FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT SEPT 27 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 10069 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D
. C
. D ocketN o. 04 -000 07 -C R -H L -6 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 C H A R L E S M O T E S , I I I , a .k .a . C h a r lie , 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 o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( S e p t e m b e r 27, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C h a r le s M o te s , I I I , ap p e a ls h is c o n v i c tio n s a n d c o n c u r r e n t 3 0
- m o n th
s e n te n c e s f

o r t w o c o u n ts o f

m a k in g f

a ls e s ta te m e n ts o n f

e d e r a l f ir e a r m s r e c o r d s , in2

v i o l at i o n o f

18 U
. S
. C
. § 924( a ) ( 1) ( A ) a nd 2. O n appe a l , M ot e s c ha l l e nge s the
s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e t o s uppor thi s c onvi ct i o n s. H e a l s o r a i s e s the f ol l ow i ng
s e n te n c in g c la im s : ( 1 ) th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ’ s c o n s id e r a tio n o f a c q u itte d c o n d u c t in cal cu l at i n g th e G u i d el i n es ran g e an d i m p o si n g sen t en ce v i o l at ed h i s d u e p ro cess ri gh t s a nd U ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U
. S
. 22 0 (20 05 ), and (2) thathi s s ent ence
w a s u n r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h to f 1 8 U
. S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a )
. A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s a r e s tr a i ght f

or w a rd
. O n M a y 27, 2004, M ot e s a nd
c o- de f e nda nt s M a r vi n K i ng a nd T hom a s F razi er w e r e c ha r ge d w i th one c ountof
c ons pi r i ng t o pr ovi de f a l s e s t a t e m e nt s on f

e de r a l f i r e a r m s r e c or ds , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. §§ 371 a nd 924( a)(1 )( A ) ( C ountO ne ) , a nd e i ghtc ount s of a i di ng a nd
a b e ttin g e a c h o th e ro ro th e rp e r s o n s , b o th k n o w n a n d u n k n o w n to th e g r a n d ju r y , to
m a k e f a ls e s ta te m e n ts o n f

e d e r a l f ir e a r m s r e c o r d s , i n v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 92 4(a) (1)( A ) a nd 2 (C ou nt s 2 throu gh 9). M ore s peci fi ca l l y, the i nd i ctm ental l eged th atfro m Jan u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 1 t o S ep t em b er 1 , 2 0 0 2 , th e d efen d an t s co n sp i red t o cau se fal s e s t a t e m e nt s t o be m a de on A T F F or m 4473 a nd, on e i ghts e pa r a t e occasi o n s,
a i de d a nd a be tt e d i n the m a ki ng of f a l s e r e pr e s e nt a t i ons of the na m e of

the pu rc hase r of 19 fi re arm s on thi s f orm . F ra zi erpl ed gu i l ty t o C ou ntO ne and M ot es
a n d K in g p r o c e e d e d to a jo in t ju r y tr ia l.3

A t tri al , the go vernm entpres ent ed the t es t i m on y of F ra zi erand v ar i ou s other coop er at i ng i nd i vi du al s w ho w er e i nv ol ved i n the tra nsac t i on s a ti ss ue, as w el l as the t e s t i m ony of

s e ve r a l l a w en fo rcem e ntof f i c i a l s w ho c onduc t e d the s ubs e que nt i n v e s t i g a t i o n . B e c a u s e Mo t e s wa s f o u n d g u i l ty o f

C o u n t s E i g h ta n d Ni n e , we
r e s tr i c tourdi s c us s i on m a i nl y t o the gove r nm e nt ’ s e vi de nc e a s t o the A ugus t22, 2 0 0 2 an d A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 0 2 tran sa ctio n s, fo r p u rp o se s o f c o n si d er in g M o tes’s chal l enge t o the suff

i ci ency of the evi dence. D ur i ng the r e l e va nt t i m e pe r i od of the c ha r ge d c ons pi r a c y , M o t es and F r a z i e r , thr ough the us e of tw o “ s tr a w pur c ha s e r s ” na m e d D e br a A nn M o l d en a nd S am u al Jam es A l m o n d , p u rch ased 1 9 fi rearm s, w h ic h th e y th en so l d t o o th ers. M ostof these p u rchases t oo k p l ac e a ta paw nsho p i n M ou l tri e, G eorgi a nam ed K i ngs J e w e l r y P a w nbr oke rS hoe s , I nc . ( “ K i n g s Jew e l r y ” ) , w hi c h w a s ow ne d by K i ng a nd w a s r e gi s t e r e d a s a f e de r a l l y l i c e ns e d f

i r e a r m s de a l e r . B oth M ol de n a nd A lm o n d te s tif

ie d f o rth e g o v e r n m e n t. O n A ug ust22 , 20 02 , M ot es drov e A lm o nd t o K i ng s J ew el ry and p rovi ded hi m w i th m on ey t o p urchas e one fi re arm . A s o f thatdat e, A l m on d p re vi ou sl y had

“ s tr a w pur c ha s e d” f

ourothe rf

i r e a r m s a tK i ngs J e w e l r y , on be ha l f of F r a z i e rand M o t e s , e a c h t i me u s i n g mo n e y p r o v i d e d b y Fr a z i e ro rM o t e s a n d e a c h t i me
c om pl e t i ng a n A T F F or m 4472 tha ts a i d he ( A l m ond) w as t h e a c tua l pur c ha s e rof4

the fi re arm s. D uri ng the A ug ust22 nd pu rc hase , A l m on d agai n f al se l y c om pl et ed
an A TF For m 4 47 2, i nd i c a t i ng tha t he w a s the a c tua l pu r c ha s e r of a B ry co J e nni ngs , m ode l ni ne , 9 m m . p i st o l , an d pa i d f orthe gun w i th m one y s uppl i e d by M ot es . In a sim il ar tra nsac t i on fi ve days l at er , A l m on d p urchas ed tw o m ore B ry co Jen n i n g s, m o d el n i n e, 9 m m . p i st o l s, ag ai n w i th m o n ey g i v en t o h i m b y M o t es. A l m on d com pl et ed tw o m ore A T F fo rm s stat i ng thathe w as the ac tual pu rc hase r. A ft erbo th o f these pu rc hase s, A l m on d d el i vere d the fi re arm s t o the conv en ience
s t or e tha tM ot e s ow ne d. A f te r t h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s te d , M o te s m o v e d f o ra ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l,
a r g u i n g th a tAl mo n d h a d t e s t i f i e d th a tn o b o d y h a d a s k e d h i m t o l i e o n th e ATF F o rm s 4 4 7 2 , an d th u s th a tth e j u ry co u l d n o tfi n d th atM o t es h ad cau sed th e fal se
s ta te m e n ts to b e m a d e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e n ie d th is m o tio n . I n s u p p o r t o f h is
o w n d e f e n s e , M o te s te s tif

ie d th a t h e h a d n o t a s k e d a n y o n e to p u r c h a s e g u n s o n h is be ha l f , o r t o l i e o n a n A TF f

o r m. M o t e s th e n r e n e w e d h i s mo t i o n f o r j u d g m e ntof
a c qui tt a l , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our ta ga i n de ni e d. A l t h o u g h th e ju r y a c q u itte d M o te s o n th e c o n s p ir a c y c o u n ts a n d th e c o u n ts
a lle g in g “ s tr a w p u r c h a s e s ” th a t o c c u r r e d p r io rto th e A u g u s t 2 2 n d a n d A u g u s t 2 7 th tr a ns a c t i ons d esc r i be d by A l m ond, the j ur y f ound M ot e s gui l ty on C ount s E i ght
a nd N i ne . M ot e s the n pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng.5

T h e p resen t en ce i n v est i g at i o n rep o rt(“ P S I”) assi g n ed M o t es a b ase o ffen se l evel of 12 and recom m ended a four-l evel enhancem entbecau se M ot es ’ s c on du ct i nvo l v e d b e tw e e n 8 a n d 2 4 f i r e a r ms , p u r s u a n t t o U
. S. S. G
. § 2 K 2
. 1 ( B) ( 1 ) , a n d a tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on M ot e s ’ s s t a tus a s a n or ga ni z e ra n d / o r l ead erof the
c r i m e , pur s ua ntt o U
. S
. S
. G
. § 3 B 1
. 1 (c)). W i th a n a dj us t e d of f e ns e l e ve l a t18 a nd a
c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y I I , M ot e s f a c e d a G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc i ng r a nge of 30 t o 37
m o n t hs ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . T he m a xi m um t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt f or e a c h c ou n tw as 5 y e a r s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. M o te s o b

je c te d to th e P S I a n d a r g u e d , i n p e r tin e n t p a r t, th a t: ( 1 ) h e s h o u ld
no tbe hel d acc ou nt abl e f or al l 19 of the fi re arm s a l l eged i n the i nd ictm en t , si nce hi s c on vi ct i on s i nv ol ved t he pu rc hase of on l y three fi re ar m s; an d (2) hi s s ent ence
s houl d notbe e nha nc e d be c a us e he w a s a l e a de r o r o rg an i zer of the c r i m e . A tthe
se nt enci ng hear i ng , M ot es agai n o bj ec t ed t o th e P S I, ar gu i ng thatthe offens e- l evel enha nc e me nt s vi ol a t e d Boo ke rbe c a us e the j ury ha d f ou nd hi m gui l ty a s t o c harges i nvol vi n g o n l y th r e e g u n s a n d h a d a c q u i tt e d o n th e c o n s p i r a c y c o u n t , th u s r e j e c t i ng th a t h e w a s a le a d e ro f

th e s c h e m e . O ve rM ot e s ’ s obj e c t i ons , the di s tr i c tc our ts e nt e nc e d M o t es t o a l ow - e nd
se nt ence of 30 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm enton ea ch coun t , t o run concurrent l y. In i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c t c our t not e d tha t the G ui de l i ne s w e r e “ a dvi so ry” and6

f ound tha tthe G ui de l i ne s r a nge w a s j us t i f i e d be c a us e M ot e s “ w a s r e s pons i bl e f or
a l l t he g u n s ” a n d h e h a d “ a l e a d e r s h i p r o l e . ” Th e c o u r tf u r th e rn o t e d th a tt he
s e nt e nc e w a s “ appr opr i a t e ” i n l i ghtof the 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t or s a nd the t ot a l i ty of

the c i r c um s t a nc e s . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. F i r s t , M o te s c h a lle n g e s th e s u f f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t h is
c onvi c t i ons . A pr ope r l y pr e s e r ve d s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e c l a i m i s r e vi ew e d de
no vo . U ni t e d St a t e s v. M c D ow e l l , 25 0 F. 3d 13 54 , 13 61 ( 11 th Ci r . 20 01 ). In de t e r m i ni ng w he the rthe e vi de nc e i s s uf f i c i e ntt o s uppor ta c onvi c t i on, w e vi e w the evi d en ce i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm entand d ec i de w hether a
r e a s o n a b le ju r o rc o u ld h a v e r e a c h e d a c o n c lu s io n o f g u ilt b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le doubt
. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C a l de r on, 127 F
. 3 d 1314, 1324 ( 11th C i r . 1997)
. “ I ti s not
ne c e s s a r y tha tthe e vi de nc e e xc l ude e ve r y r e a s ona bl e hy pothe s i s of i nno cenc e or be w hol l y i nc ons i s t e n t w i t h ev er y c onc l us i on e xc e pttha tof gui l t . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H arri s, 20 F
. 3d 44 5, 45 3 (11 th C i r. 19 94 ). T o e s tab lis h a v io la tio n o f § 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , th e g o v e r n m e n t w a s r e q u ir e d to pr ove tha tM ot e s know i ngl y m a de a f a l s e s t a t e m e ntw i th r e s pe c tt o i nf or m a t i on th a tth e l a w r e q u i r e s a f e d e r a l l y l i c e n s e d f

