## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 34 75

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

v. * Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

. *
Ch ad Mi ll er, *

* App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 5, 2 01 1
Fi le d: Ju ly 28, 2 01 1

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, GILMAN, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ _

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Ch ad Mi ll er m ov ed to di sm is s a on e-co un t in di ct m en t ch ar gi ng hi m wit h

po ss es si on of a fir earm whi le su bjec t to a co ur t or de r res tra in in g hi m fro m ha ras si ng ,
st al ki ng , or th reat en in g an in ti m at e pa rtn er , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (8 ) an d

92 4( a)(2 ). Afte r th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, Mi ll er en te red a gu il ty pl ea an d 2

The Hon or ab le Ro na ld Lee Gil m an , Uni te d St at es Ci rcu it Ju dg e fo r th e Si xt h 1

Ci rcu it Co ur t o f App eal s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 2

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.was se nt en ced to 69 m on th s’ im pr is o n men t

. Mi ll er ap pe al s, ar gu in g th at hi s

co nv ic ti on m

us t be va cat ed be cau se he was un aware th at hi s po ss es si on of a fir earm

was pr oh ib it ed an d he fal ls wit hi n th e li m it ed ex cep ti on to th e m ax im th at ig no ran ce

of th e la w is no ex cu se , se e Lam be rt v

. Cal ifo rn ia

, 35 5 U.S. 22 5 (1 95 7)

. Mi ll er al so

co nt en ds th at hi s s en te nc e is un reas on ab le . W e af fir m

.

I. Back gr ou nd

On Jan ua ry 16

, 20 09

, a y ear -lo ng or de r fo r pr ot ect io n was en te red in Ja ck so n

Co un ty

, Io wa, res tra in in g Mil le r fro m co m m it ti ng fu rth er act s or th reat s of ab us e or

ha vi ng an y co nt act wit h T .S.T

., t he m ot he r of hi s ch il d. The st at e-co ur t or de r se ts

fo rth in bo ld typefa ce “ W ARNINGS T O RES P O N D ENT : Fed eral la w pr ov id es

pe na lt ie s fo r po ss es si ng , tra ns po rti ng , sh ip pi ng , or rece iv in g an y fir earm or

am m un it io n (1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (8 )).” T he se co nd pa ge of t he ord er re ad s, i n p art

,

The co ur t FI NDS by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce:

. . .

[X] (4 ) If ch eck ed

, th e co ur t fin ds th e de fen da nt an d pr ot ect ed pa rty

m eet th e de fin it io n of in ti m at e pa r t n e rs as de fin ed in 18 U.S.C. § 92 1( a ) ( 3 2 ) (“ ‘int im at e pa rtn er’ m ean s, wit h res pe ct to a pe rs on , th e
sp ou se of th e pe rs on , a fo rm er sp ou se of th e pe rs on , an in di vi du al who
is a pa ren t of a ch il d of th e pe rs on , an d an in di vi du al who co ha bi ta te s or ha s co ha bi ta te d wi th th e p ers on ”).

I F (4 ) IS CHECKE D, the co urt m us t chec k bo x 6, pr oh ib iti ng t h e defe nda nt fr om pos se ss in g fi r ea rms.

. . .

[ ] (6 ) If ch eck ed

, th e de fen da nt sh al l no t po ss es s fir earm s wh il e th is

or de r is in ef

fect

. Defen da nt sh al l de li ve r al l fir earm s to t he

__ __ __ __ __ _ Co un ty Sh eri f

f or

__ __ __ __ _ _ _ (la w en fo rcem en t

-2

-ag en cy ) on or be fo re

__ __ __ __ __ _. The de fen da nt is ad vi se d th at th e is su an ce o f th is pro te ct iv e o rd er m ay als o af fect th e ri gh t t o p os se ss or
acq ui re a fir earm or am m un it io n un de r fed eral la w

. 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (d )(8 ), (g )(8 ).

The or de r in cl ud ed ha nd writ te n in st ru c t i o n s reg ard in g Mi ll er’s vi si ta ti on sc he du le

wit h h is ch il d.

Mo nt hs la te r , on Decem

be r 3, 20 09

, tro op er Pet er S tre e t s of th e Io wa S ta te

Pat ro l st op pe d to as si st Mi ll er , who ha d dr iv en hi s ve hi cl e in to a di tc h. S tre et s

su sp ect ed th at Mi ll er was dr iv in g whi le un de r th e in flu en ce of al co ho l an d to ok hi m

in to cu st od y

. W hi le S tre et s pr oc es se d pa pe rwo rk

, Mi ll er m ad e th reat en in g rem ark s,

sa y in g th at he kn ew who S tre et s was an d whe re he li ve d. S tre et s te st ifi ed th at Mi ll er

al so sa id “ th at he was go in g to b u r n m y fu ck in g ho us e do wn.” Sen te nc in g T r

. 8.

W he n S tre et s as ke d Mi ll er if he wou ld li ke to m ak e a ph on e cal l, Mi ll er rep li ed

, “ No.

Fu ck it

. I wil l cat ch up wit h y ou la te r .” Pres en te nc e Rep or t ¶ 13

. Mi ll er al s o to ld

S tre et s th at he wou ld se e hi m in th e m or ni ng an d th at “ [d ]eer se as on was co m in g an d

acci de nt s h ap pe n.” Sen te nc in g T r . 8. Mi ll er s pe nt th at ni gh t i n c ou nt y jail

.

On Decem

be r 7, 20 09

, Mi ll er m ad e h i s i n i t ia l ap pe aran ce on th e ch ar ge of

op erat in g a m ot or ve hi cl e whi le in to xi cat ed

, hi s th ird of fen se of th at na tu re. Aro un d

7: 50 p.m

. th at sa m e ev en in g, Mi ll er dr ov e hi s whi te Fo rd Mu st an g to S tre et s’s ho m e,

a farm ho us e lo cat ed in a ru ral area

. S tre et s’s wife sa w th e Mu st an g sl ow do wn, rev

it s en gi ne , an d tu rn in a co m pl et e ci rcl e on th e la ne to S tre et s’s ho m e. Kno win g th at

S tre et s ha d be en th reat en ed

, hi s wife y el le d to hi m an d to ok th ei r ch il dr en up st ai rs

. S tre et s gr ab be d hi s as s au lt rif le an d ran ou ts id e, bu t Mi ll er ha d le ft th e area

. Law

en fo rcem en t of

fic ers st op pe d Mil le r a sh or t tim e la te r in a ne arb y to wn. Mi ll er was

in to xi cat ed an d ha d an un cas ed W in ch es te r 12 -g au ge sh ot gu n an d se ve nt een ro un ds

of am m un it io n in th e fro nt se at

. Afte r th e of fic ers rem ov ed hi m fro m th e car , Mi ll er

refu se d t o re m ov e h is ha nd s fr om hi s p oc ke ts . The o f

fic ers tas ed hi m , tac kl ed hi m ,

an d arre st ed hi m at gu np oi nt

. He was ch ar ge d wit h po ss es si ng a fir earm whi le be in g

-3

-su bjec t to a co ur t or de r res tra in in g hi m fro m ha ra s s i n g , s t al ki ng , or th reat en in g an

in ti m at e p art ne r

.

Mi ll er m ov ed to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t, ar gu in g th at he di d no t kn owi ng ly

p os se ss a fir earm be cau se th ere was no pr oo f “ of hi s kn owl ed ge th at a qu al i f yi n g
Ord er was in ex is te nc e at th e ti m e he po ss es se d a fir earm .” Mo t. to Dis m is s ¶ 8. He

req ue st ed a he ari ng to pr es en t te st im on y “ th at th e Co ur t br ou gh t th e p a r t i e s i nt o
ch am be rs an d sp ec ifi cal ly ad vi se d [h im ] th at a co ns en t or de r wou ld no t [a]f fect hi s rig ht s to po ss es s or acq ui re a fir earm an d am m un it io n un de r fed eral la w .” I d. ¶ 6.

The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n wit ho ut a he ari ng an d la te r acce pt ed hi s gu il ty pl ea.

At hi s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Mi ll er’s ad vi so ry

se nt en ci ng ran ge un de r th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l was 15 to 21 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t. Afte r co ns id eri ng th e fact or s se t fo rth in 18 U.S.C. § 35 5 3 ( a )

, t h e
di st ric t co ur t de ci de d th at an up ward va ria nc e fro m th e to p of th e gu id el in es ran ge

was ap pr op ria te

, “ I’m go in g to ad d an ot he r fo ur y ears fo r th e ag gr av at in g fact or s no t

ta ke n in to acco un t by th e gu id el in es ; th reat s to th e tro op er , un sc or ed cri m in al hi st or y , da ng ero us ne ss .” Sen te nc in g T r . 39

.

II. Ana lysis

A. Con vi ct io n

Mi ll er co nt en ds th at hi s co nv ic ti on vi ol at es hi s Fi fth Am en dm en t rig ht to du e

pr oc es s be cau se he di d no t ha ve act ua l or co ns tru ct iv e kn owl ed ge th at he was su bjec t

to a res tra in in g or de r th at pr oh ib it ed hi m fro m po ss es si ng a fir earm

. See § 92 2( g) (8 ).

He as se rts t h a t th e st at e co ur t di d no t in te nd to ch eck bo x (4 ) an d th at th e co ur t

ad vi se d hi m t ha t th e or de r fo r pr ot ect io n wou ld no t af fect hi s rig ht to po ss es s a

fir earm

. Mi ll er ar gu es th at he reas on ab ly r e l i e d o n th e co ur t’s ad vi ce an d th at hi s

-4

-c a s e t h u s fal ls wit hi n th e li m it ed ex cep ti on to th e “ co m m on m ax im

, fam il ia r to a l l

m in ds

, th at ig no ran ce of th e la w wil l no t ex cu se an y pe rs on , ei th er ci vi ll y or
cri m in al ly .” U n i t e d State s v

. Hut zel l, 21 7 F .3d 96 6, 96 8 (8 th Ci r

. 20 00 ) (q uo ti ng

Barl ow v . Uni te d S ta te s, 3 2 U.S. 4 04 , 41 1 (1 83 3) ).

Sect io n 92 2( g) (8 ) ren de rs un la wf ul th e po ss es si on of a fir earm by an in di vi du al

su bjec t to cert ai n res tra in in g or de rs

. S e c t io n 92 4( a)(2 ) pr ov id es th e pe na lt ie s fo r 3

th os e who “ kn owi ng ly” vi ol at e § 92 2( g)

. “ ‘[K] no win gl y ’ su pp li es th e men s r ea fo r

th e co nd uc t p ro sc rib ed in se ct io n 92 2 as des ig na te d in se ct io n 92 4. The st at ut es do

no t req ui re kn owl ed ge of th e la w no r an in te nt to vi ol at e it .” Uni te d S ta te s v

. Farr el l,

Sect io n 9 22 (g ) pr ov id es : 3

It s ha ll be un la wfu l fo r an y pe rs on — . . .

(8 ) who is su bjec t t o a co ur t o rd er t ha t— (A) was is su ed aft er a h eari ng of wh ic h s uc h p ers on rece iv ed

act ua l no ti ce, an d at whi ch su ch pe rs on ha d an op po rtu ni ty

to pa rti ci pa te ; (B) res tra in s su ch pe rs on fro m h aras si ng , st al ki ng , or th reat en in g an in ti m at e p art ne r of su ch pe rs on or ch il d of

su ch in ti m at e pa rtn er or p ers on , or en ga gi ng in ot he r

co nd uc t th at wou ld pl ace an in ti m at e pa rtn er in reas on ab le
fear of b od il y

in jury to t he pa rtn er o r ch il d; an d (C) (i) in cl ud es a fi n di ng th at su ch pe rs on rep res en ts a

cred ib le th reat to th e ph y si cal sa fet y of su ch in ti m at e
pa rtn er o r ch il d; or (ii ) by it s te rm s ex pl ic it ly pr oh ib it s th e u s e , at te m pt ed

us e, or th reat en ed us e of ph y si cal fo rce ag ai ns t su ch
in ti m at e pa rtn er or c hi ld th at wou ld reas on ab ly be

ex pe ct ed to cau se bo di ly inju ry ; . . .

to

. . . po ss es s in or affe ct in g co m m erce , an y fir earm or am m un it io n

. . . .

-5

-69 F .3d 89 1, 89 3 (8 th Ci r

. 19 95 ). The pe na lt y pr ov is io ns of § 92 4( a)(2 ) th us req ui re

th e go ve rn m en t to pr ov e th at th e de fen da nt kn ew of th e fact s th at co ns ti tu te d th e

of fen se un de r § 92 2( g)

, no t th at th e de fen da nt kn ew th at hi s po ss es si on of a fir earm

was il le ga l. Uni te d S ta te s v

. Lip pm an , 36 9 F .3d 10 39

, 10 43 (8 th Ci r

. 20 04 ); Hut zel l,

21 7 F .3d at 9 68

.

Mi ll er rel ie s up on Lam

be rt v

. Cal ifo rn ia

, 35 5 U.S. 22 5 (1 95 7)

, to ar gu e th at hi s ig no ran ce of th e la w ex cu se s hi s co nd uc t. Lam be rt in vo lv ed a Los Ang el es or di na nc e

th at im po se d cri m in al pe na lt ie s on fel on s who rem ai ne d in th e ci ty fo r m or e th an fiv e
da y s wit ho ut reg is te rin g wit h th e ch ie f of po li ce. Id

. at 22 6. The Su pr em e Co ur t he ld

th at th e ci ty’ s reg is tra ti on pr ov is io ns vi ol at ed th e du e proc es s cl au se of th e Fo ur te en th

Am en dm en t be cau se th e or di na nc e pu ni sh ed

, wit ho ut fo rewar ni ng , co nd uc t th at a

reas on ab le pe rs on ord in ari ly w ou ld no t co ns id er cr im in al . Id. at 22 9- 30

.

Mi ll er cl ai m s th at he ha s “ sa ti sf [ie d] th e req ui rem en t in Lam be rt th at th ere was

no th in g ‘int ui ti ve ly un la wfu l’ ab ou t hi s act io ns ” be cau se he po ss es se d a fir earm aft er

th e st at e co ur t to ld hi m th at th e res tra in in g or de r wou ld no t af fect hi s rig ht to do so

. App el la nt ’s Br

. 13

. Eve n acce pt in g Mi ll er’s al le ga ti on as tru e, hi s co nd uc t of 4

po ss es si ng a fir earm whi le su bjec t to a res tra in in g or de r is di f fere nt fro m th e “ who ll y

pa ss iv e” co nd uc t of be in g a fel on whi le rem ai ni ng in Los Ang el es fo r fiv e da y s. See

Lam be rt, 35 5 U.S. at 22 8. W

e reco gn iz e th at “ fir earm s po ss es si on , wit ho ut m or e, is

no t a ki nd of act iv it y co m pa rab le to po ss es si on of ha nd gr en ad es , na rco ti cs , or ch il d

po rn og rap hy

,” Uni te d S ta te s v

. Mea de

, 17 5 F .3d 21 5, 22 6 (1 st Ci r

. 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on s

o mitt ed ), bu t we co nc lu de th at fir earm s po ss es si on al so is no t th e ki nd o f a c t i v i t y

Acco rd in g to Mi ll er, in an in te rv ie w wit h th e Fed eral Bu reau of In ve st ig at io n, 4

th e st at e jud ge “ in di cat ed he ha d no reco ll ect io n of whe th er he m ay ha ve st at ed to th e Defen da nt th at th e Ord er wou ld or wou ld no t in te rfer e wit h th e Defen da nt ’s rig ht to

po ss es s a fir earm .” Rep ly to Gov ern m en t’s Sen te nc in g Mem. 2

. W e no te th at th e di st ric t cou rt di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g a he ari ng on Mi ll er’s m ot io n to di sm is s t he in di ct m en t.

-6

-co m

pa rab le to “ m ere pr es en ce i n th e ci ty .” Lam be rt, 35 5 U.S. a t 23 0. So al th ou gh

M i l l e r ’s co nd uc t m ay no t be “ pe r se bl am ewo rth y

,” th e po ss es si on of a fir earm,

es pe ci al ly by so m eo ne su bjec t to a res tra in in g or de r , “ is ne ve rth el es s a hi gh ly

reg ul at ed act iv it y

, and ev eryone kn ows it .” See Hu tz el l, 2 17 F .3d at 9 68 , 96 9.

Mi ll er’s al le ge d l ack of a waren es s al so do es no t co m pa re to th e de fen da nt in

Lam be rt, who ha d no no ti ce or reas on to be on no ti ce. The fro nt pa g e of Mi ll er’s

res tra in in g or de r warn ed th at fed eral la w res tri ct s th e po ss es si on of fir earm s by

in di vi du al s su bjec t to res tra in in g or de rs , an d th e se co nd pa ge of th e or de r es ta bl is he d

th at Mi ll er an d T .S.T

. were in ti m at e pa rtn ers un de r fed eral la w

. Bo x (4 ), whi ch was
ch eck ed

, in st ru ct ed th a t t h e jud ge “ m us t ch eck bo x (6 ), pr oh ib it in g th e de fen da nt

fro m po ss es si ng fir earm s.” Mo reo ve r , t he fact th at Mi ll er was su bjec t to an or de r 5

th at res tra in ed hi m fro m th reat en in g, as s a u l ti ng , st al ki ng , m ol es ti ng , at ta ck in g,

ha ras si ng , or ot he rwis e ab us in g T .S.T

., ga ve Mi l l e r r e a s on to be on no ti ce th at hi s

co nd uc t was su bjec t to in crea se d go ve rn m en t sc ru ti ny

. See Uni te d S ta te s v

. Bea ve rs , 2 0 6 F

. 3 d 70 6, 71 0 (6 th Ci r

. 20 00 ) (“ [I]t sh ou ld no t su rp ris e an y on e th at th e

go ve rn m en t ha s en act ed le gi sl at io n in an at te m pt to li m it th e m ean s by whi ch pe rs on s
who ha ve a hi st or y

of do m es ti c vi ol en ce m ig ht cau se ha rm in th e fu tu re.”) ; Mea de

, 17 5 F .3d at 22 6 (“ [P]os se ss io n of fir earm s by pe rs on s la bo rin g un de r th e y ok e of an ti

ha ras sm en t or an ti -s ta l k i n g res tra in in g or de rs is a ho rs e of a di f fere nt hu e.”).

“ Bec au se it is no t reas on ab le fo r so m eo ne in hi s p os it io n to ex pe ct to po ss es s
da ng e r o u s weap on s free fro m ex te ns iv e reg ul at io n, [th e de fen da nt ] can no t

Mi ll er co nt en ds th at th e [X] in di cat in g th at bo x (4 ) ap pl ie s was a sc riv en er’s 5

e r r o r be cau se th e st at e co ur t di d no t in te nd to res tri ct hi s rig ht to po ss es s fir e a r ms

. Fed eral la w—n ot th e st at e co ur t’ s int en tio n—d et er m ine s w he th er Mi ll er’s po ss es si on of fir earm s was un la wfu l. Eve n if bo x (4 ) ha d no t be en ch eck ed

, it is cl ear fro m th e face of th e pr ot ect iv e or de r th at th e el em en ts of § 92 2( g) (8 ) were m et

. Sp eci fic al ly,
th e or de r se ts fo rth Mi ll er’s vi si ta ti on sc he du le wit h hi s ch il d, th us es ta bl is hi ng th at he an d T.S.T. were “ in ti m at e pa rtn ers ” un de r fed eral la w—p reci se ly th e fin di ng th at bo x (4 ) in di cat ed

. See § 92 1( a)(3 2) (d efi ni ng th e te rm “ in ti m at e pa rtn er” as in cl ud in g

“ an in di vi du al who is a pa ren t o f a ch il d o f th e p ers on ”).

-7

-s uc ces sf

ul ly cl ai m a la ck of fai r warn in g wit h res pe ct to th e req ui rem en ts of
§ 92 2( g) (8 ).” Uni te d S ta te s v

. Bak er, 19 7 F .3d 21 1, 22 0 (6 th Ci r

. 19 99 ). W e

th eref or e co nc lu de th at Mi ll er’s al le ge d la ck of aware ne ss was no t reas on ab le

, in li gh t

of th e te xt of t he ord er an d t he fact th at he was s ub ject t o a res tra in in g o rd er

. 6

B. Sen te nc e

Mi ll er co nt en ds th at hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e rev ie w
th e su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce un de r a “ de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n

st an da rd .” Gall v

. Uni te d S ta te s, 55 2 U.S. 38

, 41 (2 00 7)

. W he n th e di st ric t co ur t

im po se s a se nt en ce ou ts id e th e a d v i s o ry gu id el in es ran ge , we “ m ay co ns id er th e

ex te nt of th e de vi at io n , b u t must gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on

th at th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, o n a who le , just ify the ex te nt of t he va ria nc e.” Id . at 5 1.

Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t’s up ward v a ria nc e was su bs ta nt ia l— ad di ng 48

m on th s to th e 15
- to 21 -m on th gu id el in es -ran ge se nt en ce— th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve

se vera l re as on s fo r im

po si ng th e se nt en ce an d rem ark ed th at Mi ll er’s cas e was “ un li ke

th e ru n of t h e mill po ss es si on of a fir earm whi le su bjec t to a co ur t or de r of

pr ot ect io n.” Sen te nc in g T r

. 37

. Mo st im

po rta nt ly

, it fo un d th at th e si tu at io n was

ag gr av at ed

, gi ve n th at Mi ll er ha d th reat en ed S tre et s an d co nt in ue d to ha ras s hi m “ by

go in g to hi s ho us e, as y ou sa id y ou wou ld

, a n d b e i n g arm ed

, as y ou in di cat ed y ou

wou ld

. Deer se as on , a cci de nt s ha pp en

. The im pa ct of y ou r act io ns , t he wor d s an d

th e a c t i o n s yo u to ok th at ni gh t in go in g ou t to th e tro op er’s ho us e ha d a se rio us

im pa ct on th is tro op er an d hi s fam il y .” Id

. at 38

. Mo reo ve r , th e di st ric t co ur t be li ev ed

Our si st er ci rcu it s ha ve un ifo rm ly reject ed du e pr oc es s ch al le n g es to 6 § 92 2( g) (8 ) ba se d on th e de fen da n t ’s l a ck of aware ne ss th at hi s po ss es si on of a fir earm was a fed eral of

fen se

. E.g., Uni te d St at es v. Kafk a, 22 2 F.3 d 11 29

, 11 31 (9 th
Ci r. 20 00 ); Uni te d St at es v. Red di ck

, 20 3 F.3 d 76 7, 77 0 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 00 ); Bak er, 19 7
F.3 d at 22 0; Mea de

, 17 5 F.3 d at 22 6; Uni te d St at es v. Bo st ic

, 16 8 F.3 d 71 8, 72 2 (4 th
Ci r. 19 99 ); Un it ed Sta te s v . W il so n, 1 59 F.3d 28 0, 2 89 (7t h C ir. 1 99 8)

.

-8

-th at Mi ll er’s un sc or ed cri m in al hi st or y “ sh ows to ta l an d co m pl et e di sr eg ard fo r th e

la ws of ou r co un try .” Id

. It fo un d t h a t Mi ll er was da ng ero us , ba se d on th e
ci rcu m st an ces of hi s arre st an d hi s pr io r an d pe nd in g dr iv in g- whi le -in to x i c a t e d

co nv ic ti on s, st at in g, “ I can ’t th in k of a wor se co m bi na ti on th a n b e i n g d ru nk an d

h a v i n g a gu n an d am m

un it io n.” Id

. W

e co nc lu de th at th e ag gr av at ed n a t u r e o f

Mi ll e r ’s o ffen se , th e da ng er he po se d to th e co m m un it y , an d hi s cri m in al hi st or y

pr ov id ed ad eq ua te jus ti fic at io n fo r th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex erci se of it s di sc ret io n to va ry

up ward s as it di d.

Mi ll er co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to ta ke in to acco un t th e f act th at

he po ss es se d th e fir earm an d am mun it io n wit ho ut kn owi ng th at he was pr oh ib it ed

fro m do in g so , ei th er be cau se he was ig no ran t or be cau se th e st at e co ur t ad vi se d hi m

th at th e or de r fo r pr ot ect io n wou ld no t af fect hi s rig ht t o p o s s e s s fir earm s. The

di st ric t co ur t was well aware of Mi ll er’s arg um en ts reg ard in g th es e al le ge dl y

m it ig at in g fact or s an d ap pa ren tl y ga ve th em li tt le weig ht

. W e can no t sa y th at th e
di st ric t co ur t “ co m

m it [te d] a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t by arri vi ng at a se nt en ce th at li es

ou ts id e th e li m it ed ran ge of ch oi ce d ic ta te d b y

th e fac ts of t he cas e.” Uni te d S ta te s

v

. San -Mi gu el

, 63 4 F .3d 47 1, 47 5 (8 th Ci r

. 20 1 1) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v

. Jo ne s, 50 9

F .3d 91 1, 91 3 (8 th Ci r

. 20 07 )); se e al so Gall

, 55 2 U.S. at 59 (n ot in g th at th e ran ge of

ch oi ce di ct at ed by th e fact s of a cas e was si gn ifi can tl y br oa de ne d aft er th e gu id el in es
be cam e ad vi so ry ). Nor can we sa y th at th e se n t e nc e it im po se d was gr eat er th an

ne ces sa ry to co m pl y wit h t he pro vi si on s o f § 3 55 3( a).

III. Co nc lu si on

The co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e are af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-