A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . 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, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 5, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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. 07- 2052 v. ( D . N ew M exi co) Y A M IL C H A H E IN E , J R .,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. (D . C . N o. 06 -C R -1156 -W J)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. Y ami l C hahei ne, J r . , pl eade d gui l tyi n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor th e D is tr ic t o f

N e w M e x ic o to p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e , s ee 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (b) (1) . T he d i stri ctcou rtsent enced him t o 2 7 m on ths’ im p ri s o n m e n t a n d fo u r ye a rs ’ s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . H e appe al s hi s s ent ence , cont endi ng t hathi s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e ats ent enci ng t he courti nvoked the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s decl ar ed i n Uni t ed Stat es v.-2-

Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e a g re e w ith M r. C h a h e in e th a t itw o u ld be err orfort he di s t r i ctcour tt o r el yon the pr es um pt i on, butw e conc l ude that M r . Ch a h e i n e h a s fa i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p l a i n e rr o r . W e th e r e fo r e a ffi r m. M r . C hahei ne w as s ent ence d on February6, 2007. I n i m pos i ng s ent ence , t he di s t r i ctcour tbegan bynot i ng thatbeca us e of the amountof drugs i nvol ved t he s t atut or ym i ni m um forM r . C hahei ne’ s offe ns e w as fi ve y ear s , butthathe w as el i gi bl e fora “s afe t yval ve” s ent ence bel ow thatm i ni m um beca us e of hi s cr i m i nal h is to ry, a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility, a n d c o o p e ra tio n . See U ni t ed St at es S entenci ng G uidel i nes (U S S G ) § 5C 1. 2. U nd er the G uidel i nes his base offense le v e l w a s 2 6 , s ee U SSG § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 7) ; beca us e he s at i s fi ed the s afe ty - val ve c ri te ri a h is o ffe n s e le v e l w a s re d u c e d b ytw o le v e ls , se e id . § 2D 1. 1( b) ( 9) ; and the s tip u la te d m in im a l- ro le a dju s tm e n t r e d u c e d it b ya n o th e r t h re e le v e ls , s ee id . § 3 B 1 .2 . A th re e -l e v e l a c c e p ta n c e -o f-r e s p o n s ib ility re d u c tio n , se e id . § 3E 1. 1, res ult ed in a t otal offense l evel of 18 and an ad vis oryrange o f 27 t o 3 3 m on ths’ im p riso n m e n t. A ft erexpl ai ni ng t he above cal cul at i on the di s tr i ctcourtm ade the fol l ow i ng com m ents : O ne thi ng aboutt he gui del i nes i n t erm s of the s ent enci ng fac t or s , one of the fa ct or s i s t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es among defendant s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho’ ve bee n found gui l tyof s i m i l arconductand thatw as . . . t he goal t hatC ongr es s had att he t i m e i tcr eat ed the s ent enci ng gui del i nes — orr ather , t he U ni t ed St at es S entenci ng C om m i ssi on . A nd t he rat i on al e for prom ulgat i ng t hese g u id e lin e s is so th a t o n e p e rso n sittin g in a c o u rtro o m in-3-

A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, does nothave a s i gni fi cantora gr eat s ent enci ng di s par i t yw i t h s om e defendantthat ’ s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed for t he s ame offens e that ’ s i n a courtr oom i n M i ami , Fl or i da, orL os An g e l e s , Ca l i fo r n i a ; i n o t h e rwo r d s , s o me c o n s i s t e n c y , s o me uni form i t ys o peopl e ar e bas i cal l ybei ng tr eat ed the s ame fors i m i l ar c o n d u c t. N ow , i t s nob l e and adm i rabl e t hat M r. C hah ei ne w ants t o assi st i n r a i s i n g h i s s o n a n d b e i n g a fa th e rfo rh i s s o n . An d y o u k n o w, oft ent i m es w hen a pa r ent ’ s i ncar cer at ed, the peopl e thats uffe rthe m os tar e the ki ds and the fa m i l ym ember s . B uti f y ou s t ar tcut t i ng or r educi ng s om ebody ’ s s ent ence beca us e theyhave a chi l d, thati tm ay po se a hardshi p, t hen y ou ’ve got t o d o itfor everybo dy , becau se vi r tual l yeverybodyt hatI s ee that ’ s i ncar cer at ed has fami l yout t her e. A nd t hati s w hatt he s ent enci ng comm i s s i on has di s cour aged, i s s ent en— y ou know , t aki ng thos e i nt o acc ount , beca us e aga i n, i f y ou s t a r td o i n g i tfo ro n e , yo u ’ v e g o tt o s t a r td o i n g i tfo re v e ryb o d y. A lso, i n term s o f th e lev el of co o p era ti o n , I ce rt ainly

