r emand t he courtcorr ect l y appl i ed s om e G ui del i nes pr ovi s i ons 1 t hathad bee n m i s t akenl yom i t t ed orm i s appl i ed att he i ni t i al s ent enci ng; on the or i gi nal appea l t he G overnm enthad not ed al l butone of thos e err or s and ar gued th a t M s . M e d le yth e re fo re w o u ld n o t b e n e fit f ro m a re m a n d fo r r e s e n te n c in g . M s. M e d ley co n ten d s th a t an u n re b u tted p re su m p tio n o f v in d ictiv e n e ss a ttac h e d to t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s hi ghers ent ence on r emand. She al s o ar gues t hatt he di s tr i ct cour tdi s r egar ded ourm andat e t o r es ent ence heri n l i ghtof Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , beca us e i tfai l ed t o expl ai n w hyheri ni t i al 78- m o n th se n tenc e w as n o t r ea so n ab le. W e d isag ree . T h ere is no b asis fo r a p re s u m p tio n o f

v in d ic tiv e n e s s ; a n d if th e re w e re , a n yp re s u m p tio n w a s re b u tte d . A nd t her e w as no B ookererro r.-3-

I . BA CKGROUND I n J anuary2002 M s . M edl eyw as convi ct ed on fi ve count s of w i r e fr aud, s ee 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 3 ; s ix c o u n ts o f m a il f ra u d , se e id . § 1341; one countof m a k in g a f

ra u d u le n t c la im o n th e g o v e rn m e n t, se e id . § 287; s even c ount s of m o n e yla u n d e ri n g , s ee i d. § 1956( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) ; t w o count s of i m per s onat i ng a g o v e rn m e n t e m p lo y e e , s ee i d. § 9 1 2 ; o n e c o u n t o f m a k in g fa ls e s ta te m e n ts , s ee i d. § 1 0 0 1 ; a n d o n e c o u n t o f fa ls e ly re p re s e n tin g h e r s o c ia l s e c u ri ty n u m b e r, s ee 42 U .S .C . § 4 0 8 (a )(7 )(B ). T h e c o n v ictio n s a ro se o u t o f a c o m p lex p a ttern o f d e c e it t h a ts h e e mp l o y e d i n a t t e mp t i n g t o o b t a i n g o v e rn me n tf u n d s i n t e n d e d fo rv i c t i ms o f th e N e w M e x ic o C e rr o G ra n d e F ir e . S h e w a s n o t a v ic tim o f th e fir e . T h e p ro b a tio n o ffice a p p lied th e 2 0 0 1 v e rsio n o f th e G u id e lin e s in pr epar i ng herpr es ent ence i nves t i gat i on r eport( PSR ) . T he PSR , as m odi fi ed by an adde ndum , arr i ved ata t ot al offe ns e l evel of 24 af t eri t( 1) gr ouped al l t he convi ct i on count s t ogetherunderU SSG § 3D 1. 2( d) ; ( 2) appl i ed §§ 2S1. 1( a) ( 1) and 2B 1. 1 t o arr i ve ata bas e offens e l evel of 6; ( 3) added 14 l evel s under § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( H ) foran i nt ended l os s of betw een $400, 000 and $1 mi l l i on; ( 4) added 2 l evel s form oneyl aunder i ng under§ 2S1. 2( b) ( 1) ( B ) ; and ( 5) added 2 leve ls fo r ob stru cti o n o f ju sti ce u n d er § 3 C 1 . 1 . Itca lculated h er c ri m inal h ist o ry a s c a teg o ryI, b e c a u se h e r o n lyc o u n tab le p rio r o ffe n se w a s a 1 9 9 2 c o n v ictio n in Cal i fo r ni a . The G ui de l i ne s r a ng e w a s t he r e fo r e 51 t o 6 3 months . The PSR-4-

added, how ever , t hathercr i m i nal - hi s t or ycat egorydi d notadequa t el yr efl ecther backgr ound. T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on foran upw ar d departur e undert he G ui del i nes on t he gr ound t hatM s . M edl ey ’ s “‘ cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egorydoes not adequa t el yr efl ectt he s er i ous nes s of [he r ] pas tcr i m i nal conductort he l i kel i hood t h a t[ s h e ] wi l l c o mm i to t h e rc r i me s . ’ ” R. Vo l . 2 Do c . 1 1 0 a t1 ( q u o t i n g US S G § 4 A 1 .3 ). I ts ugges t ed thata cr i m i nal - hi s t orycat egoryof V w as t he mi ni m um l evel nece s s aryt o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om M s . M edl ey . M s . M edl eyfi l ed obj ect i ons t o t he PSR i n w hi ch s he mai nt ai ned thats he w as i nnocentof al l t he c rim e s th a t th e P S R h a d id e n tifie d a s w a rra n tin g a n u p w a rd d e p a rtu re , b u t sh e d id no tdis pu t e t he P S R ’s app l i cat i on of the 20 01 G uidel i nes. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n d u c te d th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g o n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 2 . Itado pted the P S R ’s factual fi nd i ng s and it s G uidel i nes cal culat i on . Ital so d eterm ined that an u p w ard d ep arture w as w arran ted b ec au se a crim inal-history c a teg o ryo f

I d id n o t su fficie n tlya c c o u n t fo r M s. M e d ley’s p a st c rim in a l co n d u c t. T he courtfound t hat s he h ad v i olat ed co urtorders i n co nn ect i on w i th a b asel ess law su itthat sh e h ad fil ed ag ains t th e U n iversityo f C ali fo rnia M ed ical C en ter, a ttem p ted to d ru g th e a tto rn e y s o f h e r o p p o n e n ts in th a t ca se , co m m itt e d f ra u d in an effor tt o obt ai n a N ew M exi co medi cal l i cens e, and made fal s e s t at ement s i n an ap p li ca ti o n fo r pu b li c a ssist an ce . T h e c o u rtthere fo re ru led th at a c ri m inal-history c a teg o ryo f

III, le a d in g to a se n ten c in g ra n g e o f 6 3 to 7 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t,-5-

w as m o re rep rese n tat ive o f M s. M ed ley ’s p ast crim inal co n d u ct. T h e c o u rt i m po sed a sentence of 7 8 m on t hs. M s . M edl eyappea l ed herconvi ct i on and s ent ence . H ercouns el fi l ed a b ri ef raisi n g n ine issu es b u t st ati n g that eigh t w ere raised u n d er A nders v. C a lif o rn ia , 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) ( courtm aygr antcouns el ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr aw aft ercouns el fi l es a br i ef thatexpl or es pos s i bl e ave nues of appe al and demonstr at es t hatal l l ack mer i t ) . T he ni nth i s s ue w as thatt he di s tr i ctcourthad e rr e d in a p p lyin g th e 2 0 0 1 v e rs io n o f th e G u id e lin e s . A ppl i cat i on of the 2001 G ui del i nes r athert han the 2000 ver s i on, s he ar gued, r es ul t ed i n an addi t i onal t hr ee- l evel i ncr eas e i n t he offens e l evel undert he amount - of- l os s G ui del i ne, U SSG § 2B 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( 2000) . M s . M edl eyal s o fi l ed a pr o s e br i ef a s s er t i ng that hers ent ence s houl d be vac at ed and r emanded forr es ent enci ng undert he 2000 G uidel i nes. T he governm ent ’ s appel l at e br i ef c ont ended thatus e of the 2001 G ui del i nes w a s n o t p lain e rro r. N o tin g th a t p lain e rro r a rise s o n lyw h e n th e e rro r “ 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 , ” A pl ee. A n sw e r B r. in N o . 0 3 -2 0 2 6 a t 3 8 ; se e Un itedS ta tes v . G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d 727, 732 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) ( en banc ) , t he br i ef a r gued thatt her e w oul d be no s uch e ffe c t b e c a u se M s. M e d ley’s G u id e lin e s o ffe n se lev e l w o u ld b e h ig h e r if cal cul at ed corr ect l yon r emand. Speci fi cal l y , t he governm entas s er t ed thather fr aud and money - l aunder i ng count s had bee n m i s t akenl ygr ouped t ogetherand-6-

t hatundert he 2000 G ui del i nes heroffe ns e l evel w oul d be i ncr eas ed bec aus e of a n i nt ended l os s of m or e than $500, 000 ( under§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 1) ( K ) ) , m or e- thanm i ni m al pl anni ng ( under§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 2) ) , the us e of s ophi s t i cat ed means ( under § 2F1. 1( b) ( 6) ( C ) ) , t he unl aw ful us e of i dent i fi cat i on t o obt ai n anotherm eans of iden ti fica ti o n (un d er § 2 F 1 . 1 (b)(5 )(C )(i )), an d the g rou p ing rules (§ 3 D 1 . 4 ). It cal cul at ed thata cr i m i nal - hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I w oul d pl ace heri n a G ui del i nes se n ten c in g ra n g e o f

