In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-1459

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GILBERT SPILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 11 CR 742 — Charles P. Kocoras, Judge.

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 — DECIDED OCTOBER 10, 2013

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,

Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Gilbert Spiller was charged with two

counts of distributing cocaine base, and one count of selling a

firearm to a felon. He pleaded guilty. The government sought

enhanced punishment under 21 U.S.C. § 851 due to Spiller’s

prior felony drug convictions. At sentencing, neither side

objected to the calculated Guidelines range of 262 to 327

months. Spiller’s counsel, however, argued for a below-
2 No. 13-1459

Guidelines sentence, contending that the § 851 enhancement

created an unwarranted sentencing disparity. The district court

imposed a sentence of 240 months. Spiller now appeals

the sentence to this Court, contending the district court

failed to adequately consider his argument concerning the

§ 851 enhancement. We affirm the sentence imposed by the

district court.

I. BACKGROUND

Spiller has a lengthy criminal history. He was first charged

in 1989 at age 13 and found to be a delinquent for attempted

criminal sexual assault. In 1995, he was convicted as an adult

of two counts of aggravated battery with a firearm and one

count of aggravated discharge of a firearm. He was sentenced

to 20 years’ imprisonment, and was released in 2004. In 2005,

while on parole, Spiller was convicted of aggravated battery of

a police officer. In 2006, he was convicted of possession of

heroin, and was convicted for possession of a controlled

substance stemming from two separate arrests in 2007.

On November 17, 2011, a grand jury returned an indictment

charging Spiller in two counts with distributing more than 28

grams of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and

one count of selling a loaded firearm to a felon in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1). On November 18, 2011, the government

filed a notice seeking increased punishment pursuant to

§ 851(a), since Spiller had three prior felony drug convictions.

On September 12, 2012, Spiller pleaded guilty to all three

counts. The presentence investigation report determined that

Spiller was a career offender and so applied the career offender

Guidelines § 4B1.1(b). Together with the § 851 recidivism
No. 13-1459 3

enhancement, the report determined the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range to be 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment.

At sentencing, both sides agreed that the Guidelines range

was correctly calculated. Spiller’s counsel, however, argued

that the § 851 enhancement unreasonably inflated the Guidelines range, resulting in an unwarranted sentencing disparity.

After weighing the § 3553(a) factors, the district court sentenced Spiller to 240 months’ imprisonment, as well as an

eight-year term of supervised release. After the sentence

was imposed, Spiller’s counsel asked the court for his position

concerning § 851 and its impact on the Guidelines range. The

district court acknowledged the effect of the § 851 enhancement on Spiller’s sentence, stating, “I am not saying it does not

impact [the sentence], but the sentence I have derived, since it

is below the Guidelines, it is what I think is called for in this

case ... given all of the criteria of 3553 and all of the circumstances.”

II. DISCUSSION

This Court reviews de novo whether the district court

committed any procedural error during sentencing. United

States v. Gibbs, 578 F.3d 694, 695 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v.

Olmeda-Garcia, 613 F.3d 721, 723 (7th Cir. 2010). A sentencing

court commits procedural error by not adequately explaining

its choice of sentence. United States v. Schlueter, 634 F.3d 965,

966-67 (7th Cir. 2011). While a sentencing court is not required

to explain its view on every argument in mitigation or aggravation, it should give reasons to explain the prison sentence

imposed. United States v. Acosta, 474 F.3d 999, 1003 (7th Cir.

2007). “The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy
4 No. 13-1459

the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal

decision making authority.” United States v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338,

356 (2007). However, “as long as the sentencing court considers

the arguments made in mitigation, even if implicitly and

imprecisely, the sentence imposed will be found reasonable.”

United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345, 355 (7th Cir. 2010). 

The purpose of § 851 is to target recidivism. United States

v. Garcia, 32 F.3d 1017, 1019-20 (7th Cir. 1994). 21 U.S.C.

§ 851(a)(1) states,

No person who stands convicted of an offense under

this part shall be sentenced to increased punishment

by reason of one or more prior convictions, unless

before trial, or before entry of a plea of guilty, the

United States attorney files an information with the

court (and serves a copy of such information on the

person or counsel for the person) stating in writing

the previous convictions to be relied upon. 

Here, the government sought a § 851 enhancement based

on Spiller’s prior felony convictions, and Spiller does not

dispute that it was within the government’s discretion to do so.

Instead, Spiller contends that the district court committed

procedural error when it failed to adequately consider the

effect of § 851 on the calculation of the Guidelines range. We

disagree. At sentencing, Spiller asked the district court to “look

at the crime and focus on the crime and put a sentence based

on what other people get for that crime.” The district court

considered Spiller’s argument, but ultimately rejected it,

explaining that “the nature of this defendant trumps and
No. 13-1459 5

overrides and overwhelms the nature of the crime in this case.”

It stated that “[Spiller’s] criminal record is so bad and so

replete with conduct of violence,” that a greater sentence was

warranted. The district court focused heavily on Spiller’s

conviction for the sale of a firearm to a felon, and reasoned that

this merited a longer sentence. It explained, “It is one thing to

sell crack cocaine. It is another to sell a gun that is notably

intended for use to kill business competitors or to maim them

and make the streets safer for the seller of the drugs and not for

society.” The court imposed a below-Guidelines sentence

of 240 months “in major recognition of the nature of the crime,

and the crack/powder disparity,” but explained that a longer

sentence was necessary due to Spiller’s extensive criminal

history. Though the district court never explicitly addressed

Spiller’s § 851 argument, it did so implicitly, and performed

the requisite analysis. The court provided a reasoned explanation of the 240-month sentence it imposed, which was 22

months below the recommended Guidelines range. The court

committed no error, and we AFFIRM.