FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1502 0 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 07-00004 -CR- T- N UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JONATHAN KEITH T HOMAS, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e M i d d l e D i s tr i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ay 2 8, 200 8) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Jonathan T hom as appe al s hi s 72 -m onth se nte nc e im pose d a ft er

ple ad ingThomas also ar gues that his due proc ess rig hts were violated when the district court 1 found that he c ommitt ed the a rmed robbe ry

with a Colt .38 revolver, e ven thoug h the g overnme nt had not y et pre sented a ll of its evidence to e stablish those facts. We re ject this argument, as the rec ord demonstrates that the cour t did not im pose sentenc e until after a sec ond sentenc ing hear ing in whic h the g overnme nt presente d additional corr oboratingtestimony from the victim of the ar med robbe ry

and witnesses to that off

ense. 2 gui lty to one c ount

of pos se ssi on o f a 9m

m f ir earm by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1). O n appeal, T hom as argues that (1) the district co urt vi olate d hi s du e pr oc es s r igh ts whe n it im pose d th e upw ar d vari an ce ba se d, in part, on hearsay

or unreliable testim ony

concerning an uncharged offense that did not qua lif y a s r el ev an t c ondu ct

und er the G uid el ine s, and ( 2) his se nte nc e is pr oc ed ur al ly or sub stanti ve ly

unr ea sona

ble . A ft er

atho ro ugh re vie wof

the 1 r e c o r d , w e a f

f i rm. I. InJanuary

200 7, T hom as w as ind ic te d f or pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m and am m uniti on bya convicted felon, in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g). T he firearm at iss ue in the ind ic tm en t w as a38 c al ibe r re vol ve r. I n M ay 200 7, the gov er

nm en t f i l e daf e l o n y i n f o rmat i o n c h a r g i n g Th o mas wi th p o s s e s s i o n o f af i r e arm b y a co nvi ct ed f el on, w hic h c ar

ri ed astatut or y m ax im um se nte nc e of

te n y ears ’ im pr iso nm en t. T he f

ir earm a t i ssu e in the inf

orm at ionw as a9m

m pis tol . P ur suant to a w ri tte n pl ea

a gr ee m en t, T hom as ple ad ed gui lty to the inf orm at ion , a dm itt ing that he pos se sse d a9m

m pis tol . I n e xc hange , the gov er nm en t a gr ee d to dis m iss3

th e in di ct m en t an d re co m m en d asen te nc e atth e lo w endof t he gu id el in es ran ge . The c ourt accepted T hom as’ s plea. T he P SI c al cu la te d th e gui de lin es r an ge a s 57 to 71 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t, ba se d inpart

on an e nhanc em en t f

or dis ch ar gin g af

ir earm . T his e nhanc em en t inv olv ed the use of

the 38 c al ibe r re vol ve r to c om m it a ro bbe ry

and s hoot

a t the v i c t i m. At the sentencing hearing, the governm ent called an A TF agent to testify th atTho m as us edth e 3 8 c al ib er t o ro b am an na m edCla ren ce M cMe an s. A cc or din g to the a ge nt, T hom as appr oa ch ed Mc Me an s, adr

ug d ea le r, poi nte d th e 38 c al ibe r w ea

pon at Mc Me an s, and d em an de d dr ugs, m one y , and M cM eans’ s c el l phon e. A fter M cMeans com plied and started to driv e aw ay , T hom as fire d three shot s in to M cM eans’ s c ar . T he A T F ag en t ha d no dir ec t kn ow le dge of the e ve nts and testified based on what she had been toldby local investigato rs. The court determ ined that it coul d not app ly an enhancem ent for discharging the 38 caliber firearm or consider the incident as relevant conduct un der the guidelines, but that it co uld be c onsi de re d un de r the se nte nc ing f ac tor s of 18 U . S. C. § 35 53( a) a s th e co urt w as “ ab sol ute ly ” ce rt ai n th at T hom as c om

m itt ed the r obbe ry

usi ng the 38 caliber pistol on th e sam e day he had possess ed the 9m m firearm . Thom as obj ec te d to the use of

thi s un ch ar ge d, non -r el ev an t c ondu ct to inc re as e his4

se nte nc e, not ing that the e vid en ce pr es en te d w as ba se d onunr el ia ble he ar say . T he co urt the n c ont inu ed

the se nte nc ing he ar ing to en ab le the gov er nm en t t o pr es en t ad dit ion al e vid en ce and w ar ne d T hom as that i t w as c onsi de ri ng a se nte nc e w el l ab ove the a dvi sor

y gui de lin es r an ge in lig ht o f thi s c ondu ct . A t the se co nd s en te nc ing he ar ing , the gov er nm en t pr es en te d te sti m ony f ro m the local investig ator, McMeans, and several w itnesses to th e robbery . Thom as w as giv enthe opp ortun ity to cr oss -e xam ine e ac h w itn es s and c ha lle nge the ir cr ed ibi lity . A ft er

he ar ing the e vid en ce , the c ourt c onc lud ed that the gov er

nm en t ha d e sta bli she d “be y ond a re as ona ble doubt” that T hom as use d a38 c al ibe r gun to ro b M cM eans. I n li ght

of the c ourt’ s f

ind ing s, the gui de lin es r an ge w as 30 t o 37 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t. P er

the te rm s of

the ple a ag re em en t, the gov er nm en t re co m m en de d ase nte nc e of

30 m onths. T he pr obatio n of fi ce r re co m

m en de d a sentence of 72 m onth s’ im prisonm ent based on Thom as’ s histo ry and crim inal reco rd , th e n eedto de te r fu tu re cr im es , andth e n eedto pro te ctth e p ub li c. De fense counsel then objected to the governm ent’ s failure to re com m end an ad dit ion al one -p oin t r ed

uc tio n f or a cc ep tanc e of

r es pons ibi lity

a s ou tli ne d inthe ple a ag re em en t. A ft er

dis cu ssi ng the iss ue , the c ourt a ppl ie d th e re duc tio n, m ak ing the gui de lin es r an ge 27 t o 33 m onths’ im pr iso nm en t. Th e c o u rtth en co n s i d er edth e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac t o rs , c o n cl u d i n g th at Th o m as ’s5

co nduc t - the pos se ssi on o f the 38 c al ibe r gun an d th e ro bbe ry - w as not adequately

taken into cons ideration in the gu idelines range. T he court addressed the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse , T hom as ’ s hi sto ry

and c hara ct er ist ic s, T hom as ’ s vi ole nt h ist or

y , the se ri ousn es s of

the of fe nse and the ne ed

to pr om ote respect f or the law s, protect the public, and deter future cr im es. The c ourt co nc lud ed

that a se nte nc e of

72 m onths’ im

pr iso nm en t w as suf

fi ci en t bu t no t gr eate r than ne ce ssary

to m ee t the se goa ls. T hom as nowappe al s.

II. W e re view de novo consti tutio nal challenges to a sentence. United State s v. Ca nt el la no , 43 0 F .3d11 42 , 11 44 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). T he F if th A m en dm en t t o th e U . S. Co nst itu tio n pr ohi bit s ape rs on f ro m be ing de pr ive d of

li fe , li be rty , or

pr ope rty w ith out due pr oc es s of

law . U . S. Co nst . am en d. V . D ue pr oc es s, in the se nte nc ing c ont ex t, r equir es that the de fe ndant “be giv ena de quate not ic e an d an op portun ity to co nte st the f

ac ts r el ie d up on t o supp ort hi s c ri m ina l pe na lty . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. S atte rf

ie ld, 743 F . 2d 8 27, 840 (11th Cir. 1984). “ The def endant need not, however, be acc orded the sam e degree of due pr oc es s pr ote ct ion s duri ng the se nte nc ing pha se a s w as r equir ed a t the cr im ina l tri al . ” I d. “ T he sol e int er es t be ing pr ote ct ed is the r igh t no t t o be se nte nc ed on the ba sis of

inv al id p re m ise s or

ina cc ur at e inf

orm at ion . ” I d. T hus,6

“ [t] he degree of protection required is onl y that which is necessary

to ensure that the dis tr ic t c ourt i s su ff

ic ie ntl y inf orm ed to en ab le it

to ex er ci se it s se nte nc ing dis cr et ionin ane nli ght en ed m anne r. ” I d. Judg es m ay

c onsi de r out -o f- co urt i nf orm at iona t se nte nc ing a s lo ng a s th e in fo rm at io n i s re li ab le an d t he de fen da nt is gi ve n t he op po rtu ni ty to re bu t i t. U nit ed S ta te s v. Re m e, 738 F . 2d 1 156, 116 7 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) . I n de te rm ini ng the re lia bil ity of he ar say , the c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r w he the r the state m en t i s co rro bo rat edor c on tra di ct edby oth er ev id en ce. Id . at 1 16 9. T o e sta bli sh a due pr oc es s vi olatio n ba se d onthe c ourt’ s r el ianc e on f al se or unreliable inform ation, the defendant m ust sh ow: “ (1) that the challenged evidence is m at er ia lly

f al se or unr el ia ble , and ( 2) that i t a ct

ua lly se rv ed a s th e ba sis f

or the se nte nc e. ” I d. a t 11 67. I f the de fe ndant m ee ts h is b ur de n, w e w ill r em an d to the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or ane wse nte nc ing he ar ing . I d. Credibility

findings are within the province of the factf inder. S ee United States v. Pineiro, 389 F. 3d 13 59, 1366 (11t h Cir. 2004 ). Moreover, “ ‘ [t] he fac t that a w itness has con sistentl y lied in the past, engaged in various crim inal ac tiv iti es , and thoug h th at his te sti m ony

w oul d be ne fi t hi m

. . . doe s no t m ak e his te sti m ony inc re dib le . ’ ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. T hom

pson , 422 F . 3d 1 285, 129 1 ( 11th Ci r. 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Crav ero , 53 0 F .2d66 6, 6 70 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) ).7

“ Fo r te sti m ony

to be c onsi de re d in cr ed ibl e as am atte r of law , ‘ it m

ust be unbe lie vable on i ts f

ac e, i. e. , te sti m ony

a s to f ac ts tha t [ the w itn es s] c oul d no t have poss ibl y obs er ve d or e ve nts that c oul d no t have oc curr ed und er the law s of nature.’ ” Id. (quoting United State s v. Rivera , 775 F. 2d 15 59, 1561 (11t h Cir. 1985 )). T he dis tr ic t c ourt he re did not vio la te T hom as ’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts i n rely ing on the governm ent witnesses’ testim ony at sentencing in order to find that he e nga ge d inc ri m ina l c ondu ct oth er than th e ch ar ge d of

fe nse . F ir st, to the e xte nt the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d onthe A T F ag en t’ s te sti m ony , w hic h w as ba se d onthe hearsay , T hom as’ s due process rights were f ully preserved. T he hearsay statem ents bore a “ m inim al indicia of reliability ,” see Re m e, 738 F.2d at 1167, as th ey were co ns is te nt wit h t he tes ti m on y of o th er g ov ern m en t wi tn es se s. Mor eo ve r, T hom as ha d th e oppo rt uni ty to cr oss -e xam ine a ll of

the gov er

nm en t wit ne ss es . Se co nd, to the e xte nt tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt r el ie d onthe te sti m ony of the victim and the ey ew itnesses, T hom as has not satisfied hi s burden of provin g that th ei r te st im on y

was m at eri al ly fals e o r un rel iabl e so as t o d en y hi m du e p ro ces s. The w itnesses’ testim ony wa s consist ent on the dis posit ive poin t that Thom as robbed McMeans while holding a 38 caliber r evolver to his h ead and fire d three8

sh ot s at McM ean s’s v eh ic le as h e at te m pt edto fle e. T hir d, w e w ill not

dis tur b th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c re dib ili ty f ind ing in favor

of the governm ent witnesses over T hom as’ s denial of ever possessing the 38 caliber fir earm . Fi na lly , w e not e that e ve n th oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt w as onl y r equir ed to m ak e se nte nc ing f

ac ts b as ed

on the “pr ep onde ranc e of the e vid en ce ” standard , it de ci de d un ilate ra lly

to use the be y ond a “ re as ona ble doubt” standard

in or de r to en sur e that T hom as ’ s du e pr oc es s r igh ts w er e fu lly pr ote ct ed . E ve n un de r thi s heightened s tandard the court found th at the governm ent proved Thom as com m itted the arm ed robbery with the 38 caliber r evolver.

III . Fo llo w ing U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 543 U . S. 220 , 112 5 S . Ct . 738 , 160 L.E d.2d 621 (200 5), w e re view sentences f or rea sonablen ess. United States v. T al le y , 431 F . 3d 7 84, 785 ( 11th C ir . 200 5) . T he S upr em e Co urt r ec en tly cl ar if ie d th at the r ea sona

ble ne ss s tandard

is sy nony m ous w iththe abuse of dis cr et ionstandard . G al l v. U nit ed S ta te s, 552 U . S. __, 128 S . Ct . 587 , 596 , 169 L.Ed.2 d 4 45 (20 07 ). In im posin g sentence, a

district court first m

ust correctly

calculate a de fe ndant’ s a

ppl ic ab le a dvi sor

y G uid el ine s r an ge , and the n m ust c onsi de r al l of9

th e fac to rs ou tl in edin 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) t o a rri ve at a n app ro pr ia te sen te nc e. Ga ll, 128 S.C t. at 596-97 . These f actors include: (1) the nature and circum stances of the of fe nse and the his tor

y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant; ( 2) the ne ed to re fl ec t the se ri ousn es s of the of fe nse , to af

fo rd a de quate de te rr en ce , to pr om ote re spe ct f or the law , to pr ovi de j ust

pun ish m en t f

or the of fe nse , to pr ote ct

the publ ic, and to prov ide the defendant with needed educational or vocational tr ai nin g or

m ed ic al c ar e; ( 3) the kin ds o f se nte nc es a va ila ble ; ( 4) the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s r an ge ; ( 5) pe rt ine nt S en te nc ing Co m m iss ionpol ic y

state m en ts; ( 6) the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s; and ( 7) the ne ed to pr ovi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). If the c ourt f

ind s th at ase nte nc e out sid e of

ade fe ndant’ s a

ppl ic ab le G uid el ine r an ge is w ar

rante d, it “ m ust c onsi de r the e xte nt o f the de viatio n and en sur e that the j ust if

ic at ionis suf

fi ci en tly c om pe lli ng t o su

ppor t the de gr ee of

the vari an ce . ” G al l, 128 S . Ct . a t 59 7. A ft er de ci din g onthe appr opr ia te se nte nc e, the dis tr ic t c ourt m

ust suf fi ci en tly e xpl ai n th e ch ose n se nte nc e to p er m it m eanin gf

ul ap pe llate r ev ie wand t o pr om ote the pe rc ep tio n of f ai r se nte nc ing . I d. Our r eview of

a sentence im

posed is two-f

old. First, we m

ust ensu re that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itt ed no s ign if ic an t pr oc ed

ur al e rr or . S ec ond, w e m ust en sur e that the se nte nc e im pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt w as sub stanti ve ly10

re as ona ble . I d. Ase nte nc ing de ci sio n is pr oc ed ur al ly sound i f the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly c a l c u l a t e dth e d e f

e n d a n t ’s s e n t e n c i n g r an g e , tr e a t e dth e Gu i d e l i n e s a s a d v i s o ry, co nsi de re d th e § 35 53( a) f ac tor s, se le ct ed

ase nte nc e that w as not

ba se d onc le ar ly erroneous facts, and adequately explained the chosen s entence, includin g an explana tio n f

or any de viatio n f

ro m the de fe ndant’ s se nte nc ing r an ge . I d. A sentencing decision is su bstantiv ely rea sonable if the district court acted w ith in i ts d isc re tio n inde te rm ini ng tha t the § 35 53( a) f ac tor s su ppor te d th e se nte nc e an d j ust if

ie d any de viatio n f

ro m the de fe ndant’ s se nte nc ing r an ge . I d. at 600. A“ district court need only‘ acknowledge’ that it ‘ considered the § 355 3(a) fa ct or s[ , ] ’ and n ee d no t di sc uss e ac h of the se f ac tor s ine ith er

the se nte nc ing he ar ing or

in the se nte nc ing or de r[ . ] ” U nit ed S ta te s v. A m ed eo , 487 F . 3d 8 23, 833 (11th Cir.) , c ert. denied, 128 S.C t. 671 (2007) (internal citations om itted). In considering th e substanti ve rea sonablen ess of a sentence im posed, we

“ will, of course, take into account the totalit y of the circ um stances . . . [and] m ay co nsi de r the e xte nt o f [any ] de viatio n [ or the de gr ee of

any vari an ce ] , but

m ust giv e due de fe re nc e to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n th at the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s, on a w hol e, j ust if

y the e xte nt o f the [ de viatio n or ] vari an ce . ” G al l, 128 S . Ct . a t 59 4- 95, 59 7.11

“ The w eight to b e acc orded any given § 35 53(a) fa ctor is a m atter co m m itt ed to the sound d isc re tio n of the dis tr ic t c ourt. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. W ill iam s, 456 F. 3d 1 353, 136 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) , abr ogate d onoth er gr ound s by

K im br ough v. U nit ed S ta te s, 128 S . Ct . 558 ( 2007 ). W e w ill not sub sti tut e our

j udgm en t f

or th atof t he sen te nc in g c ou rt a s t o t he ap pr op ria te ne ss of a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce. U nit ed S ta te s v. Me lvi n, 187 F . 3d 1 316, 132 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ) (a lte ratio n inor igi na l) . T hus, w e w ill r ev er se apr oc ed ur al ly pr ope r se nte nc e onl y if w e ar e “ left w ith the definite and firm conviction that the district court co m m itt ed ac le ar e rr or of j udgm en t i n w ei ghi ng the § 35 53( a) f ac tor s by arr ivi ng at ase nte nc e that l ie s ou tsi de the r an ge of r ea sona ble se nte nc es dic ta te d by the fact s o f th e cas e.” Will ia m s, 4 56 F.3dat1 36 3. H er e, w e co nc lud e that T hom as ’ s se nte nc e w as pr oc ed ur al ly sound. T he parties do not d isput e that the district court properly calculated the guidelines range . T he r ec or d de m onstrate s th at the c ourt a llo w ed

T hom as to pr es en t ar gum en ts a s to w hy

the pr obatio n of

fi ce r’ s r ec om

m en da tio n of

72- m onths’ i mp r i s o n men twa s n o tr e a s o n ab l e , n o t e dth a tth e Gu i d e l i n e s we r e a d v i s o ry, co nsi de re d th e § 35 53( a) f ac tor s, and thor ough ly

e xpl ai ne d it s r ea soni ng f or the se nt en ce i m

po se d. Mo reo ve r, fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f de ci di ng th is ap pe al , we ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt tha t i nf orm at ionc onc er

nin g T hom as ’ s in vol ve m en t i n12

the arm ed r obbe ry , tho ugh unc harg ed and n on- re le vant c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty , c oul d be co nsi de re d inim

posi ng s en te nc e unde r the f oll ow ing § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s: the

“ his tor y and c hara ct er ist ic s of

the de fe ndant” and the ne ed of ase nte nc e to ? affor d ad equa te de te rren ce, . . . pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, . . . [an d] pro te ctth e p ub li c.” Thom as’ s sentence wa s subs tantively rea sonable as well. T he rec ord de m onstrate s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt l ist en ed to the part ie s’ e vid en ce and arg um en ts co nc er nin g ar ea sona

ble se nte nc e, ult im at el y

im pose d a72- m onth vari an t se nte nc e, and s uf

fi ci en tly e xpl ai ne d th e ch ose n vari an t se nte nc e to p er m it m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w andto pro m ot e th e p erce pt io n o f fai r se nt en ci ng . Sp ec if ic al ly , the c ourt e xpl ai ne d th at the se nte nc e im

pose d w as “ suf

fi ci en t bu t no t greater than necessary

to com ply with the statutory

purposes o f sentencing,” given (1 ) the na tur e an d c ir cum stanc es of the of fe nse ; ( 2) T hom as ’ s hi sto ry and ch ar ac te ri sti cs , spe ci fi ca lly , that he w as an “ ex tr em el y vio le nt m anw ho s hoot s into cars and who can kill people;” (3) the seriousness of the offense; (4) the need to p ro m ote r es pe ct

f or the law ; and ( 5) the ne ed to af fo rd a de quate de te rr en ce to cr im ina l c ondu ct , and t o pr ote ct the pub lic f

ro m f urthe r cr im es by

T hom as . T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

urthe r state d th at

it be lie ve d any

se nte nc ing dis pari ty

w as w ar rante d, an d th at the G uid el ine s di d no t a de quate ly a ddr es s T hom as ’ s c ondu ct . I n a ddi tio n, the 72- m onth se nte nc e im pose d w as sub stanti al ly

le ss than th e statut or

y m ax im um13

of 10 y ears ’ im

pr is on m en t. Finally , e ven if T hom as is correc t that the district court afforded m ore w ei ght to som e § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s th anit

did to oth er s, w e have he ld tha t the w ei ght to b e af fo rd ed to any part ic ular fa ct or

“ is a m atte r co m

m itt ed to the sound di sc ret io n o f th e d is tri ctco ur t.” Se e Will ia m s, 4 56 F.3dat 1 36 3. Insum , w e ar e not

“ le ft w iththe de fi nit e an d f

irm c onvi ct ion[ on this re co rd ] that the dis tr ic t c ourt c om m itt ed ac le ar e rr or of j udgm en t i n w ei ghi ng the § 35 53( a) f

ac tor s by arr ivi ng at a

se nte nc e that l ie s ou tsi de the r an ge of r ea sona ble se nt en ces di ct at edby the fact s o f th e cas e,” Will ia m s, 4 56 F.3dat1 36 3, an d s o we AFFIRM Tho m as ’s 72 -m on th sen te nc e.