1 08
- 52 67
- cr U n ite d S ta te s v . M itc h e ll
UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R

R uli ng s by s um m ary o rder do no t ha ve preceden t i al ef f ect . C i t ati on t o a sum m ary o rder f i l ed on or aft er Ja nu ary 1, 2007, i s per m i t t ed and i s gove rne d by Feder al R ul e of A ppel l at e Proc edur e 32. 1 and t hi s c ourt ’ s Local R ul e 32. 1. 1. W h en citin g a su m m a ry or d er i n a d o cu m en t fi led w ith th is co u rt, a p a rty m u st cite e ith er th e F ed er a l A p p en d ix or an e l e c t r oni c da t aba s e ( w i t h t he no t at i on “s um m ar y o r de r ”) . A par t y c i t i ng a s um m ar y or de r m us t s e r ve a c opy o f it on a n y p a rty n o t re p re se n ted b y co u n se l. At a stated t erm of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sec ond Circuit, hel d at the Daniel Patri ck Moynihan United St ates Courthouse , 500 Pearl Stre et, in the Cit y of New York, on the 22 day of June, two thousand ten.

nd PRESENT : ROGER

J. MINER, ROBER T D. SACK , PETER W . HALL,

Ci rcu it J ud ges .

______________________________________________ UNITED STA TES OF AMERICA, Ap pe lle e,
v. No . 0 8-5 26 7-c r KEITH D. MOO DY, also known as Lil-Man, De fen da nt, AN TH ON Y L . M IT CH EL L, als o k no wn as T on e, De fen da nt- Ap pe lla nt.

______________________________________________
FOR APP ELLEE: ELIZABETH S. RIKER (John M. Katko, of counsel), Assi stant Unite d States Attorneys, for Andrew T. Baxter, United Stat es Attorney for the Northern Distr ict of New York, Syracuse, NY. FOR DEF ENDAN T-APPELLAN T: GEORG IA J. HINDE, New Y ork, NY.2

Appeal from a judgm ent of the United Stat es Distri ct Court for the Nort hern Distri ct of New York (Mordue, C. J. ). UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , it is here by ORDERE D, ADJUDGED , AND DE CREED , th at the jud gm ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED
. Defendant-Appellant Anthony L. Mi tchell, who ple aded guilty t o one count of violati ng 21 U. S. C. § 8 46 byco ns pir ingto d istrib ute an d to po sse ss w ithint ent to dis tri bute m ore than fi ft y g ram s o f c oc ain e b ase or “ cra ck ,” cla im s th at the dis tri ct c ourt e rre d in im po sin g a senten ce of 14 0 m onths ’ im

pri so nm ent. W e as sum e th e p art ies ’ f am ili ari ty w iththe fa cts , p roc ed ura l
co nte xt, an d s pe cif

icatio n o f a

pp ell ate iss ue s. Mit ch ell argue s th at h is s enten ce o f 1 40 m onths wa s unre aso na ble . W e re vie w a

dis tri ct
co urt ’s s en ten cin g d ete rm inatio n f or p roc ed ura l an d s ub stanti ve rea so na ble ne ss, a st an dard “ ak in to r ev iewfo r ab us e o f d isc ret ion .” Un ite d S tates v . F ern an de z , 443 F.3d 19, 27 (2d Cir. 2006). An ap pe llate c ourt
m us t f irs t en sure that th e d istric t co urt co mm itt ed

no sig nif icant p roc ed

ura l er ror , su chas f ail ingto c alc ulate ( or i m

pro pe rlycal cu lat ing ) th e Guid eli ne s rang e, tre ati ng the Gu ide lin es a s m an dator y, fa ili ng to c on sid er the [1 8 U .S .C .] § 3 55 3(a ) fa cto rs, sel ect inga se nte nc e b ase d o n c learlyerr on eo us fa cts , o r f ail ing to adequately e xplain the c hosen sentence —including an e xplanation for any de viatio n f

rom the Gu ide lin es r an ge . Ga ll v . U nited Sta tes , 5 52 U. S. 38 , 5 1 (2 00 7). In r ev iew ing fo r su bs tantiv e re aso na

ble ne ss, an appellat e court must “take int o account the t otalit y of the circumstances, incl uding the exte nt of
any v ari an ce f

rom the Gu ide lin es r an ge .” Id. W e “may consider the exte nt of the deviati on, but
m us t gi ve du e d ef

ere nc e to the dis tri ct c ourt’ s d eci sio n th at the § 3 55 3(a ) f act ors , o n a

wh ole , jus tif y th e ex tent of

the varianc e. ” Id. After careful revi ew of Mitchell’ s arguments and the appell ate recor d, we hold that the distri ct court di d not abuse it s discret ion in sente ncing him to 140 m onths’ imprisonment. Mit ch ell fi rst

arg ue s th at the dis tri ct c ourt a bu sed its dis cre tio n b eca

us e it did no t f ull y a pp rec iat eMitchel l was sentence d on October 23, 2008. 1 Regalado is not to t he contrary. There, we held thatcases invol ving the sent encing 2 disparit y between the coca ine base and coc aine powder with t he “unusual” posture of coming af ter Un ite d S

tates v . B oo ker , 5 43 U. S. 22 0 (2 00 5), an d b ef ore Ca sti llo justified “a narrow and limited exception t o our general rule thatsentencing c ourts are presumed to know and follow the ap pli cab le s enten cin g law. ” Regalado , 518 F.3d at 148. 3 the ex tent of

its dis cre tio n, un de r Ki mb ro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 5 52 U. S. 85 (20 07 ), t o re du ce h is sentence bas ed on the sente ncing dispar ity between coc aine base and c ocaine powder offenses. W e d isa gre e. In Kimbrough , the Supreme Court held that a policy disa greement with the cocai ne powder / crack c ocaine dispa rity in t he Guidelines c an be grounds for a non-Guidel ines sente nce. Kimbrough , 552 U.S. at 109-10. In United States v. Regalado , 518 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2008), we observed thatour decisi on in Un ite d S tates v . C as til lo , 460 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2006), “may have be enov er- rea d o r m isr ead to i nh ibi t any d ev iat ion ” f rom the po lic y and

that “whe n a

dis tri ct
co urt senten ced

a d ef en dant f or a cra ck co cai ne of

fe ns e b ef ore Kimbrough , th ere wa s an
un acc ep tab le l ike lih oo d o f e rro r.” Regalado , 518 F.3d at 147. In Regalado , the defendant, at t he time of his sentencing in t he distri ct court, di d not requesta deviati on, and Castillo ha d n ot y et been decided. Regalado , 5 18 F. 3d at 1 46 . T he Co urt

the ref ore em plo ye d a rem an d s im ilar to that in United States v. Crosby , 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005), for the di strictcourt to det ermine wh eth er i t w ou ld h av e im po sed the sam e se nte nc e h ad

it b een aw are of the dis cre tio n a cco rde d it
un de r Kimbrough
. Regalado , 518 F.3d at 149. In t he ins tant ca se, ho we ve r, M itc he ll w as s enten ced af ter Kimbrough was issued and 1 there is nothing in the record tha t suggests t hat the dis trictcourt was unaware of Kimbrough ’s sig nif icanc e as it r elates to c oc ain e b ase of fe ns es. W e h av e h eld

that in the ab sen ce o f e vid en ce to the contr ary, a sente ncing judge is presumed to know the state of sente ncing law, seeUn ite d 2W e rejectthe argument that sent encings thatoccurred i n the time between Kimbrough 3 and Sp ea rs v . U

nited Sta tes , -- - U .S . -- -, 1 29 S. Ct . 8 40 (20 09 ) (p er c uri am ), are s ub jec t to remand due to a major change in the law. Sp ea rs did no t al ter the lawin anyway; r ath er, it m ere ly “ co nf

irm ed ” Kimbrough ’s core hol ding. See, e.g. , Un ite d S tates v . A rre luc ea -Z

am ud io , 58 1 F .3 d 1 42 , 1 57 (3d

Ci r. 2 00 9). 4 States v. Verk

hoglyad , 516 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 2008), and tha t a distr ict court ’s sile nce on the iss ue of the co cai ne po wd er /

cra ck co cai ne dis pa

rity is no t in dic ati ve of

its ap pro ach

to sentencing, seeUn ite d S

tates v . K eller , 5 39 F. 3d

97 , 1 01 (2d

Ci r. 2 00 8) ( statin g th at the Co urt ha s “d isavo we d f

orm ula ic r eq uir em ents and

rob oti c in cantat ion s f

or d isc hargi ng a co urt ’s d uti es durin g s en ten cin g” (ci tat ion s an d inter na l qu otatio n m ark s o m itt ed )). Ea chof the cas es M itc he ll c ite s invo lve d d ef en dants wh o w ere senten ced pri or t o Kimbrough, an d e ac h d ec is io n wa s b as edin subs ta nt ia l p ar t o n t he fac t t ha t t he se nt en ci ng ca me at a time when the law of this Circ uit was unsett led. See, e.g. , id. (“[ A] t th e ti m e o f s enten cin g in thi s ca se, our own c ase lawpro hib ite d a dis tri ct c ourt f

rom im po sin g a no n-Guid eli ne s se nte nc e solely on the basis of that cour t’s disa greement with the 100-to- 1 ratio pr ovided by statute.”). Th at i s si m

ply no t th e ca se h ere . W e th ere fo re c on clu de that th e d ist ric t co urt did no t ab us e it s 3 discret ion as to the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kimbrough
. Mit ch ell ne xt argu es t

hat th e d istric t co urt

ab us ed its dis cre tio n in

de ter m ini ng his cri m ina l hi sto ry c ate go ry. Th e p res enten ce r ep ort (“P SR ”) a sse sse d te n p oints f or s ev en misdem eanor convict ions and one viol ation thatoccurred bet ween 1996 and 2002, and two additional points for a felony convic tion in 1996 for cri minal possession of a weapon. Based on thi s h ist ory , th e P SR

cal cu lat ed

that Mi tch ell ha d a

cri m ina l hi sto ry c ate go ry o f V . M itc he ll submitted a sentenci ng mem orandum m oving for a criminal hist ory category departure . The distri ct court de nied this motion.5

Mit ch ell ha s ad

m itt ed to h av ing“to o m any p rio r co nv ict ion s, ” an d im m ed iat ely be fo re his arr est fo r th e in stant o ff

en se a search un co ve red

ap pro xim ate ly 9 1 g ram s o f c rac k c oc ain e,
co cai ne , m ari

juana , a pp rox im ate ly $ 60 ,0 00 in c ash , and amm un iti on . T he dis tri ct c ourt c are fu lly
co ns ide red

thi s h ist ory

an d re jec ted the ve ry argum ents M itc he ll n owm ak es b ef ore thi s co urt , statin g th at C rim ina l H ist ory Categ ory V w as “ anacc urate r ef

lec tio n o f [ De fe nd ant-A

pp ell ant’s ] criminal history.” We therefore find no abuse of discreti on in that cour t’s deci sion to assi gn a criminal history category of V. Finally, itappears tha t Mitche ll chall enges his sent ence on substant ive grounds. Although his exactarguments are not enti rely cle ar from his brief, such a challe nge fails in any
ev en t. G ive n h is a dju ste d o ff en se l ev el o f 3 3, the PS R c on clu de d th at M itc he ll f ace d a po tentia l Guidelines r ange of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonm ent. After a government motion
rec om m en din g a

thr ee- lev el d ownw ard

de parture, lat er i nc rea sed to a fo ur- lev el d ownw ard de parture, Mit ch ell ’s a dju ste d o ff en se l ev el w as 2 9 and

his Gu ide lin es i m

pri so nm ent rang e w as 14 0-1 75 m onths . T he dis tri ct c ourt s enten ced Mit ch ell to 1 40 m onths , at th e v ery bo tto m of thi s
ran ge . M itc he ll h im sel f w aiv ed the rig ht t o a

pp eal any s enten ce l ow er than 1 35 m onths , s tro ng ly
su gg est ing that any s enten ce at th at l ev el w ou ld b e su bs tantiv ely

rea so na ble . H is a ctu al s enten ce
wa s o nly fi ve ad dit ion al m onths , and the re i s am

ple ev ide nc e in

the rec ord

—in clu din g th e f

act that he appea red to take a leaders hip role i n the drug deal ing he engaged in wit h his codefendant Ke ithMo od

y— that su pp ort s th e re aso na

ble ne ss o f t

he senten ce. Ac co rdi ng ly, the jud gm ent of the dis tri ct c ourt i s AFFIRMED
.

FOR THE COURT : Cathe rin e O ’H ag anW olf e, Cl erk