2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
11-9-2006 

# U SA v . C h arles
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5326

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . C h arle s " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 144. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/144P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 5326



### UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. RANDOLPH CHARLES,

Appe l l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D
. C
. C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 04- C R
- 00181) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le M a lco lm M u ir

Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember28, 2006H onor abl e J ane A
. R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es * C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B efor e: M cK E E and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges R E ST A N I , C hi ef J udge, C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade

* ( O pi ni on fi l ed N ovember9, 2006)

J ames V
. W ade Feder al Publ i c D efe nder R on al d K rauss A ss ista n t F e d e ra l P u b lic D e f e n d e r-A p p e a ls M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 100 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 306 H arr i s bur g, PA 17101 C ouns el forA ppel l ant T hom as A
. M ar i no U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney T h eo d o re B
. S m ith , III A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney C h ief , C rim in a l A p p e a ls U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce 228 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 220 H arr i s bur g, PA 17108 C ouns el forA ppel l ee3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge R andol ph C har l es appea l s hi s s ent ence fr om a convi ct i on i n t h e U n it ed St at es D i s t r i ctC ourtfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a forpos s es s i on of a pr ohi bi t ed obj ect byan i nm at e. A ti ssue i s w hetherhis sent ence— a pri so n t erm of 4 6 m on t hs, w hi ch i s at t he hi ghes t end of t he Feder al Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange f ort he under l y i ng offe ns e— i s r eas o nabl e i n l i ghtof U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U
. S. 220 ( 200 5 ). W e r evi ew t he s e n t e n c e f

o rr e a s o n a b l e n e s s a n d , f o r t h e r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h b e l o w, a f f irm it. I . F act s and P roce dural H i s t ory A tt he t i m e of t he under l y i ng i nci dentforw hi ch C har l es w as convi ct ed and s ent ence d, he w as an i nm at e att he U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i ary i n L ew i s bur g, Penns y l vani a. O n N ovember 20, 2003, he s ubm i t t ed t o a com pul s or ys t r i p s ear ch conduc t ed bya corr ect i onal offi cer . D ur i ng t hat sea rch , t he off i cer di s cover ed t hat C har l es pos s es s ed a s i x- i nch pi ece of s harpened p last ic (a p last ic “k n ife” ). O n M ay2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , a g ran d jury r etur ned a one- count i ndi ctm ent for pos s es s i on of a prohi bi t ed o b ject byan inm ate in v iola ti o n o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § § 1 7 9 1 (a)(2),T he s t atut e as r efe r ence d i n t he J udgm entof the D i s t r i ct 1 Co u r tf r o m wh i c h Ch a r l e s a p p e a l s r e a d s “ 1 8 U. S
. C. § § 1 7 9 1 (a )(2 ), (d )(1 ) ( B ) & 2 .” W h ile th e “ & 2 ” re f e re n c e is uncl ear , w e t ake i t t o m ean § 1791( d) ( 2) ( defi ni ng “des t ruct i ve d e v i c e ” a c c o r d i n g t o i t s m e a n i n g a t 1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 2 1 (a)(4)(B )–(C )). C h arles init ial ly en tered a p lea o f n o t gu il ty
. H o w ev er, 2 he subs equent l y w i t hdr ew t hat pl ea, s ubm i t t ed a s t at ementt hat he di d notdi s put e the f ac ts o f the ca s e as t he G overnm ent p re s e n te d th e m , a n d p le d g u ilty. 4 ( d) ( 1) ( B ) & ( d) ( 2)

. C har l es pl ed gui l t yt o t he cha r ge ata pl ea 1 hear i ng befor e the D i s t r i ctC our ton J ul y21, 2004. 2 U ndert he then- m andat oryU ni t ed S t at es Sent enci ng G uidel i nes, t he D i stri ctJudg e determ i ned t hat C harl es w as a car eeroffe nder , w hi ch pl ace d hi m i n a G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm ent r ange of 37 t o 46 m ont hs , t w o t o t hr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, a fi ne of $4, 000 t o $40, 000, and a mandat or ys peci al as s es s m ent of $100. O n Sept ember1, 2004, t he J udge w ai ved al l fi nes and s e nt e nc e d Cha r l e s t o 4 6 months ’ i mpr i s on ment , t hr e e y e ars ’ su p e rv ise d re lea se , a n d th e m a n d a to ry $ 1 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t.

C h a rl e s a p p e a le d to u s , a rg u i n g , in tera lia , t hat m a n d a to rya p p lica tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. W e af fi r m ed the j udgm entof convi ct i on butr em anded f or r es ent enci n g in acc or dance w i t h B ooker , w hi ch el i m i nat ed theT hos e fa ct or s ar e: 3 ( 1) t he natur e and ci rcum s t ance s of the off ens e and the h isto rya n d c h a ra c ter istics o f th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) t he nee d fort he s ent ence i m pos ed– (A ) t o r efl ect the ser i ou sness of the offen se, t o pr omot e r e s pe c tfo rt he l a w , a nd t o p r ov i de j ust puni s hm entfort he off

ens e; ( B ) t o aff

or d ad equat e det err ence t o cr i m i nal c o n d u c t; ( C ) to p rotec tthe publ i c fr om fur t hercr i m es of t he def endant ; and ( D ) to p rovi de the def endantw i t h neede d educat i onal orvocat i onal t r ai ni ng, m edi cal car e, orothe rc orr e c t i on a l t r e a t menti n the mo st ef fe cti v e m an n er; ( 3) t he ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e; ( 4) t h e k i n d s o f s e n t e n c e a n d t h e s e n t e n c i n g r ange es t abl i s hed for– ( A ) t he appl i cabl e cat egory of off ens e comm i t t ed byt he appl i cabl e ca t egoryof def endantas s et f o rt h in th e g u id e lin e s . . .;

5 m andat or y as pect of the G ui del i nes . T he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pos ed th e s a m e s e n te n c e a s b e f o re . C har l es i s back be for e us on appea l

. H e as s er t s t hatt he se n ten c e is u n r e a s o n a b le b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to a r t i c u l a t e i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g f

a c t o r s i n 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3553( a)

. H e re ques t s t hatw e vac at e the s ent enci ng j udgm ent

3( 5) anyper t i nentpol i cys t at em en t . . . i s s ued byt he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on . . . t hat

. . . i s in ef fec ton t he d a te th e d e f

e n d a n t is se n ten c e d [ ;] ( 6) t he nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s enten ce di s par i t i es amo n g d e f

e n d a n t s wi t h s i mi l a rr e c o r d s who h a v e been found gui l t yof s i m i l arconduct ; and ( 7) the n ee d t o pr ovi de r es t i tut i on t o anyvi ct i m s of the offe ns e. 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 (a). T he D i s t r i ct C o u r thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on over 4 t hi s cas e pur s uantt o 18 U
. S. C
. § 3231 ( gr ant i ng j ur i s di ct i on for “off ens es agai ns tt he l aw s of the U ni t ed Stat es”)

. W e have j uri sdi ct i on to review C harl es’ s sent ence f or “r easona bleness ” under18 U
. S. C
. § 3742( a) ( 1) ( author i zi ng t he appe al of s e n t e n c e s a l l e g e d l y “ i mpo s e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e l a w”) and 28 U .S .C
. § 1 2 9 1 (au tho ri zing the a p p ea l of fin al distr ictco u rt d e c is io n s , in c lu d in g s e n te n c e s ). See U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 4 3 7 F
. 3 d 3 2 4 , 3 2 7

– 2 8 & n . 4 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). 6 and r emand forr es ent enci ng. 4

I I . St andard of R evi ew A fter B ooker , t he G ui del i nes have onl yadvis or yfor ce and app el l at e cou rt s m ustrevi e w sent ences fo r r easona bleness acc or di ng t o t he “r el evant[Sect i on 3553( a) ] fac t or s ” thatgui de se n ten c in g . 5 4 3 U .S . at 2 3 4 ; cf

. U ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 454 F. 3d 1 8 7 , 1 9 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); C ooper , 437 F. 3d at327–28. W e haveN ot e that , s i nce i ti s i ncorpor at ed i nt o § 3553( a) ( 4) , t he 5 G u idelines sen tenc ing ran g e b ec am e jus t o n e of sev era l fac tors a di s t r i ctcour tm us tconsi derats t ep thr ee of t he s ent enci ng a n a lysis

. See Booker , 543 U
. S. at234; G unt er , 462 F. 3d at247; K i ng , 4 5 4 F .3 d a t 1 9 4 ; C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 3 1
. 7 i nt erpr et ed B ookerto re q u ire th e f o llo w in g th re e ste p s: (1) C o u rt s m u st co n ti n u e to c a lc u la te a d ef en d an t’ s G u idelines sen tenc e p rec isel y as th eyw o u ld h av e b ef o re B ooker

. ( 2) I n doi ng s o, t heym us tform al l yrul e on the mot i ons of b o th p arti es a n d stat e o n the re co rd w h ethe r th eyare gr ant i ng a depa r tur e an d how t hatdepartur e af fec t s t he G u i del i nes cal cul at i on, and t ake i nt o acc ountour C i r cui t ’ s pr e- B oo ker c a s e l a w, whi c h c o n t i n u e s t o have advi s or yfor ce. ( 3) Fi nal l y , t heyar e r equi r ed t o exer ci s e thei rdi s cr et i on bycons i dering t he r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s i n s et t i ng t he s ent ence t heyi m pos e r egar dl ess w hetheri tvar i es from t he sentence calcul at ed u nd er the G uidel i nes. U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) (i n terna l ci tat ion s an d q u o tat ion s m ark s o m itted); cf

. K i ng , 454 5 F .3 d a t 1 9 4 ; C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 3 0 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Jack s on , N o . 0 5 -40 9 1 , sli p o p . at 7– 8 (3d C ir

. N o v . 9 , 2 0 0 6 ).8 I I I . D i s cus s i on C har l es ar gues t hathi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e fort hr ee re a so n s. F irst, h e c o n ten d s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to co n side r a llo f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs b y n o t “ f u lly a n d e x p licitly a rticu lat[ in g ]” its re a so n s f o r im p o s in g th e se n ten c e w h e n it s t at ed thati t“ca r eful l yconsid er ed” thos e fa ct or s . A pp. B r . at 11–12, 1 3

– 1 4
. Second, he as s er t s t hatt he C our tvi ol at ed § 35 5 3 ( a) ’ s “Par s i m onyPr ovi s i on”— t hats ent ence s be “s uffi ci ent , butnot gr eat ert han nec es s ary , ” t o m eett he purpos es of s ent enci ng s etouti n § 3553( a) ( 2)

. A pp. B r . at9, 14 ( quot i ng Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 356 F. Supp. 2d 470, 4 7 9 ( M
. D
. Pa. 2005) )

. T hi r d, he ar gues t hatt he C our ti m perm i s s i bl yi m pos ed a s ent ence t hat“fa i l ed t o avoi d u n w arrant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es , ” i n vi ol at i on of § 3553( a) ( 6)

. A pp. B r . at13. O u r re c e n t p o st- B ookerd ec isi o n s d is p o se o f C h arles’s argum ents
. W e hav e held that, for us t o assess reas on ableness, t he r ecor d m us tdemonstr at e thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tgave m eani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he “ re lev a n t [ § 3 5 5 3 (a )] f a c to rs .” C ooper , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 3 2 9 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o G unt er , 462 F. 3d at247; K i ng , 454 F. 3d at194. T hi s demonstr at i on does not “r equi r e di s t r i ct j udges t o r out i nel ys t at e byr ot e thatt heyhave r ead the B ookerdeci s i on ort hatt heyknow t he s ent enci ng g u ide l i nes ar e now advi s or y . ” C ooper , 4 3 7 F. 3 d a t 3 29. N or does i tr equi r e court s “t o s t at e on t he r ecor d t hat[they ] ha[ve ] exp l i ci t l ycon si dered each of the § 35 53 (a) fact ors or t o d i scuss eac h of t he § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v.H er e, t her e w er e no mot i ons fororagai ns ts ent enci ng 6 d e p a rtu re s. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt th e re f o re h a d n o o c c a sio n to a p p ly ste p tw o o f th e s e n te n c in g a n a lysis

. See G unt er , 462 F. 3d at247 ( r equi r i ng courts t o “form al l yrul [e] on t he mot i ons of bot h par t i es ” r egar di ng d epar tur es ) ( quot i ng K i ng , 454 F. 3d at 1 9 6 ); s ee al

s o Jack s on , s upr a a t9 & n
. 2 ( c l a r i f y i n g t h e s t e p t wo req u ir em en ts)

. 9 Sc o tt , 4 2 6 F .3 d 1 3 2 4 , 1 3 2 9 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 )). R a th e r, co u rts “sh o u ld o b serv e the req u ir em en t to stat e a d eq u ate rea so n s fo r a s ent ence on t he r ecor d so t hat[w e] can e ngage i n m eani ngful appel l at e r evi ew . ” K i ng , 4 5 4 F .3 d a t 1 9 6

– 9 7 ; s ee al s o Jack s on , s upr a at17–19. I n t hi s cas e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tcompl i ed w it h s t eps one and thr ee l ai d outi n G unt er by demonstr at i ng t hat i tcons i der ed t he G uidel i nes range, w ei gh e d t he rel evan t§ 3 55 3(a) fact ors, a n d e x e rc ise d d isc re tio n in im p o sin g a se n ten c e . P u rsu a n t to 6 s t ep one of

t he G un t er anal y s i s , t he J udge det erm i ned the appl i cabl e Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange f orC har l es ’ s offe ns e. T he J udge found thatC har l es w as a car eer offe nderbeca us e he had co m m i t t ed a numberof off ens es befor e bei ng i ncar cer at ed— i ncl udi ng pos s es s i on of m ar i j uana, c r i m i nal cons pi r acy , del i veryand possessi on w i t h i nt entt o del i ver c o c a in e , ro b b e ry , p o ss e ss io n o f c ra c k c o c a in e , co n sp ira c yto in ter f e re w ith in ter sta te c o m m e rc e b yro b b e ry , an d in ter sta te t r ans por t at i on o f st ol en pr oper t y ; as w el l as a numberof offe ns es s i nce be i ng i ncar cer at ed— i ncl u d ing pos s es s i on of a10 w e a p o n , fig h tin g , ref

u s in g to o b e ya n o rd e r, b e in g in so len t to s t aff , i nt er fer i ng w i t h t aki ng count of i nm at es , r efus i ng t o fol l ow dir ect i on s, being i n an un authori zed ar e a , an d assaul t
. A s a car eeroff

en d er unde rt he G ui del i nes w ho had admi t t ed cul pabi l i t yforhi s offe ns e, C har l es fi t( as al r eadynot ed ) in a G ui del i nes i m pr i s onm ent r ange of 36 t o 47 m ont hs , a s upervi s ed re lea se ter m o f

tw o to th re e y e a rs, a n d a f in e o f $ 4 ,0 0 0 to $ 4 0 ,0 0 0
. See U
. S. S. G
. §§ 2P1. 2( a) ( 2) , 3E 1. 1( a) , 4B 1. 1. T he J udge al s o hel d a r es ent enci ng hear i ng dur i ng w hi ch, i n acc or d w i t h s t ep thr ee of G unt er , he di s cus s ed the s ent enci ng m e m o ra n d a th a t h e h a d re q u e s ted e a c h p a rtyto su b m it fo r h is cons i der at i on. A ts ent enci ng, t he J udge expl ai ned that [ w ]e h a v e c a re f

u llyc o n sid e re d a ll o f

th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rth i n 18 U
. S.C. § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng D efe ndant ’ s age, fami l y , phy s i cal and emot i onal condi t i on, educa t i onal and empl oym entbackgr ound, hi s pr i orcr i m i nal r ecor d, a n d th e a d v iso ryg u id e lin e im p riso n m e n t r a n g e o f 3 7 to 46 m on t hs. C h a rle s is c o r r e c t in a ss e rtin g th a t a d istric t ju d g e w h o m e re ly s t at es t hathe has “ca r eful l ycons i der ed” a l l § 3553( a) fac t or s has n o t m e t h is o r h e r b u rd e n f o r d e m o n stra tin g re a so n a b len e ss in s e n te n c in g . See Cooper , 437 F. 3d at329 n. 6 ( “[W ] e di sagre e w ith th e d e c isio n o f

th e C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls f

o r th e E lev e n th C irc u it[ , w h ic h ] h e ld a d istric t co u rt’s s tate m e n t th a t it cons i der ed both the def endant ’ s ar gum ent s an d t he § 3553( a)11 fa ctors a t sen tenc ing is byit self su ff ic ie n t fo r B ooker p u rp o se s.” ) (c itati o n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o Jack s on , s upr a a t 1 9
. B utt he J udge i n t hi s cas e di d m or e than that

. I n addi t i on t o cal cul at i ng t he G ui del i nes r ange a s r equi r ed by s t ep one of the p o st- B ooker s ent enci ng pr oces s ( and i nfer ent i al l ybys ubs ect i on ( 4) of § 3553( a) ) , t he Judge r evi ew ed C har l es ’ s backgr ound and hi s per s o n al c i r cumst ance s , as r equi r ed by§ 3553( a) ( 1) , w hen h e n o ted th at “[ n ]oth ing in M r. C h a rl es’s p erso n al history pr es ent s i t s el f as a mi t i gat i ng fac t ori n t hi s cas e. ” The Judge al s o not ed, as out l i ned by§ 3553( a) ( 2) , t hatt he s er i ous nes s of C har l es ’ s offe ns e, hi s “pr opens i t y forvi ol ence , ” and “ s us t ai ned c ri m in a l a c tiv itie s , b o th b e f o r e a n d a f

te r b e in g in c a rc e ra te d ,” sh o w ed a “lac k o f resp ec t f o r th e law ” tha t w arran ted a “se v ere s ent ence ” bec aus e h is offe ns e “thr eat ened the s ecur i t yof the e n tir e in s titu tio n , in c lu d in g s ta f f a n d in m a te s .” W e h av e pr evi ous l yhel d thatw her e a c ar eeroffe nder cont i nues t o vi ol at e the l aw even a ft erconvi ct i on, t he c o n s e q u e n c e s m a y b e s e v e re . See Ki ng , 454 F. 3d at195 ( “A len g th yp ris o n se n ten c e w a s c lea rlyw a rra n ted in o rd e r to pr eventand det er K i ng fr om r eoff endi ng, as w el l as t o pr ovi de adequa t e puni s hm ent for hi s conduct

. ”)

. I n K i ng , w e r evi ew ed t he r eas onabl enes s of a s ent ence fora ca r eeroffe nderw ho had r e c e i v e d a l m o s tt w i c e t h e m a x i m u m G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . We non e t h e l e s s f

o u n d t h e s e n t e n c e t o b e r e a s o n a b l e b e c a u s e t he d e f e n d a n t’ s re c o rd o f

c o n tin u in g o f

f e n se s w a s s u f

f icie n tly ex tens ive to su p p o rtan u p w ard d e p arture f rom the a d v isory12 G u id e lin e s ra n g e . K i ng , 4 5 4 F .3 d a t 1 9 5
. In th is case , w e a re c o n ce rne d w ith w h ethe r th e re co rd supp ort s a m axim um G uidelin es r ang e sent ence o f 46 m on t hs. T he si m i l ari t i es b et w een C harl es an d K i ng sugg estt hat i tdo es. L i ke K i ng, C har l es i s a ca r eeroff en derw hos e ac t i ons w arr ant a s ent ence s uffi ci entt o pr eventand det erhi m fr om comm i t t i ng t he s am e cri m e i n t he futur e. T he C our tr eas oned as m uch. Fur t herm or e, i tacknow l edged thatt he G ui deli n es ar e now “advi s or y . ” I n addi t i on, aft ercons i der i ng C harl es ’ s per s onal ci rcu m s t ance s , t he C our texpl i ci t l ychos e nott o i m pos e a f i ne. T aken t ogether , t he C our t ’ s r eas ons s at i s fy us t hati tcons i der ed th e re lev a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs a n d e x e r c is e d its d isc re tio n to a p p ly th e m re a s o n a b ly. A s fo r C h arles’s sec o n d asse rt ion that the D istri ct C o u rt v iolated th e su ffici en t
- but

- not
- gr eat er - t han- nece s s ary “Par s i m onyPr ovi s i on” of § 3553( a) , hi s ar gum entfai l s i n l i ght of ourr ece ntdec isi ons . T o m eett he r equi r ement s of the

“ P a rsim o n yP ro v isio n ,” h e c o n ten d s, th e D istric t C o u r t sh o u ld have not ed w hya l ow -en d G ui del i nes - r ange s ent ence ( 37 m ont hs ) w as i ns uffi ci entt o m eet§ 3553( a) ( 2) ’ s penol ogi cal goal s . B ydemandi ng t hatt he C our tas s um e the burde n of p ro v in g th a t h is s e n ten c e is n o t u n re a so n a b le, C h a rle s a ttem p ts t o fl i p t he r eas onab lene ss r equi r ementon i t s head. W e have hel d t hatt he d e

fe n da n t bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng t hatt he s e n te n c e w a s u n re a s o n a b le

. C ooper , 437 F. 3d at332 & n. 11 ( quot i ng U

ni t ed Stat es v. C unni ngham , 4 2 9 F .3 d 6 7 3 , 6 7 9 (7 thC l ear l ynotcompar abl e t o C har l es i s one of the thr ee 7 cas es , w her e a one - t i m e off enderw as s ent ence d t o 12 m ont hs a n d o n e d a y . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez

- Her nandez , N o. 4 : CR

- 0 4

- 0 0 3 ( M
. D. P a . f i l e d M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 4 )

. I n t h e o t h e rt wo cas es , car eer offe nder s r ece i ved s ent ence s of 41 m ont hs and 37 m o n t h s , re s p e c tiv e ly. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . Kh a ri Hill , N o. 4 :C R -0 1 -1 5 6 (M .D
. P a . file d N o v . 2 3 , 2 0 0 4 ); U ni t ed Stat es v . I s r ael F l or es - Mar t i nez , N o. 4: C R
- 03- 58 ( M
. D
. Pa. fi l ed J ul y1, 2 0 0 3 ). T h e d isp a rities h e re a re m in o r, c o n sis tin g o f o n lyf iv e to ni n e mon t h s . W e a r e i n n o p o s i t i o n t o d e t e r mi n e

— a s a ma t t er 13 C i r . 2005) ( “[R]e as onabl enes s i s a r ange, nota poi nt
. . . . I f the j udge coul d, w i t houtabus i ng hi s di s cr et i on, have rul ed i n the defe ndant ’ s favor , t he def endanti s ent i t l ed t o i ns i s tt hatt he j udge exe r ci s e di s cr et i on, t hough h e ca nnotcompl ai n i f the e x e rc is e g o e s a g a in s t h im .” ))

. Fi nal l y , C har l es ’ s t hi r d ar gum en t— t hathi s s ent ence cr eat es “unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es ”— i s unper s uas i ve as w el l

. T he “ne ed t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defe ndant s w i t h s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gu il ty o f si m i l arconduct , ” 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) ( 6) , i s j us tone fa ctor (if relev a n t) th at sh o u ld b e b alan ce d ag ains t th e o thers (a g a in , if re lev a n t). C h a rle s c o n c lu d e s th a t h is s e n ten c e w ill cre ate u n w a rran ted d ispa ri ti es b ase d o n three D istri ct C o u rt cas es from t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a w her e, pr eB ooker , i nm at es r ece i ved mi d- r ange orbel ow - r ange G ui del i nes s ent ence s for pos s es s i on of kni fe- l i ke obj ect s . A pp. B r . at13. 7of fa ct

— w hetherC har l es ’ s ci r cumst ance s exac tl ypar al l el ed t hos e of the def

endant s i n t hes e ca s es; w e l eave t hat det ermi n a t i o n t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e . W h a t we d o know nonethel es s i s t hatt hes e s ent ence s on t hei r s ur fac e do not appea r t o fall ou t si de a rang e of reasona bleness

. 14 A s t he G overnm ent corr ect l y not es , C har l es has not s how n t hat anyof the def

endant s in t he D i s t r i ctC our tcas es t o w hi ch he ci t es ar e s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed t o hi m for p u rpo s es of compar i ng c a re e r o f f e n d e rs w ith a h is to ry o f in s titu tio n a l m is c o n d u c t, s ee G ov’ tB r . at21, and ther efor e r el evantfora § 35 5 3 ( a) ( 6) compar i s on. E ven i f h e had, a mer e s i m i l ar i t yw oul d notbe en o u g h to o v erc o m e the h igh leve l of d ef er e n c e w e ac co rd s e n te n c in g ju d g e s . See, e. g. , C ooper , 437 F. 3d at330. M o r e o v e r , we r e c e n t l y n o t e d i n G u nter th a t w e w ill to ler a te s t atut or ys ent enci ng di s par i t i es s o l ong as a j udge demonstr at es th a t h e o r sh e v iew e d th e G u id e lin e s a s a d v iso rya n d re a so n a b ly exer ci s ed hi s orherd iscr et i on aft erappl y i ng t he thr ee- s t ep s e n te n c in g p ro c e s s . See G unt er , 462 F. 3d at 248–49. W hi l e any al l eged di s par i t i es i n t hi s cas e ar e non -st atut or y , t heyr es ul t ed fr om t he D i s t r i ct J udge’ s r eas onabl e exer ci s e of di s cr et i on aft er cons i der i ng t he r equi s i t e t hr ee s t eps for cal cul at i ng s ent ence s as a p p lie d to C h a rl e s ’s p a rt ic u la r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . * * * A s t he D i s t r i ct C our t adequa t el y cons i der ed t he r el evant § 3553( a) fac t or s i n s ent enci ng C har l es , s t at ed expl i ci t l y t hatt he15 G ui del i nes w er e advi s or y , and demonstr at ed the exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on, i thas rea so nabl yappl i ed the r equi r ed s ent enci ng a n a ly sis u n d e r o u r p o st- B ookers t andar ds out l i ned i n K i ng , C ooper , and G unt er . W e t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m.