7 8 to 9 7 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. A f ter su b m iss io n o f

th e o rig in a l b rie fs, M s. M e d ley se n t a le tter to th is cour tr ai s i ng a B ookerar gum ent . W e r emanded forr es ent enci ng beca us e B oo ker, i s s ued af

t erM s . M edl ey ’ s or i gi nal s ent enci ng, had r ender ed the G ui del i nes advi s or y ; M s . M edl eyhad pr es erved B ookererr orats ent enci ng; and the g o v e rn m e n t h a d n o t e s ta b lis h e d th a t a n ys e n te n c in g e rr o r w a s h a rm le s s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Medl ey , 130 F. A pp’ x 248, 252 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . W e s ai d that t he r emand r ender ed i tunnece s s aryforus t o addr es s M s . M edl ey ’ s other s e n te n c in g is s u e s . S e e id . O n r emand t he governm ents ubm i t t ed obj ect i ons notpr evi ous l ym ade t o t he P S R , p o in tin g to t he mi s t akes i n the or i gi nal PSR t hati thad not ed i n i t s br i ef on a p p e a l. O ne of M s . M edl ey ’ s r es pons es t o the governm ent ’ s obj ect i ons w as her ow n obj ect i on t o “anys ent ence w hi ch i s gr eat ert han the s ent ence w hi ch w as p re v io u s ly im p o s e d .” R . V o l. 1 D o c . 1 3 0 a t 5 .-7-

T he pr obat i on offi ce’ s s econd a ddendum t o the PSR tr acke d the g o v e rn m e n t’ s o bje c tio n s . I ta p p l i e d t h e 2 0 0 0 G u i d e l i n e s a n d g r o u p e d t h e m o n e yl aun deri ng cou nts separat el yfrom t he fraud cou nts (w i re fr aud , m ai l fraud, fal se c laim s, im p e rso n a tio n , fa lse sta tem e n ts, a n d fa lse re p re se n tatio n o f so c ial s e c u rity n u m b er). I tcomput ed M s . M edl ey ’ s bas e offens e l evel fort he fr aud gr oupi ng as 6 underU SSG § 2F1. 1( a) ; added 10 l evel s under§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 1) ( K ) foran i nt ended l os s of m or e than $500, 000; added 2 l evel s under§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 2) ( A ) form or e than m i ni m al pl anni ng; added 2 l evel s under§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 4) ( A ) fori m per s onat i ng a governm entempl oy ee; added 2 l evel s under§ 2F1. 1( b) ( 5) ( C ) ( i ) forunauthor i zed us e of i dent i fi cat i on t o obt ai n anotherform of i dent i fi cat i on; added 2 l evel s under § 2 F 1 .1 (b )( 6 )( C ) fo r u s e o f s o p h is tic a te d m e a n s ; a n d a d d e d 2 le v e ls u n d e r § 3 C 1 .1 forobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce. T he adj us t ed offens e l evel fort he fr aud offens es w as 26. I tt hen gr ouped the money - l aunder i ng count s , and under§ 2S1. 1( a) ( 2) det erm i ned a ba s e- offe ns e l evel of 20. A ft erappl y i ng anothert w o- l evel adj us t m entforobs t ruct i on of j us t i ce unde r§ 3C 1. 1, i tarr i ved atan adj us t ed offe ns e l evel of 22. I tt hen comput ed the combi ned- offe ns e l evel under§ 3D 1. 4, r es ul t i ng i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 28. T he onl yfea tur e of the ca l cul at i on not not ed i n t he governm ent ’ s pr i orappel l at e br i ef w as t he upw ar d adj us t m entfor im p erso n ati n g a g o v ern m en t em p loy ee . B ase d o n a c ri m inal-historyca tego ryo f I, t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange w as 78 t o 97 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . M s . M edl ey-8-

filed o bjec tio n s to th e se c o n d a d d e n d u m , b u t th e p ro b a tio n o ffice rejec ted th e m in a t h i r d a d d e n d u m. T he di s t r i ctcour tr es ent ence d M s . M edl eyon N ovember9, 2005. H er co u n sel arg u ed v ind ict iven ess, st ati n g that “[ i] t i s o u r po sit ion that if th e c o u rt w er e t o i ncr eas e the s ent ence , i tcoul d be s een a s a s i gn of vi ndi ct i venes s on t he par tof the court , oron t he partof the pr os ecut i on, ” R . V ol . 12 at5, and “i f the C our tw er e t o i ncr eas e the s ent ence fr om w hati tfound appr opr i at e, bas ed on b asica ll ythe s am e e v iden ce [a s w as p rese n ted a t th e fir st sen tenc ing h ea ri n g ], t hen i tw oul d be a s i gn of vi ndi ct i venes s on the partof the C our t . ” Id . a t 3 9 . R estri ct i ng i t sel f t o the evi den ce t hat had b een b efore i tatt he fir st s ent enci ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tagai n gr ant ed an upw ar d departur e, as s i gni ng M s . M edl eya cr i m i nal - hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I . I tal s o adopt ed the offens e- l evel cal cul at i ons s etfor t h i n t he s econd a ddendum t o the PSR , r es ul t i ng i n a G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f

9 7 to 1 2 1 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. I ts t at ed thatt hi s r ange w as s uffi ci entt o s at i s fyt he purpos es of s ent enci ng, not ed thati thad cons i der ed the 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs , a n d s e n te n c e d M s . M e d le yto 9 7 m o n th s ’ i n c a rc e ra tio n . T h e c o u rt th e n a d d re ss e d h e r v in d ictiv e n e ss a rg u m e n t: W ith re g a rd to th e a rg u m e n t th a t w a s m a d e [ a b o u t] v in d ic tiv e n e s s , I m us taddr es s t hat . . . . I have . . . r evi ew [ed] y ourt r ans cr i pt , and lo o k [ e d ] a t y o u r c a se . I d o b e liev e th a t y o u h a v e re c e iv e d th e b e n e fit o f a tru lyind ividu ali ze d B o o k er a n aly sis. . . . I am alw ay s v ery c a r e f u l , a n d I ’ v e b e e n v e r yc a r e f u l i n y o u rc a s e . I td o e s n ’ tb o th e rme th a t y o u a p p e a led . P lea se d o n ’t e v e r th in k th a t. A s a m a tter o f fa c t, I l ook att he appe l l at e pr oces s as a s afe tynet . . . . W e j us thandl e t oo-9-

m anycr i m i nal cas es i n one day , and I thank G od ther e ar e other p eo p le l o o k ing o v er o u r sho u lder, an d m ak ing su re tha t w e d o n ’t m ake a m i s t ake s o t hats om eone thats houl dn’ tbe i n j ai l as l ong as w e h a v e se n ten c e d th e m to jail . . . . I’m g lad so m e b o d ye lse is loo k ing at th is. . . . I do b eli ev e tha t th e e n h an ce m en ts th at w ere b rou g h t up fo r th e fir st t im e d u ri n g this rou n d o f se n tenc ing s are v ery m u c h ju stified b yy o u r a c tio n s in th is c a se , an d b yth e fa c ts in th is cas e, and byt he fa ct s t hatexi s t ed atthe t i m e of the or i gi nal s ent enci ng. R . V ol . 12 at54–57. II. A N A L Y S IS M s . M edl eycont ends t hatthe i ncr eas e i n hers ent ence on r emand m us tbe s etas i de bec aus e ( 1) t he governm enthas notr ebutt ed the pr es um pt i on thatt he i ncr eas e r es ul t ed fr om vi ndi ct i ve r et al i at i on forherfi r s tappea l and ( 2) t he s ent enci ng cour tdi d notcompl yw i th B ookerbeca us e i tfai l ed t o expl ai n w hyt he o ri g in a l s e n te n c e w a s n o t r e a s o n a b le . A . V i n d i cti ven ess A l t hough t he governm entcont ends t hatM s . M edl eydi d notpr es erve her vi ndi ct i venes s ar gum entbel ow , w e nee d notr es ol ve the mat t er . A s s um i ng that w e s h o u ld a p p ly d e n o v o re v ie w , se e Un itedS ta tes v . G u ru le , 461 F. 3d 1238, 1246 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( cons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o a s ent ence ar e r evi ew ed de n o v o ), w e a ffir m . A tM s . M edl ey ’ s r es ent enci ng the di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed a hi ghers ent ence b a se d o n a re c a lcu latio n o f h e r G u id e lin e s s e n ten c in g ra n g e . S h e c laim s th a t th is i ncr eas e vi ol at es t he doctr i ne s etfor th i n Nor th C ar ol i na v. P ear ce , 395 U . S. 711-10-

( 1969) . T he Supr eme C our ts t at ed i n thatcas e thatt o “as s ur e the abs ence of [vindi ct i ven ess] ” t hat w ou l d d et er defend ants from chall eng i ng theircon vict i on s, the D u e P roc ess C laus e re q u ir es th at “w h en ev er a jud g e im p o ses a m o re se v ere sent ence u po n a d efen dan taft er a new tri al , the reasons fo r hi s doing so m ust aff i r m at i vel yappea r . ” Id . at726. M s . M edl eyar gues thatthe hi ghers ent ence aft err emand cr eat es a pr es um pt i on of vi ndi ct i venes s thatthe governm enthas not r ebut t ed. L at erdeci s i ons , how ever , have na rr ow ed P ear ce . I n Texas v. McC ul l ough , 47 5 U . S . 13 4 (198 6), t he juryhad sent enced the d efen dan tt o 2 0 y ears ’ im p ri s o n m e n t, b u t a f

te r a re tr ia l th e ju d g e s e n te n c e d h im to 5 0 y e a rs . S e e id . at 136. T he j udge expl ai ned thatt he hi ghers ent ence w as bas ed on new evi dence at t he s econd tr i al s how i ng t hatt he defendanthad pl ay ed a much l ar gerr ol e i n the c ri m e th a n w a s e v id e n t a t th e fir s t tr ia l. S e e id . T he Supr eme C our thel d thatno pr es um pt i on of vi ndi ct i venes s ar os e bec aus e the j udge w ho i m pos ed the new s ent ence had al s o been the j udge w ho had gr ant ed the defendanta new tr i al aft er th e o ri g in a l s e n te n c e . S e e id . at138- 39. I tfur therhel d thatanypr es um pt i on of v in d ictiv e n e ss w a s o v e rc o m e b yth e ju d g e ’s e x p lan a tio n fo r th e in c re a se in s e n te n c e . S e e id . a t 1 4 1 . McC ul l ough r ecogni zed thatthe expl anat i on di d not c o m e w ith in th e C o u rt’s p rio r la n g u a g e “ p e rm it[tin g ] ‘a se n ten c in g a u th o rityto j us t i fyan i ncr eas ed s ent ence byaff i r m at i vel yi dent i fy i ng r el evantconductor event s t hatoccurr ed s ubs equentt o the or i gi nal s ent enci ng pr ocee di ngs . ’ ” Id .-11-

( br acke t s om i t t ed) ( quot i ng Was m an v. Uni t ed Stat es , 4 6 8 U .S . 5 5 9 , 5 7 2 (1 9 8 4 )) . B ut , i texpl ai ned, “[t ] hi s l anguage . . . w as neveri nt ended t o des cr i be e x h a u stiv e lya ll o f

th e p o ss ib le c irc u m sta n c e s in w h ich a se n ten c e in c re a se c o u ld be j us t i fi ed. R es tr i ct i ng j us t i fi cat i ons fora s ent ence i ncr eas e t o o n ly ‘ event s that o c c u r r e d s u b s e q u e n tt o t h e o r i g i n a l s e n t e n c i n g p r o c e e d i n g s ’ c o u l d i n s o me ci r cumst ance s l ead t o abs ur d r es ul t s . ” Id . A la b a m a v . Sm ith , 490 U . S. 794 ( 1989) , then r educe d the P ear ce doctr i ne t o i t s es s ent i al cor e. T he C our thel d thatthe defendanthas the bur den “t o pr ove [that ] actual vi ndi ct i venes s , ” id . at 7 9 9

– 8 0 0 , ca u se d th e h ig h e r se n ten c e a n d th a t a presum pti on of v i nd i ct i ven ess ar i ses onl yi n cir cum st ances “in w hich there i s a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hatt he i ncr eas e i n s ent ence i s the pr oductof ac tual vi ndi ct i venes s on t he partof the s ent enci ng author i ty , ” id . at799 ( ci t at i on and interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). O urdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. R ourke , 9 8 4 F .2 d 1 0 6 3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ), is i ns t ruct i ve. R our ke’ s or i gi nal s ent ence of 13 y ear s ’ i ncar cer at i on s houl d have in c lu d e d a te rm o f

th re e y e a rs ’ p a ro le . S e e id . at1065. A ft erthe s ent enci ng hear i ng and i m pos i t i on of s ent ence , R our ke not i ced thatthe di s tr i ctcourthad fa ile d to in c lu d e th e p a ro le te rm . S e e id . H e br oughtthi s err ort o the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s at t ent i on, ar gui ng t hathi s t erm of i m pr i s onm ents houl d be r educe d by th re e y e a rs o n c e th e p a ro le te rm w a s a d d e d . S e e id . T he courtr ect i fi ed i t s err or b ya d d in g a th re e -ye a r p a ro le te rm to th e d e fe n d a n t’ s 1 3 -ye a r s e n te n c e . S e e id .-12-

B eca us e the s ent enci ng j udge had e xpl ai ned thatthe i ncr eas e w as t o “corr ectan i nadvert entom i s s i on and t o compl yw i th the s t atut or ym andat e, ” w e hel d that th e re w a s n o m e ri t to th e d e fe n d a n t’ s v in d ic tiv e n e s s c la im . Id . a t 1 0 6 6 . T he ci r cumst ance s of thi s cas e har dl ys ugges t“a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood that t he i ncr eas e i n [M s . M edl ey ’ s ] s ent ence [w as ] the pr oductof ac tual vi ndi ct i venes s . ” Sm ith , 490 U . S. at799 ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . O n t he contr ary , j us tas the j udge i n R ourke w as corr ect i ng an err or , t he di s t r i ctcourther e w as compl y i ng w i th the mandat e of B ookerto c o m p u te c o rre c tlyth e G u id e lin e s s e n ten c in g ra n g e a n d th e n c o n sid e r th a t ra n g e in e x e rc is in g d is c re tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053–55 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . M or eover , even w er e w e t o i m pos e a pr es um pt i on of vi ndi ct i venes s , t he pr es um pt i on w as cl ear l yr ebutt ed bythe expl anat i on forthe cha nges i n t he G ui del i nes cal cul at i on. O n appea l M s . M edl eydoes notchal l enge a nyof the G ui del i nes cal culat i on s, no r does she sugg estthat s he can prove a ctual vi nd i ct i ven ess. T hu s, w e ho l d thatt he incr ease i n h er s entence did not denyher due process. B . R eas onabl enes s of O ri gi nal Sent ence M s. M e d ley also c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t fo llo w o u r m a n d a te t hats he be r es ent ence d i n l i ghtof B ooker , beca us e 18 U . S. C . § 3553, as cons t rued b y B ooker , r equi r ed the courtt o expl ai n w hyt he pr i or , vaca t ed s ent ence w as not r eas onabl e. (S h e d o es n o t con tend that h er n ew sen tenc e is i tsel f u n rea so n ab le. )-13-

W e re v ie w th is c o n te n tio n d e n o v o . See Uni t ed Stat es v. A cos ta- O l i vas , 71 F. 3d 375, 377 ( 10t h C i r . 1995) ( di s t r i ctcourt ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of a s t atut e orthe G u id e lin e s is re v ie w e d d e n o v o ). W e di s cern no err or . O urm andat e af t erthe fi r s tappea l di r ect ed the di s t r i ct cour tt o r es ent ence heri n l i ghtof B ooker , w h i c h m a d e th e G u i d e l i n e s a d v i s o ry, th e re b yg iv in g th e ju d g e d is c re tio n in im p o s in g s e n te n c e . See Medl ey , 13 0 F. A pp’ x at252. A s w e have r ece nt l yexpl ai ned, ther e maybe a s ubs t ant i al r ange of re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e s fo r a d e fe n d a n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. B egay , 470 F. 3d 964, 9 7 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h e se n ten c in g c o u rt c a n p ro p e rlyse lec t an yter m w ith in th a t ra n g e a n d n e e d n o t ex p lain w h yit d id n o t ch o o se a n o th e r re a so n a b le s e n te n c e . I I I . CO NC L US I ON M s . M e d l e y ’ s s e n t e n c e i s AF F I RMED .Uni t ed Stat es v. Medl ey , 0 5 -2 3 8 3 .

M c CO NNELL , J . , concurr i ng. I agr ee w i t h the m aj ori t ythat the cir cum st ances o f t his case do no tsugg est “ac tual vi ndi ct i venes s ” on the partof the s ent enci ng j udge. I al s o agr ee w i th t he m aj or i t y ’ s anal y s i s of the narr ow l egal ques t i on r ai s ed byt he hi ghers ent ence on r emand and t her efor e j oi n t he opi ni on. B utt her e ar e r eas ons t o thi nk thatour curr ents y s t em of sent enci ng has a s y s t emat i c bi as i n favorof hi ghers ent ence s on r emand fr om s ucce s s ful appea l s , even s ucce s s ful appea l s byt he defendant . I f s o, t his present s troubli ng qu est i on s of fairness and po ssi blyeven of d ue p rocess , w h o lly a p a rt f

ro m a n y“ a c tu a l v in d ic tiv e n e s s ” o n th e p a rt o f d is tr ic t ju d g e s . In a n yc o m p lex sy ste m — a n d th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s s u re ly qual i fy

— t her e i s a not - i ns ubs t ant i al chanc e thatt hos e w ho admi ni s t ert he s y s t em w i l l m ake mi s t akes , over l ooki ng pot ent i al l yappl i cabl e adj us t m ent s and enhanc ement s . O dds ar e thatm os tof thes e mi s t akes ar e t o the bene fi tof the d efen d an t, b ec au se th e v ast m ajorityo f G u idelines p rov isi o n s relate to u p w ard e n h a n c e m e n ts ra th e r th a n d o w n w a rd a d ju stm e n ts. If

a p o ten tiallya p p lica b le G u id e lin e s p ro v isio n is o v e rlo o k e d , m o st lik e lyth a t m e a n s th e d e fe n d a n t w ill r ece i ve a l ow ers ent ence t han i f the ca l cul at i on w er e per form ed fl aw l es s l y . A dd to th is th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e d e fe n d a n t, w h o is u su a llyin tim a telyfa m ili a r w ith h i s o w n h i s t o r y i n a w a y t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i s n o t , w i l l b e m o r e a s s i d u o u s i n fl ys p e c k in g th e p re s e n te n c e re p o rt (P S R ) t h a n p ro s e c u to rs .-2-

I n t hi s cas e, forexampl e, the or i gi nal PSR m i s t akenl ygr ouped the d e fe n d a n t’s f

ra u d a n d m o n e y -la u n d e rin g o ffe n se s a n d o v e rlo o k e d a p p lica b le enhanc ement s bas ed on i nt ended l os s , m or e than mi ni m al pl anni ng, us e of s ophi s t i cat ed means , unl aw ful us e of i dent i fi cat i on, obs truct i on of j us t i ce, and im p e rso n a tin g a g o v e rn m e n t em p lo y e e . T h e se o v e rsig h ts c u m u lativ e lyre su lted in an advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange ni net een mont hs l ow erthan i ts houl d have be en ( m eas ur i ng fr om t he bott om of the r ange) . D ur i ng the i ni t i al s ent enci ng, the governm entei t herdi d notnot i ce orchos e nott o obj ectt o thes e err or s , and the d istri ct co u rtad o p ted th e e rron eo u s P S R ca lculati o n s in d eterm ining the a d v isory G ui del i nes r ange. U nl es s t hi s cas e i s aberr at i onal , ther e mustbe manys i m i l ar cas es w her e defendant s r ece i ve the bene fi tof a l es s - than- per fec tG ui del i nes cal cul at i on. I tfol l ow s t hat , i f thos e w ho admi ni s t erthe s y s t em have occa s i on t o s cour t he G ui del i nes a s econd t i m e w i t h r es pectt o a part i cul ardefe ndant , theyoft en w ill d is c o v e r r e a s o n s w h yth e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s ra n g e s h o u ld b e in c re a s e d . W heneve ra s ent ence i s appea l ed and r ever s ed, s uch an oc cas i on w i l l pr es ent i t s el f. T hati s w hathappene d her e: on appea l , and then af t err emand, the governm entr e- exami ned the PSR cal cul at i ons , obj ect ed t o the err or s , and obt ai ned a hi ghers ent ence . T hi s s ugges t s that , aft err ever s al on appea l , m any defe ndant s w i l l end up w or s e off even though theyw er e the vi ct or s i n the a p p e lla te c o u rt .-3-

T h e p r o s p e c tt h a tt h e d e fe n d a n tw i l l e n d u p w o r s e o ff i s n o tp r i m a r i l y a pr oductof vi ndi ct i venes s , butof compl exi ty . Forthe s ame r eas on thatm anual r ecount s of punche d bal l ot s i n Fl or i da i n 2000 t ended t o pr oduce mor e val i d vot es and thataudi t s of t ax r etur ns t end t o di s coveraddi t i onal t ax l i abi l i ty , a r edo of a G u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n is lik e ly to p ro d u c e a h ig h e r r a n g e th e s e c o n d tim e a ro u n d . I am re m i nded of myt enth- gr ade a l gebr a t eac her , w ho had a s t andi ng pol i cythat s he w oul d corr ectexam- gr adi ng err or s onl yi f the compl ai ni ng s tudentcons ent ed to h a v e th e e n tir e e x a m re g ra d e d . I n e v e r fe lt c o n fid e n t e n o u g h to ru n th e ri s k . D e fe n d a n ts m u s t f

re q u e n tly fe e l th e s a m e . If th e se sp e c u latio n s a re v a lid , d e fe n d a n ts m a yb e w a ryo f a p p e a lin g les t, on r emand, t he pr obat i on offi ce a nd the pr os ecut i on r evi s i tthe Sent enci ng G ui del i nes cal cul at i ons and ca l cul at e a hi gherr ange. T hi s oppor tuni tyfor s ent ence r eca l cul at i on i s effect i vel ya t ax— pay abl e i n m onths oreven y ear s of addi t i onal pr i s on t i m e— on t aki ng an appe al . T hi s s tr i kes m e as unfai rt o the d e fe n d a n ta n d b a d fo rt h e s y s t e m. Ap p e a l s s e r v e a n i mp o r t a n tf u n c t i o n , a n d we s houl d notcr eat e di s i ncent i ves forcr i m i nal defe ndant s t o appea l w hen theyhave m er i t or i ous gr ounds fordoi ng s o. A t th is p o in t, ho w e v e r, th e e x iste n c e o f su c h a “ tax ” o n a p p e a ls is p u re ly sp e c u lativ e . T h e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n , w h ich is s tatu to rilyc h a rg e d w ith k e e p in g re le v a n t s ta tis tic s fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f im p ro v in g s e n te n c in g , 2 8 U .S .C . § 995( a) , does notcol l ectoranal y ze da t a on cha nges i n the l ength of s ent enci ng-4-

aft err emand. I ur ge i tt o do s o. I f m yhunch thatther e ar e s y s t emat i c t endenc i es t ow ar d i ncr eas es i s corr ect , i tw oul d al s o be us eful t o know w hetherthes e ar e the pr oductof r eca l cul at i ons bypr obat i on offi cer s , obj ect i ons bythe pr os ecut i on, or exer ci s es of B ookerd iscreti o n b yd istri ct co u rt s. E m p ir ical stu d yo f th ese m att ers byaca demi c r es ear cher s w oul d be i l l um i nat i ng. O ne p ossi ble r em edyt o thi s probl em , i f i tturns out there r eal l yi s a p ro b le m , is to a p p ly p ri n c ip le s o f “ la w o f th e c a s e ” to s e n te n c in g d e te rm in a tio n s . I n ot herw or ds , t he pr os ecut i on w oul d be r equi r ed t o r ai s e anyobj ect i ons t o the P S R in th e in iti a l se n ten c in g ; if th e in iti a l se n ten c e is re v e rse d , the re m a n d w o u ld be l i m i t ed t o corr ect i ng t he err ori dent i fi ed on appe al and w oul d notext end t o de novo re c a lc u la tio n o f

th e e n tir e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s ra n g e . T his i s si m i l ar t o t he w ay app eal s w ork i n other l egal con t exts . A s a gener al rul e, “once a courtdeci des an i s s ue, t he s ame i s s ue maynotbe r el i t i gat ed i n s ubs equentpr ocee di ngs i n t he s ame cas e. ” G rigsby v. Ba rnha rt , 294 F. 3d 1215, 1218 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng Ut e Indi an Tri be of the Ui ntah and O ur ay R es er vat i on v. Utah , 1 1 4 F .3 d 1 5 1 3 , 1 5 2 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 )). A c c o rd in g to th is d o ctri n e, l o w er c o u rtruli n g s n o t con test ed o n ap p ea l are ab an d o n ed

— theyare as s i m i l at ed i nt o t he l aw of the ca s e— and maynotbe r evi s i t ed upon r emand a b s e n t c o m p e llin g c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See D em ar es tv. P r i ce , 1 3 0 F .3 d 9 2 2 , 9 4 2 n .9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ).-5-

T her e i s no doctr i nal r eas on w hys ent enci ng cal cul at i ons cannotbe su bjected to this rule. T h ese ca lculati o n s are ex p resslyfo u n d b ythe tri al co u rt b a se d o n e v id e n c e p re se n ted to it. T e lli n g ly , w e d o n o t allo w trial c o u rts to r evi s i tot herl egal orfac tual fi ndi ngs on r emand w hen, as i n the ca s e of s ent enci ng cal cul at i ons , t he pr edi cat e evi dence forthos e fi ndi ngs w as avai l abl e at th e tim e o f

th e o ri g in a l h e a ri n g . S e e Un ite dS ta te s v . Mo n s is v a is , 946 F. 2d 114, 117 ( 10t h C i r . 1991) . I f the governm entr ecomm ends a mi s cal cul at ed s ent ence at th e trial le v e l, an d fa ils to c h a llen g e o r o th e rw ise c o rre c t it s m ista k e s o n a p p e a l, law -of-th e-c ase d o ctri n e su g g ests theysh o u ld n o t be a ll o w ed to tak e a sec o n d try on r emand. E v e n if su c h a n a p p ro a c h w e re n o t ad o p ted w h o les a le, in d iv id u a l ap p e llate panel s m i ght co n side r ph rasing their rem an d s in se n tenc ing d ec isi o n s m o re n a r r o w l y. N oteveryr emand forr e- s ent enci ng need be de novo . A p p e llate c o u rts a re e n title d to d ir e c t lo w e r c o u rt s to a d d re s s o n ly sp e c ific is s u e s o n re m a n d . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Webb , 9 8 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 7 -8 8 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Sm ith , 116 F. 3d 857, 859 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) ( hol di ng thaton r emand “the di s tr i ct c o u rt is f

re e to re c o n sid e r th e se n ten c in g p a c k a g e d e n o v o u n les s th e a p p e llate c o u rt h a s s p e c ific a lly lim ite d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n o n re m a n d ” ). Fi nal l y , di s t r i ctcour t s w oul d do w el l t o t ake the pos s i bi l i tyof an “ appea l t ax” i nt o acc ounti n t hei rexer ci s e of B ookers ent enci ng di s cr et i on. T i t l e 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 6) i ns t ruct s court s t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es-6-

among defendant s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l ar con du ct . If i ti s true that defend ants w ho se PS R s have b een recal culat ed as a res ultof ap peal and rem and sy st em at i cal l yrecei ve h i gh er s entences than tho se w ho do not , t hi s pr ovi s i on s ugges t s thatdi s tr i ctcour t s s houl d t ake not i ce a nd do s o m e th in g to c o u n te r i t.