— I ca n ’t cr i t i ci ze the defendantfornotgoi ng thr ough w i th the tr ans act i on, b ec au se h e d o es h av e fam il yin M ex ico. A n d itm ayv eryw ell [b e], bas ed on w hatM r . G onzal es s ai d, thatthe thr eat s and the i nt i m i dat i on t hathave oc curr ed r egar di ng the s i s t er , I m ean, had he gone thr ough w i t h t hatt r ans act i on, [he] pos s i bl ycoul d have e n d a n g e re d th e liv e s o f th o se in d iv id u a ls h e c a re s v e rym u c h a b o u t. B utt her e ar e thos e i ndi vi dual s , defe ndant s w ho go ahea d and w il l un d ertak e tha t kind o f d an g ero u s role, an d then theyg et w h at’s cal l ed the 5K ort he s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . A nd agai n, I m ean no cr i t i ci s m s t ow ar d M r . C hahei ne, butther e i s a di s t i nct i on betw een acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i tyand pr ovi di ng the l evel of coope r at i on t hathe di d pr ovi de compar ed t o thos e defendant s w ho w i l l go ahea d and— go ahea d and go furtherw i th a tr ans act i on. A nd s o hi s l evel of cooper at i on, w hi l e ce r t ai nl yi ti s admi r abl e, i tdi dn’ tr i s e t o the l evel o f a su b stan ti al assist an ce , an d so that’s an o ther fac tor th at I’m lo o k in g a t. So w hen I l ook att hi s , w hen I s ee thathe w as i ni t i al l yl ooki ng atfi ve y ear s , and thr ough hi s acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , thr ough the ro le adjustm en t, thro u g h the s afetyv alve an d h is assist an ce , h e’s b a s ic a lly re d u c e d h is e x p o s u re b ym o re th a n h a lf.-4-

R . V ol . V at16–18. T he courtt hen made the r emar k upon w hi ch M r . C hahei ne b a se s h is a p p e a l: I l ook att he s ent enci ng fac t or s , and aga i n, the Kris tlc a s e , y o u k n o w, w hetherornoty ou agr ee w i th i t , r i ghtnow i ti s contr ol l i ng pr ece dent in th is c irc u it, a n d so I’m lo o k in g a t th e to talityo f th is re c o rd , this P re s e n te n c e R e p o rt , a ll th e a rg u m e n ts th a t h a v e b e e n a d v a n c e d . I fi nd t hat the g uidel i ne sentence on the low end of 2 7 m on ths i s a r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e , t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n tth e fa c t o r s o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 5 3 (a). Id . at18. U n d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w e r evi ew s ent ence s forr eas onabl enes s . R eas onabl enes s has both pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve c o m p o n e n ts . S e e Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 4

– 5 5 . “T o im p o se a p ro c e d u ra lly r eas onabl e s ent ence , a di s t r i ctcourtm us tcal cul at e the pr operadvi s or yG ui del i nes r ange a nd appl yt he fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Tom , N o . 0 5 -2 3 4 7 , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 1 9 3 6 5 7 , at * 2 (1 0 th C ir. A u g . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) (b ra c k e ts and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . A s ent ence w i thi n a corr ect l ycal cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange i s ent i t l ed on appe l l at e r evi ew t o a pr es um pt i on of re a s o n a b le n e s s . S e e id . B uti ti s i m pr operfordi s tr i ctcour t s t o r el yon the p re s u m p tio n w h e n im p o s in g s e n te n c e . See Ri ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2465 ( 2007) . R ather , t he s ent enci ng j udge i s t o cons i derthe fa ct s of the offens e, t he defendant ’ s char act er i s t i cs , and the purpos es of s ent enci ng i n fas hi oni ng an a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e . S e e id .-5-

B eca us e M r . C hahei ne di d notobj ectt o the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s m ent i on of Kris tl a t s e n te n c in g , w e re v ie w o n ly fo r p la in e rr o r. See Uni t ed Stat es v. G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 4 0 3 F .3 d 7 2 7 , 7 3 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 4 7 6 F . 3 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 5 n . 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (en b an c fo o tno te). “P lai n erro r oc cu rs w hen ther e i s ( 1) err or , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, w hi ch ( 3) affect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and w hi ch ( 4) s er i ous l yaffect s t he fa i rnes s , i nt egr i ty , orpubl i c r eput at i on of the j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” G o n za les -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d at732 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . T o s at i s fyt he thi r d pr ong, the defendantm us ts how thatthe err or a ffe c te d th e o u tc o m e o f th e p ro c e e d in g s . S e e id . at732–33. T hi s i ncl udes s how i ng “a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tythat , butforthe err orcl ai m ed, the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have be en di ffe r ent . ” S e e id . at733 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted). M r . C hahei ne has fai l ed t o m ake thi s thi r d- pr ong s how i ng. T he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s comm ent s w er e di r ect ed atw hyM r . C hahei ne s houl d notbe s ent ence d d iffe re n tly f

ro m o th e rs w ith th e s a m e o ffe n s e le v e l a n d c ri m in a l h is to ry. U ni form i t y , of cour s e, i s a s t r ong r eas on fors ent enci ng w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange. B utr ecogni t i on of the vi r tue of “ uni form i tys o peopl e ar e bas i cal l ybei ng t r eat ed the s ame fors i m i l arconduct , ” R . V ol . V at16, i s notthe s ame as im p o sing a p resu m p ti o n o f re aso n ab lene ss fo r G u idelines sen tenc es. T h e c o u rt ’s r efe r ence t o Kris tlappea r s t o be more a r at i fi cat i on of i t s pr evi ous l yexpr es s ed re a so n in g th a n a n a d d iti o n a l fa c to r th a t ch a n g e d th e c o u rt’s r e a so n in g . In sh o rt,-6-

M r . C hahei ne has notper s uaded us that“the r es ul tof the pr ocee di ng w oul d have been di ffe r ent , ” G o n za lez -Hu e rta , 403 F. 3d at733 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) , i f the courthad notcons i der ed Kris tl . M r. C h a h e in e ’s s e n te n c e is A F F IR M E D . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge