FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 5, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 13051 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 3 - 1 4 0 3 3 - C R - D MM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s K Y L E E B R I T E W I L L I A M S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 5, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

K y l e E br i t e W i l l i a m s ( “ W i l l i a m s ” ) appe a l s hi s 92- m onth s e nt e nc e f or c o n s p ir a c yto m a n u f

a c tu r e m e th a m p h e ta m in e , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . B e c au s e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t c o m m it c o n s titu tio n a l e rr o rb ye n g a g in g in f a c tfi nd i ng atse nt enci ng , and W i l l i am s’ s s ent ence i s nei ther great erthan n ec es sary unde r18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) norunr e a s onabl e , i ti s due t o be a f f i rm e d. H ow e ve r , the j u d g m en tco n t ai n s a cl eri cal erro r an d t o th atex t en ti ti s V A C A T E D an d th e case i s R E M A N D E D w i th i nstruct i on s thatthe di stri ctcourtcorr ec tthe error. I . B AC KG RO UN D I n as e c ond s upe r s e di ng i ndi c tm e nti n 2003, W i l l i a m s w a s c har ge d w i th: ( 1 ) c o n s p ir a c yto m a n u f a c tu r e m e th a m p h e ta m in e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 84 1(a) (1), pu rs uantt o 2 1 U . S . C . § 8 46 ; and (2) bei ng a f el on i n p osse ss i on of a fi re arm , 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). A ft erW i l l i am s pl ea ded n otgu i l ty, a j ury c o n v ic te d h im o n th e c o n s p ir a c yc o u n t b u t h u n g o n th e f ir e a rm c o u n t. B e f or e s e nt e nc i ng, apr oba t i on of f i c e rpr e pa r e d apr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e p o rt( “ P S I ” ) s e tt i n g Wi l l i a m s ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l a t2 6 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1( a ) ( 3) ( 2003) , be c aus e hi s of f e ns e i nvol ve d a tl e a s t5 gr a m s of m e tha m phe t a m i ne . A tw o l e ve l i nc r e a s e w a s appl i e d be c aus e ada nge r ous w e apon w a s p o s s e s s e d , u n d e r§ 2 D 1 .1 ( b ) ( 1 ) . W illia m s h a d e ig h t c r im in a l h is to ryp o in ts ba s e d on s e ve r a l drug of f e ns e s , one pe t i tthe f

tof f e ns e , a nd one of

f e ns e i nvol vi ng3

bur gl arya nd gr a nd the f t . H e a l s o ha d a n a rr a yof uns c or e d c r i m i na l c onduc t , a nd had o nce been ac qu i tt ed on the charge of posse ss i on of a f i re arm by a c on vi ct ed f e l o n . Wi th a n a d

j u s t e d o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

2 8 , a n d ac r i m i n a l h i s t o ryc a t e g o ryo f I V, W i l l i a m s ’ s r e s ul t i ng gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 110 t o 137 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he s ta tu to ry m a x im u m w a s 2 0 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. T he P S I a l so sum m ar i ze d the fa ct s of the ca se . A se ar ch w arrantob t ai ned ba s e d on i nf

orm a t i on tha tW i l l i a m s w a s s e l l i ng f i r e a rm s a nd m e tha m phe t a m i ne fr om a hom e l ed t o the di sc ov ery of drug p ar aphernal i a; a non -operat i on al m e tha m phe t a m i ne pr oduc t i on l abor a t ory ; f i ve boxe s of

ps e udo- e phe de r i ne c o n t a i n i n g s i x e mp tyb l i s t e rp a c k s , e a c h o f w h i c h c o n t a i n e dtw e n ty - f o u r6 0 mg t abl et s ( 8. 6 g ra m s of pse ud o-ephedri ne); a pi l l bo tt l e c on t ai ni ng m etham ph et am i ne; s t a i ns on the c a rpe t , w a l l , a nd t ow e l s c ont a i ni ng m e tha m phe t a m i ne r e s i due ; af i ve s hot. 38 S pe c i a l R os s i r e vol ve rw i th f i ve l i ve r ounds ; a nd tw e l ve r ounds of am m un i t i on . A ft ertho se pres ent(W i l l i am s, S haron H i gg i ns, B eaud ar i ck C ochi se , a nd S t e ve n S c hoc k) w e r e a rr e s t e d, C oc hi s e w a s i de nt i f i e d a s the pr i m a ryc ook, a nd W i l l i a m s a dm i tt e d tha the ow ne d the gun a nd ha d he l pe d C oc hi s e r e c ove ra n “ e i ght b a ll” o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e a f

te rad ru g s p ill. H i ggi ns s t a t e d tha tW i l l i a m s us e d a nd s ol d m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd w a nt e d t o l e a rn how t o m a ke m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd, th e r e f o r e , h a d h e lp e d C o c h is e b r in g th e lab o r a to rye q u ip m e n t to th e h o u s e .4

C oc hi s e s t a t e d tha the ha d l e a rne d t o m a ke m e tha m phe t a m i ne on hi s ow n a nd e ith e rp e r s o n a llyu s e d w h a t h e m a d e o rg a v e s a m p le s to f r ie n d s . A cc ordi ng t o the P S I, D E A chem i stE ri c J ordan t es t i fi ed attri al that , base d on the 8. 6 gr a m s of

ps e udo- e phe dr i ne , ay i e l d of 4. 7 t o 5. 5 gr a m s of m etham ph et am i ne w as t o b e e xp ec t ed. C ochi se , w ho had ent er ed a pl ea a g r e e m e n t w ith th e g o v e rn m e n t a n d b e e n s e n te n c e d to 3 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, s ta te d th a t h e c o u ld p r o d u c e 6 .5 to 7 g r a m s o f m e th a m p h e ta m in e b a s e d o n 8 .6 g r a m s o f p s e u d o - e p h e d r in e . W i th r e s pe c tt o W i l l i a m s ’ s he a l th, the P S I not e d tha the de ni e d ha vi ng a s ubs t a nc e abus e pr obl e m orne e di ng c ouns e l i ng, a l though he a dm i tt e d s e e i ng a ps y c hol ogi s ta nd doc t orf ora nxi e tya tt a c ks a nd m a j orr e c urr e ntde pr e s s i on a nd bei ng di agno se d w i th T rans M andi bu l arJoi ntD i sorder . A l tho ug h W i l l i am s l ac ked ap e rm a n e n t r e s id e n c e b e f o r e h is a rr e s t a n d w a s liv in g w ith d if f e r e n t f r ie n d s , h is fa ther i nd i ca t ed thathe coul d l i ve w i th h i m t em po rari l y post -r el ea se , i f he c hang ed h is b e h a v io r . W illia m s r a is e d tw o o b

je c tio n s to th e P S I . F ir s t, h e o b je c te d to b e in g h e ld a c c o u n tab le f

o r6 .5 g r a m s o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e b a s e d o n C o c h is e ’s a s s e rtio n s . S ec on d, he obj ec t ed t o the tw o-l evel enhancem entfor posse ss i on of a f i re arm b e c au s e th e ju ryw a s u n ab le to r e a c h av e r d ic t o n th e is s u e .5

A t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g h e ld in e a r ly2 0 0 4 , W illia m s r e ite r a te d h is obj ec t i on s t o the P S I. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d b y aprepon derance of the evi dence th a t a t le a s t 4 .7 g r a m s w e r e in v o lv e d a n d r e d u c e d th e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l f

r o m 2 6 to 24 , bu tov errul ed W i l l i am s’ s obj ec t i on t o the fi re arm enhancem ent . N o n ew obj e c t i ons w e r e r a i s e d, a nd the di s tr i c tc ourta dopt e d the P S I a nd f ound the g u id elin e r an g e to b e 9 2 -1 1 5 m o n th s’ im p riso n m en t. A ftern o ti n g th at W il li am s’s cr i m i nal hi st ory gre at l y e nh ance d the gu i del i ne rang e, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d h im u n d e ram a n d a to ryg u id e lin e s s c h e m e to 9 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. W e o r ig in a llya f

f irm e d W illia m s ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e in la te 2 0 0 4 . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 125 F . A pp’ x 981( 11th C i r . 2004) . H ow e ve r , the S u p rem e C o u rtg ran t ed cert i o rari , v acat ed o u r j u d g m en t , an d rem an d ed th e case pu rs uantt o U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 1 2 5 S .C t. 7 3 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e , in tu rn , aff irm ed W il li am s’s c o n v icti o n ag ain , b u t v ac ated an d re m an d ed W il li am s’s s e n t e n c e b e c au s e o f

c o n s t i tu t i o n a l a n d s t a tu t o ryBo o k e re rr o r . W i l l i a ms , 1 5 9 F. A pp ’ x 8 80 , *2 -4 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). W e i nstruct ed the di stri ctcourtt o res ent ence W i l l i a m s unde ra dvi s orygui de l i ne s , buthe l d tha tthe 92- 115 m onth gui de l i ne r a nge w a s c orr e c t l yc a l c ul a t e d, the f i r e a rm e nha nc e m e ntw a s pr ope r l yappl i e d, a nd the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc om m i tpl a i n e rr ori n us i ng the the or e t i c a l y i e l d of m e tha m phe t a m i ne t o de t e rm i ne the drug a m ounta ts e nt e nc i ng. I d. a t*5- 6.6

B e f or e r e s e nt e nc i ng, W i l l i a m s obj e c t e d a ga i n t o the 4. 7 gr a m a m ount because i tw as base d o n a theoret i ca l yi el d. H e a l so ar gu ed thatthe tw o-l evel e nha nc e m e ntf

orpos s e s s i on of

ada nge r ous w e apon w a s i nappr opr i a t e be c aus e the evi dence w as i nsuffi ci entt o p rove thathe po ss es se d the fi re arm and the di stri ct c ourtm a de the r e l e va ntf a c tua l f i ndi ngs . A tthe r e s e nt e nc i ng on 12 M a y2006, W illia m s ’s c o u n s e l a c k n o w le d g e d th a t o u rr e m a n d w a s te c h n ic a llylim ite d to i s s ue s a r i s i ng unde rB ooke r , buthe s t i l l obj e c t e d t o the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f a c t - f i ndi ng re gardi ng the drug am ou ntand p osse ss i on of a f i re arm . A l l obj ec t i on s w er e o v e rru le d . W i l l i am s s ou gh ta s ent ence of 60 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , ar gu i ng , i nt eral i a, th a t C o c h is e –w h o w a s th e “c o o k e r ” –r e c e iv e d 3 7 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t; m ul t i pl e i ndi vi dua l s ha d a c c e s s t o the f i r e a rm ; he ha d be e n adrug a ddi c ts i nc e a ge 1 6 a n d s u f

f e r e d f r o m d e p r e s s io n a n d a n x ie ty ; a n d h is f a m ilyw a s w illin g to h e lp h i m. W i l l i a ms s t a t e d th a th e h a d p a rt i c i p a t e d i n a4 0 - h o u rd ru g tr e a tme n tp r o g r a m, bu tw as i nel i gi bl e f

or a 500 -hou r program because he had m ore than 3 6 m on ths l ef t on hi s s ent ence . T he go vernm entre spon ded thata 92-m on th sent ence w as r e a s onabl e be c aus e W i l l i a m s ha d e nt e r e d ac ons pi r a c yt o c ook m e tha m phe t a m i ne a n d h a d a n e x te n s iv e c r im in a l h is to ry .7

A f t e rnot i ng W i l l i a m s ’ s s i gni f i c a ntc r i m i na l hi s t ory , hi s pr ope ns i tyt o be a r o u n d f ir e a rm s , h is f

a ilu r e to a c c e p t r e s p o n s ib ility , a n d th e r e q u ir e m e n t th a t it consi der a l l of the fa ct ors i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3, the di stri ctcourtse nt ence d W i l l i am s a gai n t o 9 2 m on ths’ i m pri sonm entand a three -y ear t erm of supervi se d r e l e a s e . T he di s tr i c tc ourta l s o r e c om m e nde d tha tW i l l i a m s be pl a c e d i n a500- h o u rd ru g tr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m , b u t it d id n o t a d d r e s s W illia m s ’s m e d ic a l p r o b le m s . B e f or e a dj ourni ng, the c ourta s ke d w he the rW i l l i a m s obj e c t e d t o i t s f i ndi ngs of f a c torthe m a nne ri n w hi c h s e nt e nc e w a s pr onounc e d; W i l l i a m s r e ne w e d the o b je c tio n s m a d e a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e h e a r in g . J u d g m e n t w a s e n te r e d o n 2 3 M a y2 0 0 6 , a n d W illia m s tim e lyap p e a le d . I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . W h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c ou r t u n c on s t i t u t i on al l y m ad e f i n d i n gs at se n te n ci n g b y a p re p on d er an ce of th e e vi d en ce W i l l i am s, ac kn ow l edgi ng thatcurr entprec edentho l ds otherw i se , ar gu es that hi s of f e ns e l e ve l s houl d notha ve r e f l e c t e d uni ndi c t e d c onduc ttha tw a s notf ound b y aj u ry , n a me l yth e q u a n t i tyo f d ru g s a n d p o s s e s s i o n o f af i r e a rm. W i l l i a ms c ont e nds tha t , a s ar e s ul t , hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s t o i ndi c tm e nt , tr i a l byj ury , due pr oc e s s a nd pr e s um pt i on of i nnoc e nc e w e r e vi ol a t e d. T he gove rnm e ntr e s ponds tha tthe l a w of

the c a s e doc tr i ne a nd the m a nda t e rul e ba rW i l l i a m s f r om chal l engi ng the drug am ou ntand enh ance m entfor afi re arm . W i l l i am s r epl i es that8

he i s r a i s i ng ac ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge f orthe purpos e of

f urthe rr e vi e w ori f

our p e rtin e n t c a s e la w c h a n g e s . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o w h e th e rth e la w o f th e c a s e d o c tr in e ap p lie s . T r a ns a m e r i c aL e a s i ng, I nc . v. I ns t . of L ondon U nde rw r i t e r s , 430 F . 3d 1326, 1331 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ T hi s c ourtr e vi e w s the di s tr i c tc ourt ' s f i ndi ngs o f f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d its ap p lic a tio n o f th e s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e s to th o s e f a c ts de novo. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H um be r , 255 F . 3d 1308, 1311 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). “T h e la w o f

th e c a s e d o c tr in e , s e lf

- im p o s e d b yth e c o u rts , o p e r a te s to c r e a te e f f i c i e nc y , f i na l i tya nd obe di e nc e w i thi n the j udi c i a l s y s t e m . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a m a y o , 8 0 F .3 d 1 5 1 4 , 1 5 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) .

“ U nd erthe l aw of the ca se do ctri ne, bo th the di stri ctcourtand the appel l at e c ou rt a r e ge ne r a l l ybound byapr i orappe l l a t e de c i s i on of the s a m e c a s e . ” O l a de i nde v. C i ty of B i rm i ngha m , 230 F . 3d 1275, 1288 ( 11th C i r . 2000) ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on om i tt e d) . “ W hi l e the l a w of the c a s e doe s notba rl i t i ga t i on of i s s ue s ‘ w hi c h m i ght have been deci ded b utw er e not , ’ . . . i tdo es re qu i re a c ou rtt o fol l ow w hathas been deci ded exp l i ci t l y, as w el l as by nece ss ary i m pl i ca t i on , i n an earl i er pr oc e e di ng. ” I n r e J us t i c e O a ks I I , L t d. , 898 F . 2d 1544, 1550 n. 3 ( 11th C i r . 1990) ( in te rn a l c ita tio n a n d e m p h a s is o m itte d ) . H o w e v e r , w e m a y“r e c o n s id e ra n is s u e if9

the pri or deci si on w as cl earl y e rr on eous and w ou l d res ul ti n a m ani fe sti nj ust i ce . ” O l a de i nde , 230 F . 3d a t1288. “ T he m a nda t e rul e i s s i m pl ya n appl i c a t i on of the l aw o f th e case d o ctri n e t o a sp eci fi c seto f fact s. ” L i tm an v . M ass. M u t . L i fe In s. C o . , 8 2 5 F . 2 d 1 5 0 6 , 1 5 1 1 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 7 ) (en b an c). “ If th e ap p eal s co u rti ssu es a s p e c if ic m a n d a te , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t o b e y : th e m a n d a te is n o t s u b je c t to i nt erpret at i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M es a, 24 7 F . 3d 11 65 , 11 70 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). U n d e ra n a d v is o ryg u id e lin e s s c h e m e , th e u s e o f e x tr a - v e r d ic t e n h a n c e m e n ts is n o t u n c o n s titu tio n a l. U n ite d S ta te s v . R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 0 1 - 0 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ). A d i stri ctco u rtm ay m ak e factu al fi n d i n g s atsen t en ci n g b y a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e vi de nc e e ve n i f

the s e f a c t s w e r e notc ha r ge d i n the i ndi c tm e nt , a dm i tt e d bythe de f e nda nt , orf

ound byaj ury . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, 42 6 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 23 -24 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). B e c au s e w e h a v e a lr e a d yh e ld th a t th e f ir e a rm e n h a n c e m e n t w a s p r o p e r ly appl i ed and the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcom m i tpl ai n err or i n u si ng the theoret i ca l yi el d o f m eth am p h et am i n e t o d et erm i n e th e d ru g am o u n tatsen t en ci n g , an d th ese d e c is io n s w e r e n o t c le a r lye rr o n e o u s , th e la w o f th e c a s e d o c tr in e a n d th e m a n d a te rul e ba rf urthe rc ons i de r a t i on of

the s e i s s ue s . O l a de i nde , 230 F . 3d a t1288; L i tm a n, 825 F . 2d a t1511. T he r e f or e , w e r e

j e c tW i l l i a m s ’ s a s s e rt i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte nga ge d i n i m pe rm i s s i bl e f a c t - f i ndi ng.10

B . W h et h er W i l l i am s’ s 92-m on th se n te n ce i s gre ater th an n ec es sary u n d er 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) o r is o t h e r w is e u n r e a s o n a b le W illia m s a r g u e s o n ap p e a l th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le b e c au s e it f a ils t o c om pl yw i th the s t a tut oryr e qui r e m e nttha tas e nt e nc e be “ s uf f i c i e nt , butnot grea t erthan n ec es sary . ” A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at13 -19. A dd i t i on al l y, W i l l i am s argues tha thi s r ol e i n the of

f e ns e c onduc tc ons i s t e d onl yof pe rm i tt i ng a nothe rt o m a ke m e tha m phe t a m i ne i n a n apa rtm e nti n w hi c h he w a s t e m por a r i l yr e s i di ng a nd occa si on al l y usi ng the drug s. F i nal l y, he cont ends thatthe courtfa i l ed t o con si der h i s h i s t o ryo f

d e p r e s s i o n a n d a n x i e tya tt a c k s o rth e f a mi l ys u p p o rta v a i l ab l e t o h i m, a n d o v e r e mp h a s i z e d h i s c r i mi n a l h i s t o rya n d th e p r e s e n c e o f af i r e a rm a tth e t i me o f h is a rr e s t. I n h is r e p lyb r ie f

, W illia m s a r g u e s th a t w h e th e rh is s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le shou l d b e bas ed pri m ar i l y on h i s r ol e and cul pabi l i ty i n the offens e. H e not es that hi s i nv ol vem entw as l es s than C ochi se ’ s, w hi ch he cont ends the go vernm entdo es notdi s put e , y e tC oc hi s e r e c e i ve d 37 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nta nd he r e c e i ve d 92 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. W illia m s a ls o a s s e rts th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s u n r e a s o n ab le i n l i gh tof hi s l i m i t ed rol e i n the offens e; the gu n b ei ng pres enti n a com m on ar ea av ai l ab l e t o o th ers; a cri m i n al h i st o ry co n si st i n g o f rel at i v el y l o w l ev el o ffen ses; p s y c h o lo g ic a l p r o b le m s ; a n d ac lo s e n u c le a rf a m ily .11

W e r e v ie w as e n te n c e f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s in lig h t o f th e f a c to r s s e t f

o rth in 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ear, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). W e r evi ew on l y the fi nal se nt ence for r ea sonabl enes s, ra ther th a n e a c h in d iv id u a l d e c is io n m a d e d u r in g th e s e n te n c in g p r o c e s s . I d . a t 1 2 4 5 . R ea sonabl enes s r evi ew i s “ defe re nt i al ” and “ the party w ho chal l enges the se nt ence b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f

e s tab lis h in g th a t th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le in lig h t o f b o th [ the ] r e c or d a nd the f

a c t or s i n s e c t i on 3553( a ) . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . F u rth e rm o r e , a lth o u g h as e n te n c e w ith in th e g u i d el i n e ran g e i s n o tp er se reaso n ab l e, “ w h en th e d i stri ctco u rti m p o ses a se nt ence w i thi n the advi soryG ui del i nes r ange, w e ordi nari l y w i l l expectthat c hoi c e t o be ar e a s onabl e one . ” I d. A s e n te n c in g c o u rt is c h a r g e d w ith im p o s in g as e n te n c e th a t is “s u f f ic ie n t, bu tno tgrea t erthan n ec es sary ” t o ref l ec tthe se ri ou snes s of the offens e, af ford de t e rr e nc e , pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om f urthe rc r i m e s of

the de f e nda nt , a nd pr ovi de the d e f e n d a n t w ith e d u c a tio n a l o rv o c a tio n a l tr a in in g , m e d ic a l c a r e o ro th e rtr e a tm e n t. 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . F urtherm ore, un der § 35 53 (a ), a c ou rtshal l consi der, i nt er a l i a , “ the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t orya nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt ; ” the type s of

s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; the s e nt e nc i ng gu i del i nes; and the need t o avo i d u nw arrant ed se nt ence di spar i t i es am on g si m i l ar12

d efen d an t s. 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). T h e d i stri ctco u rtn eed n o treci t e a l au n d ry l i st of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s ; s om e i ndi c a t i on i n the r e c or d tha tthe c ourta de qua t e l ya nd prop er l y c on si dere d the appl i cabl e a dv i sorygu i del i nes r ange and the § 3 53 3(a) s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s is s u f

f ic ie n t. U n ite d S ta te s v . S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 05 ). F i nal l y, “ i ss ues notra i se d b y adefe nd anti n h i s i ni t i al bri ef on appeal ar e dee m ed w ai ved. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. C urt i s, 38 0 F . 3d 13 08 , 13 10 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) . H e r e , th e s t a tu t o ryma x i mu m w a s 2 0 y e a r s o f i mp r i s o n me n t , a n d W i l l i a ms w as se nt ence d atthe l ow es tend o f the appl i cabl e gui del i ne rang e, w hi ch w e have a l r e a dyhe l d w a s c orr e c t l yc a l c ul a t e d. S e e W i l l i a m s , 159 F . A pp’ x 880 a t*5. T he s e nt e nc e w a s a l s o notgr e a t e rtha n ne c e s s a ryt o a c hi e ve the purpos e s of s e nt e nc i ng or otherw i se un re as on abl e i n l i gh tof the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors bec ause the di stri ct c ourtnot e d W i l l i am s ’ s s i gni f i c a ntc r i m i na l hi s t ory , pr ope ns i tyt o be a r ound fi re arm s, fa i l ure t o acc eptre spon si bi l i ty, and the re qu i re m entthatthe § 3 55 3(a) f a c t or s be c ons i de r e d. A ddi t i ona l l y , the di s tr i c tc ourtr e c om m e nde d tha the r e c e i ve d ru g tr e a tm e n t w h ile in c a r c e r a te d . T h e r e f o r e , th e r e c o r d c o n ta in s th e r e q u is ite in d ic a tio n th a t th e c o u rt a d e q u a te lya n d p r o p e r lyc o n s id e r e d th e ap p lic ab le a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge a nd the § 3533( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s . S e e S c ott , 426 F . 3d at13 29 . A cc ordi ng l y, W i l l i am s has no tm ethi s burden o f e st abl i shi ng that hi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s onabl e . S e e T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788.13

C. W he t he r t he j udg m e nt i nc o r r e c t l y i de nt i f i e s t he s t a t ut e o f

c o nv i c t i o n T he j udgm e nta nd the s e c ond pa ge of the P S I l i s tthe of

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on – c o n s p ir a c yto m a n u f

a c tu r e m e th a m p h e ta m in e –a s a r is in g u n d e r2 1 U .S .C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , w hi c h c ove r s onl ythe s ubs t a nt i ve of f e ns e of the m a nuf

a c tur i ng of m e th a m p h e ta m in e , b u t n o t c o n s p ir a c yto m a n u f a c tu r e m e th a m p h e ta m in e , w h ic h is p r o h ib ite d b y2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 6 . A lth o u g h n o t a d d r e s s e d b ye ith e rp a rtyo n ap p e a l, w e “ m a ys uas pont e r a i s e the i s s ue of c l e r i c a l e rr or s i n the j udgm e nta nd r e m a nd w i th i n stru ct i o n s th atth e d i stri ctco u rtco rrectth e erro rs. ” U n i t ed S t at es v . M assey, 44 3 F . 3d 81 4, 82 2 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). W e have re m anded for corre ct i on of a c l er i ca l e rr o rw h e r e th e s ta tu te c ite d in th e ju d g m e n t a n d c o m m itm e n t o r d e rw a s in c o rr e c t. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. A nde rt on, 136 F . 3d 747, 751 ( 11th C i r . 1998) ( pe rc ur i a m ) a nd do s o h e r e to c o rr e c t th e r e c o r d . I I I . CONCL US I ON W i l l i a m s ’ a tt a c k on hi s s e nt e nc e m us tbe r e j e c t e d f orthe r e a s ons s e tout above . H ow e ve r , due t o ac l e r i c a l e rr or , w e V A C A T E a nd R E M A N D f or corr ec t i on of sa m e. A FFI R M ED I N PA R T; VA C A TED I N PA R T A N D R EM A N D ED W I TH I N STR U C TI O N S.