T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### S e p t e m b e r1,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. M AN UEL R AM I REZ- J I M ENEZ, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 1291 (D . C o lo .) ( D. Ct . No . 0 4 - CR- 5 8 RB)

____________________________ ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re T AC HA , C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge, and BARRETT and BROR BY , Seni or C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 .9 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

A ppel l antM anuel R ami r ez- J i m enez pl ed gui l tyt o i l l egal r eentryi nt o theM r . R ami r ez- J i m enez fi r s tpl ed gui l tyt o one countof pos s es s i on of 1 m a riju a n a w ith in ten t to d istrib u te a n d o n e c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

c o c a in e w ith (c o n tin u e d ...) -2- U n ited S tate s o f

a d e p o rte d a lien p re v io u slyc o n v icte d o f a n a g g ra v a ted fe lo n y , in v io latio n o f

8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 (a ) a n d (b )(2 ). H e n o w a p p e a ls h is fo rty -o n e -m o n th s ent ence , cont endi ng hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) due t o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fai l ur e t o: 1) pr oper l ycons i derthe mi t i gat i on evi dence he pr es ent ed; 2) art i cul at e the fa ct or s i n § 3553 on w hi ch i tr el i ed i n s ent enci ng; and 3 ) co n side r th e d ispa ri tyo f h is sen tenc e w ith that o f a n o ther ind ividu al w ith m o re p rio r c o n v ictio n s. H e f u rth e r a p p e a ls, c laim in g th e d istric t co u rt im p e rm iss ib ly “doubl e count ed” hi s pr i orconvi ct i on underU ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U . S. S. G . ” or“G ui del i nes ”) § 2L 1. 2 i n cal cul at i ng both hi s offe ns e l evel and cr i m i nal hi s t or y . W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3742 and 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffir m M r. R a m ir e z -J im e n e z ’s c o n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . O n A p ril 1 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z p led g u iltyto ill e g a l re e n tryin to t he U ni t ed St at es of a de por t ed al i en pr evi ous l yconvi ct ed of a n aggr avat ed fel ony . Fol l ow i ng hi s gui l t ypl ea, a pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a pr es ent ence r epor t , cal cul at i ng hi s bas e offens e l evel atei ghtunderU . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( a) , and appl y i ng a s i xt een- l evel upw ar d adj us t m entbas ed on hi s pr i orconvi ct i on r el at i ng t o a fe l onydrug t r aff

i cki ng offe ns e forw hi ch the s ent ence i m pos ed exc eede d t hi r t een m ont hs , pur s uant t o U . S. S. G . § 2L 1. 2( b) ( 1) ( A ) . A ft erappl y i ng a thr ee- 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 i nt entt o di s t r i but e, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a s ent ence of t en mont hs i m pr i s onm entand t hr ee y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e; butpr ocee ded t o tr i al on one countof ca rry i ng a fi r earm i n r el at i on t o a drug t r aff i cki ng offe ns e. W hen M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez l at er w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o a j ur yt r i al on the thi r d countof ca rry i ng a fi r earm i n r el at i on t o a drug t r aff

i cki ng offe ns e and pl ed gui l ty , he r ece i ved a s i xty - m onth s ent ence , a n d th e o th e r tw o se n ten c e s fo r th e d ru g tra ffick in g c o u n ts w e re re d u c e d to six m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. -3- leve l do w n w ard adjustm en t fo r ac ce p tanc e o f re sp o n sibil ityan d fa ctoring in M r. R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryatC at egoryI I , the pr obat i on offi cer c a lc u la te d h is s e n te n c in g ra n g e a t fo rt y -o n e to fif ty-o n e m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. H ow ever , bas ed on the fa ctM r . R ami r ez- J i m enez l i ved i n the U ni t ed St at es for m or e than tw enty - fi ve y ear s and i l l egal l yr etur ned t o the U ni t ed St at es forthe s ol e purpos e of c ar i ng forhi s t w o chi l dr en, the pr obat i on offi cerr ecomm ended a s e n te n c e o f

o n ly tw e n ty-tw o m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t.

M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez di d notfi l e anyw r i t t en obj ect i ons t o the pr es ent ence r epor t . H ow ever , one daybefor e the s ent enci ng hear i ng, he fi l ed a mot i on for dow nw ar d departur e, not i ng he di d notobj ectt o the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on i n t he pr es ent ence r eport , butw as r eques t i ng a r educt i on of hi s s ent ence bel ow the a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e b a se d o n m iti g a tin g c irc u m sta n c e s. In su p p o rt o f h is m ot i on, M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s att or neyar gued a r educt i on w as w arr ant ed bas ed o n : 1 ) c u ltu ra l as sim ilatio n g ro u n d s, g iv e n h e liv e d in th e U n ited S tate s o v e r h a lf hi s l i fet i m e; 2) hi s r eentr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es forthe l audabl e purpos e of-4-

car i ng forhi s chi l dr en, w ho ar e U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens ; 3) hi s l ong- t i m e adhe r ence t o t he l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es , w i th the exc ept i on of hi s pr i orconvi ct i on; 4) t he fac ta s ent ence of t i m e al r eadys erved w oul d be cons i s t entw i th others ent ence s fors i m i l aroffe nder s ; and 5) t he fa cthi s pl ea a gr eementent er ed i nt o dur i ng pr os ecut i on of hi s pr i oroffe ns e w as condi t i oned, i n par t , on the U ni t ed St at es governm ent ’ s pr om i s e t o as s i s thi m i n r emai ni ng i n thi s countryi n excha nge for hi s hel p i n t he i nves t i gat i on and pr os ecut i on of other s , butthatthe governm ent n e v e r f u lfille d its p ro m is e . I n m aki ng t hes e ar gum ent s atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, M r . R ami r ezJim e n e z ’s a tto rn e ysta ted M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z w a s n o t co llate ra llya ttac k in g h is p rio r c o n v ictio n b u t b rin g in g th e iss u e u p in o rd e r to a p p rise th e c o u rt o f h is assistan ce to the g o v ern m en t du ri n g h is prior co n v ict ion . W h en the d istri ct co u rt as ked how t he mat t erfi tw i t hi n t he 18 U . S. C . §3553( a) fac t or s , hi s couns el expl ai ned i ts how ed M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s extr eme hel pful nes s t o l aw enfor cementand “that ’ s as faras i tgoes . ” A ft erM r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s couns el s ugges t ed hi s pr i ors i ngl e w r ongful actcomm i t t ed manyy ear s ago s houl d not cont i nue t o bl i ghthi s l i fe, t he di s tr i ctcourtnot ed doubl e count i ng of the pr i or co n v ict ion in b o th the co m p u tat ion o f th e o ffen se lev el an d the c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryw as l aw ful , t o w hi ch M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s couns el s t at ed, “I am not a rg u in g w ith th e fa c t th a t th e g u id e lin e s d o n ’t p ro p e rlytak e th a t in toT he governm entcur s or i l yexpl ai ned i tdi d notoppos e the mot i on for 2 dow nw ar d departur e, gi ven the i ni t i al pr os ecut ori n the ca s e r es i gned hi s pos i t i on a n d lef t n o d o c u m e n tatio n a s to w h e th e r a n a g re e m e n t w a s e n ter e d in to c o n c e rn in g tim e M r. R a m ir e z -J im e n e z h a d a lr e a d ys e rv e d in c u s to d y . 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). 3 -5- cons i der at i on, t he fa ctt hati ti s a doubl e pena l ty , butw hatI am ar gui ng, y our H onor , i s t he l ar gercont extof [M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s ] l i fe. ” M r . R ami r ezJ i m enez ’ s att or neyt hen poi nt ed outM r . R ami r ez- J i m enez had “be en l aw a b id in g ,” a n d o n lyc o m m itt e d th e o ffe n se o f ill e g a l re e n tryto p ro v id e fo r h is c h ild re n . F in a lly , M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s c o u n se l co m p lain e d a b o u t th e d isp a rity of h i s sent ence a s com pared t o at l easton e otherdefe nd ant i n an othercase pr es i ded overbya di ffe r entj udge i n w hi ch the defendantr ece i ved forty - one m ont hs i m pr i s onm enteven though he had a m or e egr egi ous cr i m i nal hi s t oryof th re e p rio r o ffe n se s, in c lu d in g se x u a l as sa u lt. 2

I n r ender i ng t he s ent ence , t he di s tr i ctcourtexhaus t i vel yart i cul at ed the r el evantm at t er s of fa ctand l aw i tcons i der ed, i ncl udi ng the pl ea a gr eementof the par t i es ; t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e, “foc us i ng on i t s r eal conduct , ” as r equi r ed byt he courti n Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker ; M r . R ami r ez- 3 J i m enez ’ s hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs ; t he s ent ence perm i t t ed byl aw under18 U . S. C . § 3551; t he pr es ent ence r eportand adde ndum ; t he purpos es and goal s of s ent enci ng under18 U . S. C . § 3553; t he fa ct or s w hi ch mustbe cons i der ed under-6-

18 U . S. C . §§ 3582( a) and 3553( a) ( 1) - ( 7) ; the appl i cabl e pr ovi s i ons of the advi s or yG ui del i nes ; t he ki nd of s ent ence and s ent enci ng r ange e s t abl i s hed t her eunder , t ogetherw i t h § 3553( a) ( 4) ; the i m por t antneed t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es and t o ens ur e s i m i l ars ent ence s forthos e comm i t t i ng s i m i l arcr i m es ; t he pert i nentpol i cys t at ement s of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on; t he cr i t i cal need t o i m pos e s ent ence s under§ 3553( a) ( 2) t o r efl ect t he seri ou sness of t he o ffen se, prom ote r espectfor the law , provide j ust p u n ish m e n t fo r th e o ffe n se , affo rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e b yp ro tec tin g th e p u b lic f ro m f u rth e r c rim e s c o m m itt e d b yth e d e fe n d a n t o r o th e r d e fe n d a n ts s im ilarly s i tuat ed and i ncl i ned, and pr ovi de nee ded educ at i onal orvocat i onal tr ai ni ng or o th e r c o rre c tio n a l trea tm e n t; th e C o n g re ss io n a l g o a l o f fa irn e ss a n d u n ifo rm ityin s ent enci ng and the pr i nci pl e under§ 3553( a) of i m pos i ng a s ent ence s uffi ci entbut notgr eat ert han nec es s aryt o achi eve thos e goal s ; the pos i t i ons of the pr obat i on depart m ent , t he governm ent , defe ns e couns el , and the defendanthi m s el f; the m ot i on fordow nw ar d departur e bas ed on cul tur al as s i m i l at i on gr ounds ; and the a u th o ri tie s c ite d b yth e p a rt ie s in th e ira rg u m e n ts to th e c o u rt . N ext , t he di s t r i ctcour tart i cul at ed w hya s ent ence atthe bott om of the G ui del i nes r ange a tfor t y - one mont hs w oul d m eetthes e fa ct or s and otherr el evant cr i t er i a i tcons i der ed. T he di s t r i ctcour texpl i ci t l ys t at ed thatw hi l e i thad di s cr et i on t o departfr om t he advi s or yG ui del i nes r ange, no good caus e orr eas on-7-

exi s t ed and not ed M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez comm i t t ed a s er i ous offe ns e and then ent er ed the countr yi l l egal l yw hi l e on s upervi s ed r el eas e, demonstr at i ng he learn ed n o thing fro m h is ex p erien ce . T h e d istri ct co u rtalso stat ed the a d v isory G u id e lin e s lo g ica llya n d fa irlya p p lied to M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z a n d h is ci r cumst ance , and expl ai ned a for ty - one- m onth s ent ence atthe bott om of the G ui del i nes r ange w oul d avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es i n ens ur i ng s i m i l ars ent ence s fort hos e w ho comm i ts i m i l arcr i m es i n s i m i l arw ay s . T he dis t ri ctcou rtfurther exp l ai ned i ti m po sed a fo rty -one-m on th sentence i n a case “a lm o st on all fo u rs” w ith M r. R am ir ez -Ji m en ez ’s ca se o n lythe w ee k b efo re. I n ad d it ion , the d istri ct co u rtre-arti cu lat ed the o ther se n tenc ing fa ctors in § 3 5 5 3 (a), p o in tin g o u t, i n p a rt, th a t a fo rty -o n e -m o n th se n ten c e in th is c a se w o u ld p ro m o te resp ec t fo r th e law , p rov ide ju st pu n ishm en t fo r th e o ffen se, ho p ef u ll yaffo rd adequa t e det err ence bypr ot ect i ng the publ i c fr om M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez orother defe ndant s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed and i ncl i ned t o comm i tfur thercr i m es , and pr ovi de M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez w i t h neede d vocat i onal tr ai ni ng orothercorr ect i onal t r eatm ent . W hi l e the di s t r i ctcour tnot ed M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s l ove and co n ce rn fo r his ch il d ren w ere ad m ir ab le, itq u esti o n ed w h ere h is l o v e a n d co n ce rn forhi s chi l dr en w er e att he t i m e he c om m i t t ed the pr i ordrug- r el at ed fe l ony offe ns e. Fi nal l y , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi s count ed M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s ar gum ent m i t i gat i on w as w arr ant ed bec aus e he l i ved a l aw - abi di ng l i fe i n thi s countryfor an ext ended pe r i od of t i m e, poi nt i ng outabi di ng the l aw i s a mi ni m umI n i t s ar gum ent s i n r es pons e t o M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s appea l , t he 4 governm ents ugges t s he unt i m el yfi l ed hi s appea l . W e di s agr ee. T he di s tr i ct cour tdockets how s t he cr i m i nal j udgm entw as ent er ed J une 13, 2005. T he dat e of e n tr yis th e b e g in n in g p o in t fo r w h e n th e tim e p e ri o d b e g in s to ru n . See F e d . R. A p p . P . 4 (b )( 6 ). T h e te n -d a yfilin g d e a d lin e e x p ir e d J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 . See F e d . R. A pp. P. 4( b) ( 1) ( A ) and 26( a) ( 2) . B eca us e M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez fi l ed hi s appea l on J une 21, 2005, i tw as t i m el yfi l ed befor e the expi r at i on of the fi l i ng deadl i ne. -8- req u ir em en t of

all p erso n s in this co u n try . T h e d istri ct co u rtthen d en ied M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s m o tio n a n d se n ten c e d h im to fo rty -o n e m o n th s im p riso n m e n t.

O n a p p e a l, M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z c o n tin u e s to a rg u e h is s e n ten c e is unr eas onabl e under§ 3553 beca us e of the mi t i gat i on evi dence he pr es ent ed and t he fa cthi s s ent ence i s di s s i m i l art o atl eas tone def endants ent ence d i n another cas e. A s t oni s hi ngl y , he al s o cont ends the di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed “t o art i cul at e the fac t or s upon w hi ch i tr el i ed fors ent enci ng under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . ” Forthe fi r s tt i m e on appe al , M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez al s o cl ai m s the di s tr i ctcourterr ed “by r ej ect i ng anycons i der at i on of ‘ doubl e count i ng’ w hi ch r es ul t ed i n unw arr ant ed se n ten c in g d isp a rities .” T h u s, w h ile M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s c o u n se l re p e a ted ly r epr es ent ed M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez di d notobj ectt o the G ui del i nes cal cul at i on of fo rty -on e to fifty -on e m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, h e is n o w claim ing the d istri ct co u rt i m perm i s s i bl ydoubl e count ed hi s pr i orconvi ct i on, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n the sent encing d i spari t yhe clai m s. 4

W h il e w e re co g n ize the G u idelines are n o w ad v isoryrathe r th an m an d atory-9-

undert he pr i nci pl es announce d i n B ooker , theycont i nue t o be a fact orthe di s tr i ct c o u rt m u s t c o n s id e r i n im p o s in g a s e n te n c e . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( percur i am ) . Si nce B ooker , w e r evi ew for re a s o n a b le n e s s th e u ltim a te s e n te n c e im p o s e d . Id. W e re q u ire re a so n a b len e ss in t w o r es pect s – “the l ength of the s ent ence , as w el l as the m ethodbyw hi ch the s ent ence w as cal cul at ed. ” Id. at 10 5 5 . If the d istri ct co u rt“p rop erlyco n side rs t he r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence s the defendantw i thi n thatr ange, the se n ten c e is p re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le,” b u t “[ t]h e d e fe n d a n t m a yre b u t th is pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng t hatthe s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the ot hers ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Id . I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe d istric t co u rt p ro p e rlyc o n sid e re d th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w e re v iew its le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o a n d its fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo r c le a r e rr o r. Id. a t 1 0 5 4 . W e b e g in w ith M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s d o u b le c o u n tin g a rg u m e n t. H e d id n o t ra ise th e iss u e b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt, alth o u g h th e d istric t co u rt itse lf b ri e fly re fe rr e d to th e la w f u ln e s s o f

d o u b le c o u n tin g a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a ri n g . W e have l ong decl i ned t o rul e on i s s ues notr ai s ed i n the di s tr i ctcour tw hen the defe ndantcannots how an i m pedi m entpr ecl uded hi s r ai s i ng the i s s ue orthatthe g ro u n d n o t r a is e d c o n s titu te d p la in e rr o r r e s u ltin g in m a n ife s t inju s tic e . See United S tates v. O rr , 8 6 4 F . 2 d 1 5 0 5 , 1 5 0 8 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) . Ho we v e r , e v e n i f we cons i der ed the i s s ue i n t hi s cas e, the appl i cat i on not e t o § 2L 1. 2 of the G ui del i nes-10-

e x p re s s ly sta te s “ [ a ] c o n v ic tio n ta k e n in to a c c o u n t u n d e r s u b s e c tio n (b )( 1 ) [ i.e ., fordrug t r aff

i cki ng cr i m es ] i s notexcl uded fr om cons i der at i on of w hetherthat convi ct i on r ece i ves cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s . . . . ” See c m t. n.6 . W e h a v e g e n e ra lly uphel d t he us e of pr i orconvi ct i ons t o cal cul at e both cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egor i es and s ent ence enhanc ement s w her e the G ui del i nes perm i ts uch appl i cat i on, and M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s ar gum entdoes notper s uade us w e s houl d ques t i on our c lea r a n d lo n g -h e ld p re c e d e n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. A l es s andr oni , 982 F. 2d 419, 4 2 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. F l or ent i no , 9 2 2 F .2 d 1 4 4 3 , 1 4 4 7 -4 8 (1 0 th C i r . 1990) . M or eover , w hi l e thi s ci r cui thas notdi r ect l ycons i der ed w hether § 2L 1. 2 al l ow s i m perm i s s i bl e doubl e count i ng i n a publ i s hed opi ni on, other c irc u its h a v e a d d re ss e d M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s a rg u m e n t an d so u n d lyrejec ted it beca us e the appl i cat i on not e t o § 2L 1. 2 expr es s l yal l ow s a s i xt een- l evel e n h a n c e m e n t in a d d itio n to c ri m in a l h is to ry p o in ts fo r s u c h a c o n v ic tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez - F i er r os , 4 5 3 F .3 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 2 -1 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez , 4 3 4 F .3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 3 n .4 (1 1 th C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 2 9 4 6 (20 0 6 ); Un itedS ta tes v . To rr e s-E c h a v a rr ia , 1 2 9 F . 3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 8 -99 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). U n d er the se c ir cu m stan ce s, itw as n o t un rea so n ab le fo r th e d istri ct co u rt t o defe rt o § 2L 1. 2 and i t s appl i cat i on not e and fol l ow the s ame appr oach of us i ng M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s p rio r o ffe n se to b o th c a lcu late h is c rim in a l h isto ryp o in ts and enha nce hi s offe ns e l evel . B eca us e § 2L1. 2 per t ai ns t o l i ke offender s w ho i l l egal l yr eent ert he U ni t ed St at es aft erdeport at i on and convi ct i on foran-11-

ag g rav ated fe lon y , M r. R am ir ez -Ji m en ez h as n o t est ab li sh ed the d istri ct co u rt e rre d “ b yrejec tin g a n yc o n sid e ra tio n o f ‘d o u b le c o u n tin g ’ w h ich re su lted in unw arr ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es . ”

W e n e x t p ro c e e d to M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s o th e r a rg u m e n ts s u p p o rtin g h is cl ai m hi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e ci r cumst ance s w arr anta r educt i on bel ow t he G ui del i nes r ange. I n t hi s cas e, aft erthor oughl ycons i der i ng the s ent enci ng fac t or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553, as w el l as the appl i cabl e G ui del i nes , the fac t s of the ca s e, M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , and otherr el evant cr i t er i a, t he di s t r i ctcour tr efus ed t o departdow nw ar d and conc l uded a for ty - onem o n th se n ten c e “ lo g ica llya n d fa irlya p p lied ” to M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z “ in h is ci r cumst ance s . ” G i ven the di s t r i ctcour t“pr oper l ycons i der [ed] the r el evant G u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d se n ten c e [ d ] th e d e fe n d a n t w ith in th a t ra n g e , the se n ten c e is p re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le,” a n d it i s u p to M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z to re b u t th is pr es um pt i on bydemonstr at i ng hi s s ent ence i s “unr eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the other s ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1055.

I n t hi s cas e, M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez has nots how n w hyhe s houl d be tr eat ed di ffe r ent l yt han other s w ho, l i ke hi m , i l l egal l yr eent er ed the countryaft er c o n v ictio n fo r a se rio u s fe lo n yd ru g tra ffick in g o ffe n se a n d w e re se n ten c e d w ith in t he appl i cabl e G ui del i nes r ange. Fi r s t , the G ui del i nes cl ear l yadvi s e “fami l yt i es-12-

an d resp o n sibil it ies are n o t ord inaril yrelev an t i n d eterm ining w h ethe r a d ep arture m a yb e w a rra n ted ,” U .S .S .G . § 5 H 1 .6 , an d w e h a v e d e ter m in e d fa m ily r es pons i bi l i t i es ar e a di s cour aged fact orw hi ch the di s tr i ctcour ts houl d cons i der o n ly in th e m o s t e x tr a o rd in a ry c a s e s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. McC lat chey , 316 F. 3d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 3 0 ( 1 0 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . S i mi l a r l y , h i s a r g u me n th e a b i d e d b yo u rl a ws dur i ng hi s s t ayi n t he U ni t ed St at es i s es s ent i al l yan abe rr antbehavi orar gum ent underU . S. S. G . § 5K 2. 20, w hi ch r ecomm ends a s ent ence out s i de of the G ui del i nes r ange w her e the defendantl i ved an otherw i s e l aw - abi di ng l i fe, otherthan c o m m is s io n o f

th e in s ta n t c ri m e . See U. S . S . G. § 5 K2 . 2 0 ( b ) . Ho we v e r , th e s a me G ui del i nes s ect i on advi s es aberr antbehavi ors houl d notbe cons i der ed i f the d e fe n d a n t, lik e h e re , h a s a p ri o r fe d e ra l fe lo n yc o n v ic tio n . See U. S . S . G. § 5K 2. 20( c) ( 4) . U ndert he ci r cumst ance s pr es ent ed and the appl i cabl e l aw , i tw as notunr eas onabl e fort he di s t r i ctcour tt o det erm i ne a s ent ence i m pos ed atthe b o tto m o f

th e a p p lica b le G u id e lin e s ra n g e su fficie n tlyre flec ted th e fa c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 , an d M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z h a s n o t o th e rw ise d e m o n stra ted h is s e n ten c e is unr eas onabl e.

N ext , M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s verbal exampl e of a notherdefe ndanti n a d iffe ren t case w h o rec eive d the s am e se n tenc e b u t al lege d lyp o sses sed a m o re e g re g io u s c rim in a l h isto ryis n o t en o u g h to e sta b lish d isp a rityo f se n ten c in g in th is c a se fo r th e p u rp o se o f sh o w in g M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s s e n ten c e is-13-

u n re a so n a b le. F irst, w e h a v e h e ld th a t “[ w ]h ile s im ilar o ffe n d e rs e n g a g e d in s i m i l arconducts houl d be s ent ence d equi val ent l y , di s par at e s ent ence s ar e al l ow ed w her e the di s par i t yi s expl i cabl e bythe fa ct s on the r ecor d. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D a v is , 4 3 7 F .3 d 9 8 9 , 9 9 7 (1 0 th C ir .) ( q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ), c e rt. deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 19 3 5 (2 0 0 6 ). In th is c a se , M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z h a s fa iled to id e n tifyth e c h a ra c ter istics o f th e o th e r d e fe n d a n t, pr o v id e a n a c c o u n t o f h is instan t offe n se a n d ea ch o f h is prior o ffen ses, i d en ti fyh is t o tal crim inal h ist o ry s cor e, orot herw i s e pr es ents uffi ci entfac t s s urr oundi ng thatdefe ndant ’ s r ecor d for t he purpos e of us i ng hi s s ent ence as an equi val entcompar i s on w i th M r . R ami r ezJ im e n e z ’s s e n te n c e . In a d d iti o n , co n sid e ra tio n o f se n ten c in g d isp a rities a m o n g d e fe n d a n ts w ith s i m i l arr ecor ds found gui l t yof s i m i l arconducti s butone of s ever al fac t or s under § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fo r a c o u rt to c o n s id e r i n d e te rm in in g a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Mor al es - C hai r es , 4 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 2 4 , 1 1 3 1 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). In th is cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour tcons i der ed the di s par i tyof s ent enci ng fac t or s , t ogether w i t h t he otherfac t or s i n § 3553( a) , and w as notr equi r ed t o s i ngl e outoras s i gn m or e w ei ghtt o t hatfac t ort han anyotherfac t or . Fi nal l y , gi ven M r . R ami r ezJ i m enez ’ s s ent ence i s att he l ow end of the pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e G ui del i nes r ange, and the di s t r i ctcour ti n t hi s cas e ca r eful l ycons i der ed and r ej ect ed the d isp a rityo f

se n ten c in g iss u e p re se n ted a n d , in fa c t, pr o v id e d a n e x p licit e x a m p le-14-

o f a fo rty -on e-m o n th se n tenc e itim p o sed in a c ase “a lm o st on all fo u rs” w ith M r. R a m ire z -Jim e n e z ’s, w e h a v e n o c a u se to c o n c lu d e th e se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le fo r d is p a ri ty o f

s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . Fort hes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM M r . R ami r ez- J i m enez ’ s convi ct i on and s ent ence . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: W ADE BRO RBY U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge