A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd t he appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det er m 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 d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 t h Ci r . R. 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, orcol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A p r il24,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC 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. S T E P HE N R E X AL L E N, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 2110 ( D. C. No . CR- 0 4 - 7 8 8 J B) ( N ew M exi co)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. St ephen Rex A l l en pl ed gui l t yt o vi ol at i ng 18 U . S. C . § 2113’ s pr ohi bi t i on on at t empt ed and c om pl et ed bank r obber i es and w as s ent ence d t o 151 m ont hs i m pr i s onm entand 3 y ear s of s uper vi s ed r el eas e. O n appea l , he cont ends t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n cal cul at i ng hi s s ent enci ng r ange unde rt he fe der al gui del i nes a n d t h a th i s s e n t e n c e i s u n r e a s o n a b l e . W e a ffi r m. Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, t he U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce de vel oped aSee U.S.S.G. § 2X1.1 (“(a) B ase O ffense L evel: Thebase of fenselevel from 1 the guideline for thesubstantive offense, plus anyadjustments from such guideline for anyintended off

ense c onduct that can be established with reasonable certainty . (b) Specific O ffense Chara cteristics (1) I f an attempt, decre ase by3 levels, unless the defendant completed all the acts the de fendant believed ne cessaryfor suc cessf ul completion of the substantive off ense orthe circumstances de monstrate that the defendant was about to complete all such a cts but for apprehension or interruption by some similar event be yond the def endant' s control.”)

- 2- pr es ent ence r epor t( PSR ) forM r . A l l en. H e w as as s i gned a ba s e offens e l evel of 20 and a 2 l evel i ncr eas e pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 1) beca us e hi s obj ect i ve w as the taki ng of a fi nan ci al i nst i tuti on ’s propert y , for an ini t i al adjust ed o ffen se l evel of 22. B eca us e he w as a ca r eercr i m i nal , he w as as s i gned an a dj us t ed offe ns e l evel of 32 pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1, and a dow nw ar d adj us t m entof 3 fo r a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility, s ee U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1, fora t ot al offe ns e l evel of 29. W i t h a cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V I , hi s fi nal offe ns e l evel l ed t o a re c o m m e n d e d g u id e lin e im p ri s o n m e n t r a n g e o f 1 5 1 -1 8 8 m o n th s . Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, M r . A l l en fi l ed a s ent enci ng m emora ndum as s er t i ng he w a s e n title d to a th re e le v e l r e d u c tio n in h is o ffe n s e le v e l p u rs u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2X 1. 1 on t he gr ound t hathi s cr i m e w as an att empt r athert han a c om pl et ed offe ns e. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed M r . A l l en’ s r eques t . A tt he conc l us i on of the

1 h e a rin g , the c o u rt sta ted it h a d “ tak e n a c c o u n t o f th e se n ten c in g g o a ls th a t ar e in [18 U . S. C . ] Sect i on 3553( a) ” and the gui del i nes r ecomm endat i on, and s ent ence d M r. A lle n to 1 5 1 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t, th e lo w e n d o f th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e . R ec. , vol . V at39.- 3-

M r . A l l en appe al s t he deni al of a r educt i on under§ 2X 1. 1 and, i n t he al t ernat i ve, ar gues hi s 151 m ont h s ent ence w as unr eas onabl yl ong i n l i ghtof the 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s . W hen r evi ew i ng t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s appl i cat i on of t he gui del i nes , w e r evi ew l egal fi ndi ngs de novo and factual fi ndi ngs forcl ear e rr o r. Uni t ed Stat es v. Mar t i nez , 4 1 8 F . 3 d 1 1 3 0 , 1 1 3 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W h ere t he di s t r i ctcour terr s i n appl y i ng t he gui del i nes w e “mustr emand . . . unl es s t he err ori s har m l es s . ” Un ite dS ta te s v . Kr is tl, 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). If the d istri ct co u rt ' s ap p li ca ti o n o f th e g u idelines w as c o rrect or a n yerro rs h a rm le s s , th e n w e d e c id e w h e th e r t h e s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . Un itedS ta tes v . He rn a n d ez-C a stillo , 4 4 9 F .3 d 1 1 2 7 , 1 1 2 9 -3 0 (1 0 th C ir .2 0 0 6 ). W e fir st ad d ress M r. A ll en ’s co n tention that the g u idelines w ere m i s appl i ed. T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce i ni t i al l ycal cul at ed an offens e l evel of 22, a ss ig n in g 2 0 lev e ls fo r b a n k ro b b e rya n d a 2 lev e l u p w a rd a dju stm e n t fo r h is obj ect i ve of t aki ng bank pr oper t y . B eca us e M r . A l l en qual i fi ed as a ca r eer o ffe n d e r u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 (a ), h o w e v e r, h is fin a l o ffe n s e le v e l w a s s e t b y§ 4 B 1 .1 (b ). See U . S. S. G . § 4B 1. 1( b) ( C ar eercr i m i nal offe ns e l evel s cal cul at ed pur s uantt o § 4 B 1 . 1 (b) su p erse d e lesse r l ev els t h at w o u ld b e “ o therw ise ap p li ca b le. ”). I n M r. A lle n ’s c a s e , h e w a s a s s ig n e d a n o ffe n s e le v e l o f 3 2 a s re q u ir e d b yU .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1( b) , l es s a 3 l evel dow nw ar d adj us t m entforacc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i t y , for a n a dju s te d o ffe n s e le v e l o f 2 9 . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d h im a c c o rd in g ly. See R ec. , vol . V at39 ( “The offe ns e l evel i s 29 . . . [and t ] he gui del i ne“Ac ceptance of Responsibili ty ,” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, is the onlyadjustment that 2 diminis hes off

ense le vels set bythe table in § 4B 1.1(b). See U . S . S . G . § 4 B 1 . 1 (b ) ( “ If an adjustment from § 3E1.1 (Acc eptanc e of Responsibility) applies, de cre ase the offense leve l bythe number of levels correspondingto that adjustment.”). We have conclude d from this specificauthorization of an ac ceptance of responsibilityreduc tion in § 4B1.1 that the Sente ncingCommi ssion expresslydeclined to incorporateother PreChapter F our adjustments into the careercriminal calculations. See J eppeson , 333 F.3d

- 4- im p ri s o n m e n t r a n g e is 1 5 1 -1 8 8 .” ). Pur s uantt o § 1B 1. 1, pr ovi s i ons of the gui del i nes ar e t o be “a ppl i ed i n” a speci fi ed “o rder . ” U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 1. In the fir stt w o st eps, t he co urtm ust d e ter m in e th e a p p lica b le o ffe n se g u id e lin e a n d th e a p p ro p ria te b a se o ffe n se lev e l, and appl y“s peci fi c offens e cha r act er i s t i cs , cr os s r efe r ence s , and s peci al i ns t ruct i ons cont ai ned i n t he part i cul argui del i ne i n C hapt erT w o. ” U . S. S. G . §§ 1 B 1 .1 (a ) a n d (b ). A f

te r a p p lyin g a n yre le v a n t C h a p te r T h re e a dju s tm e n ts , § 1 B 1 .1 (c ), th e g u id e lin e s re q u ire th a t th e c o u rt th e n a p p lya p p lica b le a dju stm e n ts i n Par t s A and B of C hapt erFour , § 1B 1. 1( f) . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t he s equent i al i ns t ruct i ons of § 1B 1. 1 di ct at e thatanyper t i nentC hapt erT hr ee a dju stm e n ts a re to b e in c o rp o ra ted in to th e “ o th e rw ise a p p lica b le” o ffe n se lev e l, a n d n o t in to th e le v e l p ro v id e d b yP a rt F o u r’ s c a re e r o ffe n d e r p ro v is io n . Uni t ed St at es v. Jeppe s on , 333 F. 3d 1180, 1183 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) . L ogi cal l y , t hen, Jeppe s on requi res t hat the C hap t er Tw o specifi c offense ch aract eri st i cs m ustal so be i ncorpor at ed i nt o t he court ’ s i ni t i al det er m i nat i on of the “otherw i s e appl i cabl e” offe ns e l evel , and noti nt o the l at t ercar eeroffe nderl evel det er m i ned byC hapt er F o u r. B e c a u se th e a ttem p t p ro v isio n a t issu e h e re is fo u n d in C h a p ter T w o , it

2at 1184.

- 5-

m odi fi ed M r . A l l en’ s i ni t i al offe ns e l evel butnott he det er m i nat i ve C hapt erFour offe ns e l evel and r es ul t i ng gui del i nes r ange. W e ther efor e nee d notdeci de w hethert he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n r efus i ng t o appl yt he § 2X 1. 1 r educt i on for at t em pt, becau se even i f i tdid the err or w as harm l ess. M r . A l l en al s o cont ends t he 151 mont h s ent ence i m pos ed byt he di s t r i ct c o u rt w a s u n re a s o n a b ly le n g th yin lig h t o f th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . W e a re n o t p e rsu a d e d . T h e d istric t co u rt e x p licitlyc o m p a re d th e fa c ts o f th is c a se to t hos e of othercar eercr i m i nal s convi ct ed of ba nk r obberyand s ent ence d byt he c o u rt . See R ec . , v o l. V at 40 -41 . In li g h t of M r. A ll en ’s seriou s crim inal h ist o ry and the other3553( a) fac t or s , t he courtconcl uded a s ent ence att he bot t om of the gui del i nes r ange w as appr opr i at e. A l t hough M r . A l l en pr ovi des s peci fi c exa m pl es of l es s ers ent ence s forcompl et ed bank r obber i es , he not es t hati n atl eas tt w o of th o s e c a s e s th e in d iv id u a l h a d n o p ri o r c ri m in a l h is to ry. See A p lt. B r. a t 2 5 n .1 . T he gui del i nes s eek pa r i t y“among defenda nt s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en fo u n d g u il tyo f sim il ar c o n d u ct, ” 1 8 U . S . C . 3 5 5 3 (a), an d thes e se n tenc es th ere fo re h a v e lim ited re lev a n c e fo r M r. A llen , w h o c a rrie s th e a d d iti o n a l b u rd e n o f h is s i gni fi cantcr i m i nal hi s t or y . T he s i ngl e ca s e he c i t es i nvol vi ng a ca r eercr i m i nal w a s e x p re s s ly co n s id e re d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rtd u ri n g its s e n te n c in g o f M r. A lle n . See A p lt . B r. at 25 n . 1 ; R ec . , v o l. V at 40 . W e a re n o t con v ince d M r. A ll en ’sMr. Allen asks us to consider United States v. W illiams , 4 35 F .3 d 1 35 0 ( 11 th 3 Cir. 2006), in which the Eleventh Circuit concluded a belowguidelines district court sentenc e wa s rea sonable in light of alleg edlyanalog ous fac ts. This prece dent, however, provides little value in evaluating therea sonablene ss of a with in guidelines sentenc e. The bre adth of re asonablesentenc es maybroadlyencompa ss both guidelines and nonguidelines sentenc es, and w e cannot asce rtain whe ther the c ourt in W illiams would have c on c lud e d awi thin guid e lin e s sentenc ewa s unre a so nable . T hu s, e ve n if wewereto attach great prec edential we ight to W illiams , it s h oldingprov ide s li mit e d guid anc ein the exercise of

our appe llate re view of Mr . Allen’s within guidelines sentenc e.

- 6- s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. 3 A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge