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 

### M ar c h 2,2007 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- 6269 v. ( W . D . O kl ahoma) DAMI ON DWAN GI L BR E AT H,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 20 1- F)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T A C H A , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , P O R F IL IO and AN DE RS ON , C irc u it Judg es.

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 hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. D ami on D w an G i l br eath w as i ndi ct ed forone countof pos s es s i on of a firearm af

ter a fe lon yco n v ict ion , in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U . S . C . § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ). A fter a-2-

ju ryfa iled to re a c h a u n a n im o u s v e rd ict, a m istria l w a s d e c lar e d . P rio r to h is r etr i al , G i l br eath pl ed gui l t yt o pos s es s i ng a fi r earm , know i ng orhavi ng r e a s o n a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e i twa s s t o l e n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. § 9 2 2 (j ) . He w as s ent ence d t o 108 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed bythr ee y ear s of s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e . Gi l b r e a t h a p p e a l s h i s s e n t e n c e , wh i c h we a ffi r m.

BA CKGROUND O n O c t o b e r8 , 2 0 0 5 , J o e G a d d i s o f H & G A u t o C e n t e ri n O k l a h o m a C i t y, Ok l a h o ma , r e p o r t e d t o a n Ok l a h o ma Ci typ o l i c e o ffi c e rt h a tt h e r e we r e p r o b l e ms w i t h g ang m em bers cong regat i ng athis bu si ness aft er hours. G add i s al so in d ica ted th a t h e h a d lea rn e d th a t th e re w a s s u p p o se d to b e a g a n g fig h t at h is bus i nes s t hatni ghtand he a s ked i f pol i ce offi cer s coul d di s per s e any one l i nger i ng around his bu si ness. L at ert hats ame eveni ng, pol i ce offi cer s s aw betw een e i ghtand tw el ve peopl e s t andi ng out s i de the H & G A ut o C ent er . B eca us e of the t i p and the fa ct t hats om e of the mem ber s of the gr oup w er e w ear i ng cl othi ng as s oci at ed w i th a know n gang, t he off

i cer s appr oache d the gr oup. A s t he off i cer s appr oache d, G il b rea th left th e g rou p an d b eg an w alkin g aw ay . A s the o fficers g o t cl o ser, G i l br eath change d di r ect i ons and w al ked t o the bac k of a pi ckup truck, w her e he r eac hed underneath hi s s hi r tand then dr opped an obj ecton the bed of t he pi ckup tru c k . T h e o ffic e rs h e a rd a lo u d m e ta llic b a n g a s th e o bje c t h it th e tru c k b e d .-3-

B e liev in g th a t G ilb re a th h a d ju st d isc a rd e d a w e a p o n , the o ffice rs o rd e re d h im to p u t h is h a n d s u p a n d n o t m o v e . A lo a d e d H i-P o in t .40 c a lib e r se m iau to m a tic p is to l w a s fo u n d in th e p ic k u p tru c k b e d . A u th o ri tie s th e n a rr e s te d G ilb re a th . T heyl at erdi s cover ed thatt he gun had be en s t ol en. A s i ndi cat ed, G i l br eath ul t i m at el ypl ed gui l tyt o one countof pos s es s i on of a s t ol en fi r earm , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922(j ) . I n pr epar at i on fors ent enci ng, t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce pr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch cal cul at ed an a dvi s or ys ent enci ng r ange unde rthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on G ui del i nes M anual ( “U SSG ”) ( 2005) . T he PSR cal cul at ed G i l br eath’ s bas e offens e l evel as tw enty - four , beca us e he ha d atl eas ttw o pr i or fel onyconvi ct i ons forei t hera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance o ffe n s e . P u rs u a n t to U S S G § 2 K 2 .1 (b )( 4 ), t h e o ffe n s e le v e l w a s in c re a s e d b ytw o . W i t h a t w o - l e v e l d o w n w a r d a dj u s t m e n tfo ra c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i ty, G il b rea th’s total offe n se lev el w as tw en ty -fo u r. W ith a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry V I, t he ad vis oryG uidel i ne rang e w as 100 t o 1 20 m on ths. G il b rea th o bjected to the P S R , arg u ing that the “ crim inal h ist o ry c o m p u tatio n a ss e ss in g c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts fo r e a c h c rim e is n o t an a c c u ra te r e fl e c t i o n o f

h i s c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y . ” Ad d e n d u m t o P S R a t2 2 , R. Vo l . 4 . He conce ded thathe w as arr es t ed and c har ged w i th fel onydrug pos s es s i on on a num berof occ as i ons betw een 1993 a nd 1995, al ong w i th s ever al m i s demeanor c h a rg e s fo r p o ss e ss io n o f m a riju a n a , d riv in g u n d e r th e in flu e n c e a n d /o r w h ile-4-

hav i ng a suspen ded l i cense, and bail j um ping. H ow ever, he argu ed that , becau se t heyw er e al l di s pos ed of t ogetheri n a s i ngl e courtpr ocee di ng i n J ul y1996 w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a one- y ears ent ence , the ca s es s houl d be vi ew ed as a “c ont i nui ng cour s e of c onduct . ” I d. at23. H e furtherar gued thata s er i es of ca s es i n 1998 and 1999 “i nvol vi ng t he us e and di s tr i but i on of m ar ij uana, and on one oc cas i on pos s es s i on of V al i um ” al s o w er e r es ol ved i n a s i ngl e j udi ci al pr ocee di ng, res ult i ng i n a ten- y ear s entence. Id. H e t hu s ar gu ed thatvirtuall yal l of these cas es w er e “r el at ed ca s es ” underU SSG §4A 1. 2, comm ent . n. 3. G i l br eath ar gued h is cri m inal h ist o ryca tego rysh o u ld b e a V , n o t a V I. I n r e s po ns e , t he pr ob a t i on offi c e rpo i nt e d o uttha tthe r e l e va ntU SSG pr ovi s i on s t at es t hat“pr i ors ent ence s ar e notcons i der ed r el at ed i f theyw er e for offe ns es t hatw er e s epar at ed byan i nt erveni ng arr es t( i . e. the defendanti s arr es t ed fort he fi r s toffe ns e pr i ort o comm i t t i ng the s econd offens e) . ” I d. at24. T he pr obat i on offi ceracc or di ngl ys t at ed thatG i l br eath’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as co rrectl yasse ssed as c ateg o ryV I. G i l br eath al s o ar gued thathe s houl d r ece i ve a de partur e orvar i ance fr om t he advi s or yG ui del i ne r ange be caus e hi s “pos s es s i on of the fi r earm [l as t ed] for no m or e than a few m i nut es and the fa cthi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryi s over s t at ed. ” I d. T he pr obat i on offi cerr es ponded thatG i l br eath cl ear l ypos s es s ed the w eapon no m at t erhow m anym i nut es i tencompas s ed, he cl ear l ypl ed gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of-5-

t he fi r earm , and he r ei t er at ed thatG i l br eath’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw as corr ect l ycal cul at ed. A t h is s e n ten c in g h e a rin g , G ilb re a th c o n c e d e d th a t th e in ter v e n in g a rre sts r ender ed unava i l abl e hi s ar gum entthathi s pr i orconvi ct i ons w er e r el at ed for p u rp o se s o f

a ss e ss in g c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts. H e c o n tin u e d to a rg u e , as h e h a d in h is sen tenc ing m em o ran d u m , that h is cri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryV I o v errep rese n ted h is actua l cri m inal h ist o ryan d w as g rou n d s fo r a d o w n w ard var i ance . G i l br eath’ s couns el ar gued “ther e w er e a numberof arr es t s for co n tr o ll ed su b stan ce v iolati o n s, b u t . . . to the ex tent that there are o n es th at are s i m pl yforpos s es s i on, t hos e ar e more evi dentof hi s drug pr obl em atthe t i m e as oppos ed t o s om e s or tof cr i m e s pr ee orpr ey i ng on s oci ety . ” Tr. of Sent enci ng H r ’ g at6, R . V ol . 3. T he courtr evi ew ed G i l br eath’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand made t he fol l ow i ng ob servati on s: So he’ s had ni ne fe l onypr os ecut i ons . G oi ng byarr es tdat es i n the fel onycas es , he has had ni ne oppor tuni t i es t o deci de thathe has s een th e lig h t. A n d th e ra tio n a le r e a llyfo r th e in ter v e n in g a rre st ru le is t hat. . . as appl i ed t o t hi s cas e, w e don’ ttr eatthes e ca s es as r el at ed cas es forpurpos es of . . . G ui del i ne 4A 1. 2 r atherbeca us e he fel tthe l ong arm of the l aw ni ne di ffe r entt i m es w hen he w as arr es t ed ni ne differ ent t i m es.

. . . H e gotarr es t ed on al l thos e s epar at e t i m es and kepton co m m itti n g crim es, w h ich c ertainlyd issi p ates a n ytend en cyto reg ard hi m , ei t herforpurpos es of G ui del i ne 4A 1. 2 orotherw i s e as bei ng l es s cul pabl e.W e have r ece nt l yexpl ai ned the di ffe r ence betw een a departur e and a 1 var i ance fr om an advi s or yG ui del i ne r ange: [W ] hen a c our tr eac hes a s ent ence above orbel ow t he r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of C hapt erFourorFi ve of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes , t he r es ul t i ng i ncr eas e ordecr eas e i s r efe rr ed t o as a “de par tur e. ” W hen a c our tenhanc es ordetr act s fr om t he recom m end ed rang e t hroug h ap pli cat i on of § 35 53 (a) fact ors, h o w e v e r, t h e in c re a s e o r d e c re a s e is c a lle d a “ v a ri a n c e .” U n it ed S tat es v . A tenc io, N o . 0 5 -22 7 9 , 2 0 0 7 W L 1 0 2 9 7 7 , at *5 n . 1 (10 th C ir . Jan . 1 7 , 2 0 0 7 ). -6-

I reco g n ize tha t I d o h av e the d iscreti o n to d ep art do w n w ard b ase d o n the a rgu m en t th at th e a ctua l fac ts as to h is cri m inal h ist o ry s how t hatt he t echni cal cal cul at i on of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or yover s t at es t he s er i ous nes s of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . R ecogni zi ng thatI do have th a t d e p a rtu re , I d e c lin e to d e p a rt d o w n w a rd . I b e liev e th a t h is c rim in a l h isto ry , as se t fo rth in th e p re se n ten c e in v e stig a tio n re p o rt, i s notonl yt echni cal l yacc ur at e, i ti s al s o ent i r el yfai ras a fa ctual m att er. I d. at11- 12. G i l br eath’ s couns el t hen ar gued fora dow nw ar d var i ance ordevi at i on bas ed upon t he s ent enci ng fac t or s s et for th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . H e ar gued 1 th a t th e n a tu re o f

a n d c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e in sta n t o ffe n se su p p o rt a dow nw ar d var i ance , i n thatG i l br eath “pos s es s ed” the gun verybr i efl y , he had a v e ryd ifficu lt ch ild h o o d e n v iro n m e n t w h e re h e e x p e rie n c e d e a rlye x p o su re to gangs and gang a ct i vi t i es , and thathe i s comm i t t ed t o hel pi ng r ai s e hi s t hr ee y oung chi l dr en. T he courtt hen r eci t ed al l t he s ent enci ng fac t or s cont ai ned i n § 3553( a) and s t at ed:-7-

A ppl y i ng al l t hos e fa ct or s and gi vi ng appr opr i at e w ei ghtt o the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes on an advi s or ybas i s , the s ent ence I i nt end t o i m pos e i s a s ent ence of 108 m onths of i ncar cer at i on, w hi ch i s t ow ar d the l ow erend of the gui del i ne r ange. T h e re a so n fo r th a t . . . is a d e q u a telye x p re ss e d b ya n a n a ly sis of the fa ct s w hi ch br oughtthi s defe ndantt o a t ot al offe ns e l evel of 24 and a cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ryof 6 . I, for that r eason, do no tres t on t he gui del i nes al one i n det erm i ni ng that108 m onths i s an appr opr i at e s ent ence i n t hi s cas e. I d. at24. G i l br eath appea l s , ar gui ng es s ent i al l ythe s ame ar gum enthe made t o the dis t ri ctcou rtatsent encing: “W as the d i stri ctcou rt ’s sent ence o f 10 8 m on ths’ confi nementr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the t empora rynatur e of the pos s es s i on of the firearm an d the fac t a crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f V I ov errep rese n ted M r. G i l br eath’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y [?] ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at1.

DI S CU S S I ON Si nc e t he Sup r e me Cour t ’ s de c i s i on i n Uni t e d St a t e s v. Booke r , 54 3 U. S. 220 ( 2005) , t he form er l ym andat oryfede r al s ent enci ng G ui del i nes ar e now adv i sory . “P ost -B oo ker, w e revi ew sent encing d eci si on s for r easona bleness , w h i c h h a s b o t h p r o c e d u r a l a n d s u b s t a n t i v e c o m p o n e n t s . ” A t e n c i o , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 0 2 9 7 7 , at *6 . “In sett ing a p roc ed u rall yrea so n ab le sen tenc e, a d istri ct co u rt m us tcal cul at e the pr operadvi s oryG ui del i nes r ange a nd appl yt he fa ct or s s etT o the e x tent G il b rea th arg u es th at his sen tenc e is u n rea so n ab le i n p art 2 beca us e the di s t r i ctcour tr efus ed, i n i t s di s cr et i on, t o departdow nw ar d, w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overt hatcl ai m . U ni t ed St at es v. C havez - D i az, 444 F. 3d 1223, 1229 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) . H ow ever , “w e have j ur i s di ct i on pos t - B ookert o r evi ew t he s ent ence i m pos ed forr eas onabl enes s . ” I d. -8- fo rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” I d . “A su b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le s e n ten c e u lti m a telyre flec ts t he gr avi t yof the cr i m e and the § 3553( a) fac t or s as appl i ed t o the ca s e. ” I d. B ec au se d istri ct co u rt s co n ti n u e to c alcu lat e a G u idelines sen tenc e a s p art of thei rdet erm i nat i on of a r eas onabl e s ent ence , “w e cont i nue t o r evi ew the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s appl i cat i on of the G ui del i nes de novo, and w e r evi ew anyfac tual fin d in g s fo r c lea r e rro r.” U n ited S tate s v . T o w n ley, 4 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 6 7 , 1 2 7 5 -7 6 (1 0 th C i r. 20 07 ). W here a dis t ri ctcou rt“corr ect l yapp l i es the G uidel i nes and i m po ses a s ent ence w i t hi n t he appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange, thats ent ence ‘ i s ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ’ ” I d. at1276 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. K ri stl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (pe r cu ri am )). 2 G i l br eath does notappea rt o m ake a pr ocedur al chal l enge t o the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s cal cul at i on of hi s s ent ence . H e onl ychal l enges t he 108- m onth t erm on su b sta n tiv e g ro u n d s, g iv e n th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th e o ffe n se a n d h is al l egedl yoverr epr es ent ed cr i m i nal hi s t ory . W e conc l ude thatG i l br eath has fai l ed t o r ebutt he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s acc or ded t o hi s w i thi n- G ui del i ner ange s ent ence . T he di s t r i ctcourthear d ext ens i ve ar gum ent , both w r i t t en and o ra l, f ro m G ilb re a th ’s c o u n s e l o n w h ya v a ri a n c e o r d e p a rt u re w a s w a rr a n te d . T h e d istric t co u rt w e n t th ro u g h a ll th e re lev a n t fa c to rs a n d e x p lain e d th o ro u g h lyW e have s t at ed befor e that , i n the cont extof a fel on- i n- pos s es s i on 3 pr os ecut i on, “‘ even i f a fel on hel d a fi r earm fora mer e s econd ort w o, unl es s t hat fe lo n tru lyd id n o t k n o w th a t w h a t h e p o ss e ss e d w a s a fire a rm . . . § 9 2 2 (g ) w ill s t i l l i m pos e cr i m i nal l i abi l i t y . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. W i l l i ams, 403 F. 3d 1188, 1194 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . A d k ins, 19 6 F . 3 d 1 1 1 2 , 1 1 1 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )). G ilb re a th re lies u p o n W ill iam s, in w h ich w e re v e rse d a 2 1 0 -m o n th se n ten c e a n d re m a n d e d fo r re se n ten c in g . W ill iam s is fa c tu a llyd istin g u ish a b le fr om t hi s cas e and pr es ent ed a much m or e compel l i ng cas e forr es ent enci ng than does G i l br eath. We n o t e t h a tt h e S u p r e me Co u r th a s r e c e n t l yh e a r d o r a l a r g u me n ti n t wo 4 cas es w hi ch mayi m pactt he w ayw e r evi ew s ent ence s aft erB ooker . See U ni t ed St at es v. R i t a, 177 Fed. A ppx. 357 ( 4th C i r . ) , cert . gr ant ed, 127 S. C t . 551 ( 2006) ( N o. 06- 5754) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C l ai borne, 439 F. 3d 479 ( 8th C i r . ) , cert . gr ant ed, 1 2 7 S . C t. 5 5 1 (20 0 6 ) (N o . 0 6 -56 1 8 ). -9- w hyi tdi d notbel i eve thatG i l br eath’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryoverr epr es ent ed hi s actual cr i m i nal hi s t or yatal l . D es pi t e mul t i pl e arr es t s , char ges and tw o pr i s on t erm s , G i l br eath cont i nued t o vi ol at e the l aw . M or eover , nothi ng i n the ci r cumst ance s of the curr entoffe ns e, i ncl udi ng the br evi tyof hi s pos s es s i on of th e fire a rm , c o n v in c e s u s th a t th e se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le. G ilb re a th 3 in d isp u tab lyp o ss e ss e d th e w e a p o n , as h e p led g u iltyto th a t cr im e . In sh o rt, w hetherornota pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s appl i es t o the w i thi n- G ui del i ne r ange s ent ence , the s ent ence i m pos ed i n thi s cas e i s r eas onabl e, i n l i ghtof al l t he 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) fact ors. 4-10- CO NC L US I ON Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e A FFIRM t he s ent ence i n thi s cas e. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge