### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-1459

U NI T E D S TAT E SOF A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

G I L B E R T S P I L L E R , Defen dant-Appellant.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, Eastern Di v i sio n. No. 11 CR 74 2 — Cha rles P. Kocoras , Judg e.
A RGU E D S E PT E MB E R 27, 2013

— D E C I D E D O C T OB E R 10, 2013

Before W O OD, Chief Judge, and B AU E R and E A S T E R B R OO K , Circ uit Judges. B AU E R , Cir cui t Judge. Gi lbert S pi ller w as ch arg ed wi th tw o counts of di strib uti ng cocaine base, and one c ount of selling a fi rear m to a felon. He pleaded gui lty

. The government sought enhanc ed puni shm ent under 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 due to Spill er’s prior felony drug convic tions

. At sentencing, nei ther side objecte d t o the calculated Gui delines range of 262 to 327 months. Spill er’s couns el, how ev er , arg ued for a below-2 No. 13-1459
Gui delines sentence, contendi ng that the § 8 5 1 enhanc ement created an unwa rr a n ted sentencing di spari ty

. The di stric t court i mpo se d a sentence of 240 months. Spill er now appeals the sentence to thi s Court, cont e nd ing the di stric t court failed to adequately consi der hi s arg ument concerning t he § 851 enhanc ement

. W e affi rm the sentence i mposed by the di stric t court

. I. BACKGRO UND Spill er has a lengthy cri minal hi stor y
. He w as fi rst charged in 1989 at age 13 and found to be a delinquent for atte mpt e d
cr imin al sexual assault. In 1995, he w as conv i cted as an adult of tw o counts of aggr av ated batter y wi th a fi rear m and one count of aggr av ated di sch arg e of a fi rear m. He w as sentenced to 20 y ears’ i mpri sonment, and w as r elease d in 2004. In 2005, whi le on parole, Spill er w as convic ted of aggr av ated batter y of

a poli ce offi cer
. In 2 0 0 6 , he w as convic ted of possess i on of heroin, and w as convic te d fo r possess i on of a contro lled sub stance s temming from t w o separat e arr ests in 2007. On Nov e mb e r 1 7

, 2 0 1 1 , a gr and jury ret urned an indi ctment chargin g S pi ller in tw o c ounts wi th di strib uti ng more than 28 gr ams of c ocaine base in violati on of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) and
one count of selling a loaded fi rear m to a felon inviolati on of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)( 1). On N ov ember 18, 2011, the gov ernment fi led a notic e seeki ng increased puni shm ent pursuant to § 851(a), since Spill er had three prior felony drug convic tions

. On S e p t e mber 12, 2012, Spill er pleaded gui lty to all three counts. The presentence i nv esti gation repo rt deter mined t hat Spill er w as a career offender and so appli ed the career offender Gui delines § 4B1.1(b)

. T oge ther wi th the § 851 reci di vismNo. 13-1459 3
enhanc ement, the repo rt deter mined the appropr i ate Sente nci ng Gui delines range to be 262 to 327 mont hs’ i mpri sonment. At sentencing, both si des agr eed that the Gui delines range
w as corr ectly calc ulated. Spill er’s couns el , ho wev er , arg ued that the § 851 enhanc ement unreasonably inflated t he Gui delines range, resulti ng in an unw arr anted s entencing d i spari ty

. After w ei ghi ng the § 3553(a) fa ct o rs, the di stric t court sentenced Spill er to 240 months’ i mpri sonment, as w e l l as an ei ght-y ear t e r m of supervis ed release. After the sentence
w as i mposed, Spill er’s couns el asked the court for hi s posi tion concerning § 851 and its i mpact o n t he Gui delines r ange. The di stric t court acknowledged the effe ct of the § 851 enhanc ement on Spill er’s sentence, statin g, “I am not sayi ng i t does not i mpact [the sentence], but the sentence I hav e deriv ed, since i t i s below the Gui delines, i t i s what I thi nk i s called for in thi s
case
... giv en all of the cri ter i a of 3553 and all o f t he ci rcumstances .” II. DISCUSSION Thi s Court rev i ews de novo whether the di stric t court commi tte d any procedural err o r d uri ng sentencing. United States v
. Gibbs, 578 F .3d 694, 695 (7th Ci r . 2009); United States v
. Olmeda-Garcia, 613 F .3d 721, 723 (7t h C ir

. 2010). A sentencing court comm i ts procedural err or by not adequately explain ing i ts choi ce of sentence. United Stat es v
. Schl ueter , 634 F .3d 965, 966-67 (7th Ci r
. 2011). Whi le a sentencing court i s not required to e xplai n its v i ew on ev ery arg ument in mi tigati on or aggr av at io n, it should giv e reasons to explain the pris on sentence i mposed. United States v
. Acosta , 4 74 F .3d 999, 1003 (7th Ci r
. 2007). “The sentencing judge should set fort h enough to sati sfy4 No. 13-1459
the appellate court that he ha s consi dered the parties’ arg uments and has a reasoned basi s for exer ci sing hi s own legal deci si on makin g author i ty .” United Stat es v. Rita, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). How ev er

, “as long as the sentencing court consi ders the arg uments made in mi tigati on, ev en i f i mpli ci tl y and i mpreci sely

, the sent e nc e i mposed wi ll be found r easonable.” United S tat es v . Diekemper , 604 F .3d 345, 355 (7th Ci r . 2010). The purpose o f § 851 i s to tar get reci di vis m. United States
v
. Garcia, 32 F .3d 1017, 1019-20 (7th Ci r
. 1994). 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)( 1) states, No person who stands convic ted of an offe nse under thi s part shall be sentenced to increased puni shm ent by reason of one or more prior conv i cti ons, unles s before tr i al, or befo r e e nt r y of a plea of gui lty , the Uni ted St ates atto rney fi les an information wi th the court (and serv es a copy of such information on the person or couns el for t he person) statin g in wri tin g the prev i ous convi cti ons to be r eli ed upon. Here, the g o v ernment sought a § 851 enhanc ement based
on Spill er’s prior felony convic tions, and Spill er does not di spute that i t w as wi thi n the government’s di screti on to do so. Instead, S p i ller contends that the di stric t court commi tte d procedu r a l err or when i t fai led to adequately consi der the
e ff ect of § 851 on the calc ulati on of the Gui delines ra ng e
. W e di sagree. At sentencing, Spill er asked the di stric t court to “look at the cri me and focus on the cr ime a nd put a sentence based
on what other people get for that cri me.” The d ist r ict court consi dered Spill er’s arg ument, but ulti mately rej ected i t,
e x p l a ining that “the nature of thi s defendant tr umps andNo. 13-1459 5

ov err i des and ov erwhelms the nature of the cri me in thi s case.” It stated that “[Spi ller’ s] cr iminal recor d i s so bad and so replet e wi th conduct of violence,” that a gr eater sentence w as
w arr anted. The di stric t court focus ed he avily on Spill er’s convic tion for the sale of a fi rear m to a felon, and reasoned that thi s merited a longer sentence. It explai ned, “It i s one thi ng to sell crack cocaine. It i s another to sell a gun that is notably i ntended for use to kill bus iness competi tor s or to mai m them and make the street s safer for the seller of the drugs and not for soci ety

. ” The court i mposed a below-G ui delines sentence of 240 months “i n major recog ni tion of the nature of the cri me, and the crack/powder di spari ty ,” but explain e d that a longer sentence w as necess ary due to Spill er’s ext ensi v e cri minal his t o r y
. Though the di stric t court nev er explic i tly addressed Spill er’s § 8 51 arg ument, i t di d so i mpli ci tly , and perfor med the requis i te analysi s. The court prov i ded a reasoned explanation of th e 240-month sentence i t i mposed, whi ch w as 22 months below the recommended Gui delines range. The court commi tte d no err or

, and w e AFF IRM

.