i r e a r ms d e a l e rt o k e e p . Se e 1 8 U
. S. C. § 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . W e h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a t a p r in c ip a l w h o u s e s s tr a w p u r c h a s e r s to pur c ha s e f

i r e a r m s on hi s be ha l f

vi ol a t e s § 924( a ) ( 1) ( A )
. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. N e l s on,We also areunconvince d by Motes’s argument that reversible er ror oc curred when the 1 jur y re a c he d inc on sis tent verdic ts by a c quitting him of thec on sp ira c y

c ha rg ebut f indinghim

guilty 7 221 F
. 3d 1 2 0 6 , 1 2 1 0 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 )
. Se c t i o n 2 p r o h i b i t s th e a i d i n g a n d a b e tt i ng
o f th i s o f f e n s e a n d pun i s h e s a n a i d e ra n d a b e tt e ra s a “ p r i n c i p a l
. ” Se e 1 8 U
. S. C. § 2
. A l m ond t e s t i f

i ed tha the f

a l s e l y r e pr e s e nt e d hi m s e l f a s the a c tua l buy e rof t he f i r e a r ms o n A u g u s t 2 2 n d a n d 2 7 th , th e d a t e s r e f l e c t e d i n Co u n t s Ei g hta nd N i n e, resp ect i v el y, an d th a t h e fal sel y fi l l ed o u tth ree A T F fo rm s o n th o se d at es. M o re o ver, he sa i d thathe ac tual l y purchas ed the fi re arm s f or M ot es , w ho prov i ded hi m w i th the m one y t o pur c ha s e the guns , t ook pos s e s s i on of the gu n s a f

t e rthe p u rch ases, an d o n o n e o ccasi o n acco m p an i ed A l m o n d i n t o K i n g s Jew el ry. V i ew i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i gh t mos t f a vo r a bl e t o the j ury ’ s ve r di c t , a s w e a re
re qu i re d t o d o, a r ea sonabl e j uror coul d h ave f ou nd be yo n d a re ason abl e dou btthat M o t es vi ol a t e d § 924( a ) ( 1) ( A ) by us i ng a s tr a w pur c ha s e rt o pur c ha s e the f i rearm s,
ev en i f M o t es n ev er ex p ressl y ask ed th e straw p u r c h a s e r t o l i e o n th e A T F fo rm s. N e l s on, 221 F
. 3 d at1210. M ot e s doe s notc i t e , a nd ourow n r e vi e w of c ontr ol l i ng p r e c e d e n t d o e s n o t r e v e a l, a n y c a s e i n w h i c h w e h a v e h e ld th a t, in o r d e rto
e s t a bl i s h pr i nc i pa l l i a bi l i ty , the gove r nm e ntm us ts how tha tthe a i de rora be tt or
ex p ressl y d i rect ed th e straw p u rch aser t o p ro v i d e th e fal se s ta tem en t s. A cco rd i n g l y, w e affi rm h i s co n v i ct i o n s. 1of two substantive counts. It is we ll-settled that so long as a guilty verdic t is supported by

sufficient evidenc e, as w e haveconclude d the verdicts as to Counts Eight and Nineare , a convic tion will be aff ir me d , e v e n if th e gu ilty v e rdic t is in c o n s is tent w it h th e ju r y ’ s v e rdic t a s to o th e r counts. Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 146 F.3d 1338, 1344- 45 (11th Cir. 1998). 8 T urni ng t o M ot es ’ s ar g um ent s c on ce rni ng the ca l cul at i on of hi s off ense l evel and res ul t i ng G ui del i nes r ange, “ un der a n adv i sory G ui del in es sc hem e, court s c an
c ont i nue t o c ons i de r rel ev an ta c qui tt e d c onduc ts o l ong a s the f a c t s unde r l y i ng the cond uctar e proved b y aprepon dera nce of the evi dence and the se nt ence i m po se d doe s note xceed t h e m a xi m um s e nt e nc e a uthor i z e d by the j ur y . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F a u s t , 4 5 6 F. 3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. “ Th e b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g s o me th i ng by a pr e ponde r a nc e of

the e v i d en ce . . . s i m pl y r e qui r e s the tr i e rof f a c tt o be l i e ve that the exi st ence of a fa ct i s m ore prob abl e than i t s no nexi st ence . ” U ni t ed S ta t es
v. T ra i no r, 37 6 F
. 3d 13 25 , 13 31 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). U nde rourl ong- s t a ndi ng pr e c e de nt , “ [ r ] e l e va ntc onduc tof w hi c h a de f e nda ntw a s a c qui tt e d none the l e s s m a y b e t a ke n i nt o a c c ounti n s e nt e nc i ng f or the offens es of conv i ct i on , ” a s l on g as the go vernm entpro v es th e a cqui tt ed
c o n d u ctr e l i e d upon by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e , a nd the j udge doe s not i m po se a s ent ence thatexce eds w hat is au th ori ze d b y the j ury ver di ct . U ni t ed S t a t e s v. D unc a n, 400 F
. 3d 1297, 1304- 05 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e r t . d eni e d, 126 S
. C t . 432 ( 2005)
. I n f

a c t , a f t e rB ooke r , i tr e m a i ns c l e a rtha ta s e nt en ci n g j udge m a y c ont i nue t o con si d er rel evantac qu i tt ed cond uctas partof an advi sory G ui del i nes’ sc hem e,9

“[ f ]o r w h e n a tr ia l ju d g e e x e r c is e s h is d is c r e tio n to s e le c t a s p e c if ic s e n te n c e w ith in a def i ned range, the defendanthas no ri gh tt o a ju ry d et erm i nat i on of the fa ct s that th e ju d g e d e e m s r e le v a n t.” I d . a t 1 3 0 5 ( c ita tio n s o m itte d )
. T hrou gh the t es t i m on y of n u m er o us coop er at i ng w i tness es w ho part i ci pat ed i n th e g u n tr a f

f ic k in g sch em e, th e g o v ern m en tsat i sfi ed i t s b u rd en t o sh o w b y a pr e ponde r an ce of

the e vi de nc e the f

a c t s unde r l y i ng the e nha nc e m e nt s f orboth the p os s e s s i on o f

b e tw e e n e i g h ta n d tw e n ty - f o u rf i r e a r ms , n o tj u s tth e th r e e f i r e a r ms di s c us s e d i n the tw o c ount s of the i ndi c tm e ntf

orw hi c h M ot e s w a s co n v i c t e d, a nd M ot e s ’ s l e a de r s hi p r ol e i n the s c he m e . M or e ove r , M o t es ’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e of 30
m on ths’ i m pri sonm entw as w el l bel ow the 5-ye arm axi m um se nt ence autho ri ze d b y th e j u ry v erd i cto f co n v i ct i o n o n each o f th e tw o co u n t s o f p ro v i d in g a fal se st at em en t o n a fe dera l fi re arm s r ec ord. F i nal l y, the di stri ctcourtexpres sl y s t at ed thati tun ders t oo d the G u id elines ra ng e t o b e a dv i sory . O n thi s r ec ord, w e c an di sc ern n o B o o k er err or i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s c al cul at i on of the G ui del i nes r ange, i n c l u d i n g th e c o u r t ’ s i mp o s i t i o n o f e nha nc e me n t s f

o rth e n u mb e ro f

f i r e a r ms i nv ol ved and M ot es ’ s l ea ders hi p rol e i n the offens e. F i nal l y, w e rej ec tM ot es ’ s a rgum entthathi s l ow -e nd se nt ence w as
unr e a s ona bl e . W e r e vi e w t he ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc our tf or
r e a s ona bl e ne s s, a nd w e “ c ons i de rthe f i na l s e nt e nc e , i n i t s e nt i r e ty , i n l i ghtof the10

§ 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a l nor , 451 F
. 3d 744, 750 ( 11th C i r . 2006) (ci t at i ons om i tt e d)
. “ R e vi e w f orr e a s ona bl e ne s s i s de f e r e nt i a l
. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a l l e y , 431 F
. 3d 784 , 7 8 8 ( 11th C i r . 2005)
. W e “ r e c ogni z e tha tthe r e i s a r a nge of
r e a s ona bl e s e n t e nc e s f r om w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our tm a y c hoos e , a nd w he n the d i s tr i c tc o u r t i mp o s e s a s e n t e n c e wi th i n th e a d v i s o r y Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e , we
o r d in a r ily w ill e x p e c t th a t c h o ic e to b e a r e a s o n a b le o n e .” I d
. T h e p a r ty chal l engi ng the se nt ence ca rr ies th e b u rden of prov i ng thatthe se nt ence w as
u n r e a s o n a b le in lig h t o f b o th th e r e c o r d a n d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . I d
. P ursuantt o th e d istri ctcourt ’ s c orre ct l y c al cul at ed offens e l evel and cri m i nal h i st o ry cat eg o ry, th e G u i d el i n es reco m m en d ed a ran g e o f 3 0 t o 3 7 m o n th s’ i m p r i s o n me n t . Th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t h e a r d M o t e s ’ s mi t i g a t i n g a r g u me n ta tt he
se nt enci ng hear i ng , du ri ng w hi ch M ot es urged t he courtt o im po se a s ent ence be l ow the G ui de l i n es ra nge be c a us e the c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y “ ove r s t a t e [ d] the lik e lih o o d th at M r. M o t es i s a d an g er, h as b een a d an g er, o r w i l l b e a d an g e r to
a ny one i n the f

utur e . ” T he c our ta l s o he a r d f r om J udge W i l l i am M c I nt os h, the
m a y o r o f

M o u ltr ie , w h o te s tif ie d a s a c h a r a c te rw itn e s s a n d d e s c r ib e d h is l ongs t a ndi ng r e l a t i ons hi p w i th the M ot e s f a m i l y , o pi ne d tha tM ot e s ’ s pr i or
c onvi c t i ons w ere “ t ot a l l y outof c ha r a c t e r , ” a nd s t a t e d tha tM ot e s ha d a good
r e put a t i on i n M oul tr i e . F i na l l y , M ot e s pr e s e nt e d the t e s t i m ony of hi s unc l e w ho11

s t a t e d tha tM ot e s w a s a pr ovi d er fo r h i s f a m i l y a nd a n out s t a ndi ng m e m be rof the
co m m u n i ty. I n a ddi t i on t o he a r i ng M ot e s ’ s m i t i ga t i ng a r gu m en t an d e vi de nc e , m os tof
w hi c h c onc e r ne d “ the na tur e a nd c i rcu m st an ces of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t or y a nd char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant , ” w i thi n the m ea ni ng of § 3 5 5 3(a) (1), the di stri ct al so had b ef

ore i tthe part i es ’ l egal ar gu m ent s a nd the P S I’s ca lc ul at i on s, w hi ch
ou t l i ned “ the ki nd s of s ent ence s avai l abl e, ” a s di sc usse d i n § 35 53 (a )( 3). In i m pos i ng s e nt e nc e , the di s tr i c t co u rts pe c i f i c a l l y not e d tha tthe G ui de l i ne s ’ r a nge
w a s a dvi s or y a nd tha t the 30- m onth s e nt e nc e w a s “ appr opr i a t e ” i n l i g h to f t he § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s a nd the t ot a l i ty of the ci rcu m s t a nc e s . F r om ourow n r e vi e w of the r e c or d, i ti s c l ear M o t es’ s l ow - e nd s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s appr e c i a bl y be l ow the 6 0
- m o n th s ta tu to r y m a x im u m h e f a c e d , w a s e m in e n tly r e a s o n a b le
. AF F I RME D.