FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MAY 1 1, 20 11 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 50 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cr-0 00 19 -LC-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
JAM ES ANDREW

MUSGROVE, a.k .a. Ric ky, a.k .a. Sta rch il d, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt - App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 58 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 0- cr-0 00 19 -LC-2UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff - App el le e,
ve rs us MUHAMM AD SHAKEIN W ILLIAMS, a.k .a. Mo e, a.k .a. Lod ge , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 11 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ja m es And rew Mu sg ro ve an d M uh amm adSh ak ei n Wil li am s ap pe al th ei r 24 0- m on th sen te nc es forco ns pi racy to d is tri bu te an d p os se ss io n wi th in te nt to di st rib ut e co cai ne . Mus gr ov e arg ue s t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t erredin de nyin g h is 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 (a) m ot io n t o d is qu al ify the di st ric t co ur t ju dg e. He als o c on te nd s th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se (1) th ere i s an un warra nt ed di sp ari ty bet weenhi s s en te nc e an d t he lo wer s en te nc es th atth ree s im il arl y si tu at ed

2de fen da nt s re cei ve d, (2 ) th e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y co ns id eredth e fac t t ha t i t pr ev io us ly hadsen te nc edMu sg ro ve fora si m il ar o ffen se , and(3) th e co urt cl earl y
erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t h e was th e “ le ad er” o r “ m ai n d is tri bu to r” o f th e co ns pi racy. W il li am s co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se of a n
un warra nt eddi sp ari ty bet ween hi s s en te nc e an d t he lo wer s en te nc es th atfiv e si m il arl y si tu at edde fen da nt s re cei ve d, an d b ecau se th e d is tri ctco ur t p la cedun du e
em ph as is on hi s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory . For t he reas on s s etfor th be lo w, we affi rm . I. Mu sg ro ve an d W il li am s were ch arg ed w i th (1 ) co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 5 ki lo gr am s or m or e of co cai ne an d 50 gr am s or m or e of co cai ne ba se , i n vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A)(i i), (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ),

an d 84 6; an d (2 ) po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s o r mo re of co cai ne ba se , in vi ol a ti on of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d (b )(1 )(A)(i ii ). Mu sg ro ve fil ed a
m ot io n to di sq ua li fy th e tri al co ur t ju dg e, pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 45 5( a), as se rti ng th at th ere was an ap pe aran ce of bi as be cau se th e jud ge ha d pr es id ed ov er a pr ev io us t r i a l t ha t res ul te d in Mu sg ro ve ’s co nv ic ti on fo r co ns pi racy with in te nt to di st rib ut e
co cai ne . The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n an d bo th Mu sg ro ve an d W il li am s pl ed gu il ty.
3A cco rd in g to th e pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or ts (“ PSIs ”), se ve ra l

in di vi du al s im

pl ic at ed Mu sg ro ve an d W il li am s as be in g in vo lv ed in a m ul ti -k il og ram
co cai ne di st rib ut io n en te rp ris e. Den ni s Gib bo ns advi se d la w en fo rcem en t of f ic ers th a t h e p u r ch as ed a to ta l of si x ki lo gr am s of co cai ne fro m Mu sg ro ve an d ap pr ox im at el y si x gr am s of co cai ne ba se fro m W il li am s. Thre e ot he r in di vi du al s al so in fo rm ed la w en fo rce ment of fic ers th at th ey ha d pu rch as ed po wde r co cai ne an d

co cai ne ba se fro m Mu sg ro ve . In fo rm an ts worki ng with la w en fo rcem en t co nd uc te d fo ur co nt ro ll ed bu y s, du rin g whi ch th ey pu rch as ed a to ta l of 99 .17 gr am s of po wde r
co cai ne an d 54 .7 gr am s of co cai ne ba s e f r o m M u sg ro ve an d 56 .7 gr am s of po wde r
co cai ne fro m W il li am s. The co ns pi racy in vo lv ed a to ta l of 16 ,07 5 gr am s of po wde r
co cai ne an d 6 15 gra m s o f co cai ne ba se . Mu sg ro ve ’s to ta l of

fen se le ve l was 31 an d hi s cri mi n al hi st ory cat eg ory was IV, res ul ti ng in a gu id el in e im pr is on m en t ran ge of 15 1 to 18 8 m on th s. W il li am s ha d

a t o t a l o f 37 cri m in al hi st ory po in ts , wh ic h pl aced hi m in cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory V I
. Bas ed on hi s to ta l of fen se le ve l of 34 an d hi s cri m in al hi st ory cat eg or y, W il li am s’s gu id el in e im

pr is on men t ran ge was 26 2 to 32 7 m on th s. Howev er, bo th M u sg ro ve an d W il li am s were su bjec t to 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A)’s m an da t o r y
m in im um te rm of li fe im

pr is on m en t. Pu rs ua n t t o U .S.S.G. § 5G1 .1, th e st atut ory
m in im um rep la cedth e o th erwi se -ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge . 4Pri or to se nt en ci ng , th e go ve rn m en t su bm it te d m ot io ns , pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C.

§ 35 53 (e) an d U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1, ad vi si ng th e co urt th at bo th Mu sg ro ve an d W il li am s ha d c oo pe rat edwith aut ho rit ie s an d p ro vi de d s ub st an ti al ass is ta nc e. At Mu sg ro ve ’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , Mu sg ro ve no te d th at th ree in di vi du al s who ha d m ad e st at em en ts ag ai ns t hi m ha d b e e n c o n v ic te d an d se nt en ced ba se d on th ei r i n vo lv em en t in rel at ed cas es . He pr ov id ed th e co urt wit h co pi es of th e § 5 K 1

. 1

m ot io ns fil ed on be ha lf of Ma rcu s All en Lov et t, Ja m es Lash awn Cam pb el l, an d Jo hn ny W il li am s, as well as th e di st ric t co ur t do ck et sh eet s fro m each of th ei r cas es . The se do cu m en ts sh owe d t ha t Lo ve ttpl edgu il ty to (1 ) co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d po ss es s with in te nt to di st rib ut e m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of co cai ne an d (2 ) po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m or e th an 50 gr am s of co cai ne ba se , an d was se nt en ced to a to ta l of 12 0 m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Cam

pb el l pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e
an d po ss es s with i n t e nt to di st rib ut e m or e th an 5 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne , an d was
se nt en ced to 60 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Jo hn ny W il li am s p l e d g u il ty to (1 )

co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te m or e th an 5 ki lo gr am s of co cai ne an d (2 ) po ss es si on wit h in t e nt to di st rib ut e m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of

co cai ne , andwas s en te nc edto a to ta l o f 15 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co ur t n ot edth at , al th ou gh it ha d no t sen te nc ed Cam pb el l, i t was fam il ia r wit h th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng Cam pb el l’s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. It po in te d
5o u t t h a t , al th ou gh Cam pb el l was he ld res po ns ib le fo r th e en ti re drug qu an ti ty in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy, th e ev id en ce ha d sh own th at he ha d no t be en in vo lv ed in th e co ns pi racy to th e sa m e ex te nt as W il li am s or Mus gr ov e, who was “ th e le ad er of th is op erat io n.” Mu sg ro ve no te d th at hi s PSI de sc rib ed hi m an d W il li am s as “ equa l pa rti ci pa nt s” in th e co ns pi racy an d di d no t in cl ud e a le ad ers hi p- ro le en ha nc em en t. The co ur t cl ari fie d th at it was “ no t ta lk in g a b ou t th e le ga l m ean in g in th e [PSI , bu t rat he r] . . . the na tu re o f th e o pe rat io n, h ow m uc h was di st rib ut ed

. [Mu sg ro ve ] was th e m ai n d is tri bu to r, no t t ha t i t m eet s t he leg al [de fin it io n], perhaps .” Mu sg ro ve pe rs on al ly ad dr es se d th e co ur t, an d th e co ur t no te d, “ [w]e’ ve be en th ro u g h t h i s b e f

o r e, y ou an d m e, I th in k.” It fo un d th at th e PSI was accu rat e an d

se nt en ced Mu sg ro ve to 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t wit h res pe ct to each co un t, to ru n
co nc urren tl y . The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at th e si gn ifi can t de vi at io n fro m th e g ui de li ne te rm of li fe im

pr is on m en t was ba se d up o n th e go ve rn m en t’s su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce
m ot io n, an d it st at ed th at it ha d co ns id ered th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s as well as th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es an d de te rm in ed th at th e s e n t e n ce was reas on ab le an d

ne ces sa ry . At W il li am s’s se nt en ci ng he ari ng , W il li am s as ke d th e co ur t to co ns id er h i s
cu lp ab il it y in rel at io n to ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s in th e co ns pi racy, as well as th e se nt en ces th at h i s co -co ns pi rat or s ha d rece iv ed

. He as ke d th e co ur t to co ns id er a se nt en ce
6“ to ward th e lo wer en d of th e pe op le who ha ve be en se nt en ced rat he r th an th e hi gh er.”

The co ur t no te d th at W il li am s ha d 37 cri m in al hi st ory po in ts , whi ch was th e hi gh es t to ta l th at it ha d se en . W il li am s no te d th at m an y of hi s pr io r of fen se s were co m

m it te d whe n he was a juv en il e, al t h o u g h h e ackno wled ge d th at he ha d a “ ve ry ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory

an d fo r m an y

ser io us cri m es an d c on vi ct io ns .” The co ur t fo un d th at th e PSI was accu rat e an d se nt en c e d W il li am s to 24 0

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t on each co un t, to ru n co nc urren tl y . The co ur t st at ed th at th e si gn ifi can t va ria nc e fro m th e gu id el in e ran ge of li fe im pr is on m en t was jus t i f

ie d by W il li am s’s su bs t a n ti al co op erat io n. It st at ed th at it ha d co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s, as well as th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es in co nc lu di ng th at t h e s e n te nc e was
reas on ab le an d s uf

fic ie nt
. The r e c o rd on ap pe al in cl ud es th e cri m in al jud gm en ts of Jo se Gua da lupe -Gu ti erre z an d Je su s Man ue l Cl ark -Cas ta ne da , each of who m were
co nv ic te d of ( 1 ) c o n s pi racy to di st rib ut e an d po ss es s with in te nt to di st rib ut e 5 ki lo gr am s or m or e of co cai ne an d (2 ) po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s
or m or e of co cai ne . Gua da lupe -Gu ti err e z w a s se nt en ced to 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an d C la rk -Cas ta ne da was s en te nc edto 13 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. II .

7Alt ho ug h M us gr ov e arg ue s i n h is in it ia l ap pe ll at e b rie f th atth e d is tri ctco urt

erre d i n d en y in g h is 28 U.S.C. § 4 55 (a) m ot io n t o d is qu al ify, he co nc ed es in hi s rep ly brie f th atth is is su e was no t p res erv edforap pe ll at e rev ie w. W e h av e h el d th at“ a d efen da nt waiv es hi s ri gh t t o app eal th e d en ia l o f a § 45 5( a) m ot io n b y
en te rin g a n u nc on di ti on al gu il ty ple a.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Pa tt i , 33 7 F .3d13 17 , 13 20 -2 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Accor di ng ly, Mu sg ro ve ’s un co nd it io na l g ui lt y pl ea waiv edhi s ri gh t t o app eal th e d en ia l o f hi s m ot io n t o re cu se . II I. W e rev ie w a de fen da nt ’s sen te nc e fo r rea so nabl en es s, ap pl y in g a n ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard

. Gal l v. Un it ed St at es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 6, 1 28 S.Ct

. 58 6, 5 94 , 16 9 L.Ed .2d44 5 (2 00 7)

. Und er the ab us e-o f-d is cret io n s ta nd ard , we wil l re ve rs e o nl y

if t he di st ric t co ur t m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t. Uni te d S ta te s v. Pug h , 51 5 F .3d 11 79 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The p art y ch al le ng in g t he

se nt en ce “ be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th atth e se nt en ce i s u nr eas on ab le in li gh t o f bo th [th e] reco rdan d t he fact or s i n s ect io n 3 55 3( a).” Uni te d S ta te s v. Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). To d et erm in e whe th er a s en te nc e im po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e, we
co ns id er t he fact or s s etfor th by Con gr es s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Pug h , 51 5 F .3d at11 88 -8 9. Th es e fac to rs in cl ud e th e h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , 8th e n eedfor

a se nt en ce t o p ro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, th e n eedfor de te rren ce, t he

ne edto pro te ctth e p ub li c fro m fur th er cri m es of t he de fen da nt , and“ th e n eedto
av oi d u nwa rran te d s en te nc in g d is pa rit ie s among de fen da nt s wi th si m il ar re co rd s who ha ve be en fou ndgu il ty of si m il ar co nd uc t.” 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a)( 1) -(2 ), (6 ). W e “ wil l d eferto th e d is tri ctco ur t’s jud gm en t re ga rd in g t he weig htgi ve n t o t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s u nl es s t he di st ric t co ur t h as m ad e a cl ear e rro r of jud gm en t.” Uni te d S ta te s v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ta ti on
om it te d)

. Mu sg ro ve an d Wil li am s h av e fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atth ere was an
un warra nt eddi sp ari ty bet ween th ei r se nt en ces an d t he sen te nc es of t he ir

co -co ns pi rat or s b ecau se th ey ha ve no t s ho wn t ha t t he y were s im il arl y

si tu at edto th e co -co ns pi rat or s. Se e Uni te d S ta te s v. S po erke, 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 52 (11 th Cir

. 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th atsen te nc in g d is pa rit ie s ar e n ot“ un warra nt ed ” if th e in di vi du al s b ei ng co m

pa redare n ot si m il arl y

si tu at ed ); Ta ll ey , 43 1 F .3dat 7 88 (n ot in g t ha t t he bu rd en is on th e ap pe ll an ts to sh ow t ha t t he ir s en te nc es are
un reas on ab le ). Fir st , Mu sg ro ve an d Wil li am s wer e ch arg edwit h (1 ) co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 5 k il og ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne an d 50 gra m s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se an d (2 ) po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 50 gr am s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se . Cam pb el l was co nv ic te d o f on ly one
9co un t— co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te an d p os se ss wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 5 o r m or e

ki lo gr am s o f co cai ne . Lov et t an d J oh nn y W il li am s ea ch were ch arg edwit h a

co ns pi racy cou nt as we ll as a po ss es si on co un t, b ut th ei r of fen se s i nv ol ve d s m al le r drug qu an ti ti es . Spe ci fic al ly, Lov et t’s co ns pi racy char ge in vo lv ed50 0 g ram s o r
m or e o f co cai ne , wher eas Mu sg ro ve ’s andW il li am s’s co ns pi racy char ge in vo lv ed 5 o r m or e k il og ram s o f co cai ne an d 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f co cai ne ba se . Jo hn ny W il li am s’s co ns pi racy char ge in vo lv ed5 o r m or e k il og ram s o f po wde r co cai ne , bu t n ei th er o f hi s ch arg es in vo lv edco cai ne ba se . Furt he rm or e, th ere i s n o
ev id en ce i n t he reco rdde ta il in g t he na tu re an d e xt en t o f Cam pb el l’s, Lov et t’s, o r Jo hn ny W il li am s’s cr im in al hi st ory . It d oe s n ot ap pe ar t ha t Will ia m s s ub m it te d t o t he di st ric t co ur t an y in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g Gu ad al up e-Gu ti erre z’s orCla rk -Cas ta ne da ’s sen te nc es . Nev erthe le ss , he h as fai le d t o s ho w on ap pe al th athe was s im il arl y si tu at edto ei th er Gu ad al up e-Gu ti erre z o r Cl ark -Cas ta ne da , who se co nv ic ti on s i nv ol ve d o nl y po wde r co cai ne . The o nl y ev id en ce t ha t Will ia m s s ub m it s wi th res pe ctto Gua da lupe -Gu ti erre z an d C la rk -Cas ta ne daare t he ir ju dg m en ts of c on vi ct io n. The re i s n o e vi de nc e reg ard in g t he ir c riminal hi st or ie s o r ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e
ran ge s. Acco rd in gl y , Mu sg ro ve an d Wil li am s h av e fai le d t o s ho w th atth ei r
se nt en ces res ul te d i n u nwa rran te d d is pa rit ie s.
10The di st ric t co ur t al so di d n ot err i n c on si de rin g t ha t t he factth atit

pr ev io us ly hadsen te nc edMu sg ro ve fora si m il ar o ffen se . Mus gr ov e’s pr io r of fen se was afactth atth e d is tri ctco ur t was pe rm it te d t o c on si de r, reg ard le ss of th e jud ge th atpre si de d o ve r hi s p rio r tr ia l an d s en te nc in g. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 1 (p ro vi di ng th ata se nt en ci ng co ur t m ay co ns id er an y

“ in fo rm at io n c on cern in g t he ba ck gr ou nd , cha ract er, an d c on du ct ” o f a d efen da nt ). In f act , th e n atur e o f Mu sg ro ve ’s pri oroff

en se was re le va nt to sev eral § 3 55 3( a) s en te nc in g fa ct or s, whi ch sen te nc in g c ou rts are re qu ire d t o c on si de r. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(2 ) (in st ru ct in g s en te nc in g c ou rts to co ns id er “ th e h is to ry an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt ,” th e n eed“ to pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w,” an d t he ne ed“ to affo rd ad equa te de te rren ce”)

. Nex t, al th ou gh th e d is tri ctco ur t i ni ti al ly des cri be d M us gr ov e as a “ le ad er” of th e co ns pi racy, it ac kn owl ed ge d t ha t M us gr ov e was no t a l ead er i n t he sen se th athe sh ou ldrece iv e a ro le en ha nc em en t, an d i t d idno t ap pl y a ro le

en ha nc em en t. Fu rth erm or e, th e co ur t d idno t cl earl y err b y st at in g t ha t M us gr ov e
was th e “ m ai n d is tri bu to r” o f co cai ne . This co m m en t was m ad e dur in g a di sc us si on of M us gr ov e’s rel at iv e cu lp ab il it y in co m pa ris on to Cam

pb el l. As di sc us se d abo ve , Cam

pb el l was co nv ic te d o f on ly one co un t, wh ic h i nv ol ve d a

sm al le r drug qu an ti ty. Bas edon th is factalo ne , th e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t cl earl y
11err i n d et erm in in g t ha t M us gr ov e was m or e cu lp ab le th an Cam pb el l. Fi na ll y , eve n if t he di st ric t co ur t’s co m m en t was co ns tru edto m ean th atMu sg ro ve was t he

“ m ai n d is tri bu to r” i n t he ch arg edco ns pi racy, thi s fi nd in g wo ul d n ot be cle arl y
erro ne ou s. Th e PSI l is te d fo urin di vi du al s t o wh om Mu sg ro ve so ldco cai ne . Mu sg ro ve so ldki lo gr am

qu an ti ti es to th ree o f th es e in di vi du al s. In co nt ras t, t he PSI i nd ic at edth atW il li am s, t he on ly oth er ch arg edco -co ns pi rat or , di rect ly sol d

on ly six gra m s o f co cai ne ba se an d 5 6.7 gra m s o f po wde r co cai ne . In l ig ht of th es e fac ts , th e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t cl earl y err i n fi nd in g t ha t M us gr ov e was th e

“ m ai n d is tri bu to r.” Fi na ll y , W il li am s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt “ ov er-s tre ss ed ” h is pri or cri m in al hi st ory . Sect io n 3 55 3( a) i ns tru ct s s en te nc in g c ou rts to co ns id er a de fen da nt ’s hi st ory

an d c ha ract eri st ic s, as well as t he ne edto pro m ot e res pe ctfor th e la w, det er fu tu re cr im in al co nd uc t, an d p ro te ctth e p ub li c. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(1 )-(2 ). W il li am s’s l en gt hy crim in al hi st ory was re le va nt to all th ree o f th es e fac to rs an d, i n l ig ht of t he sev eri ty andex te nt of h is cri m in al hi st ory , th e di st ric t co ur t d idno t cl earl y err i n a cco rd in g s ig ni fic an t wei gh t t o h is cri m in al hi st ory . Mu sg ro ve an d Wil li am s h av e fai le d t o s ho w th atth ei r 24 0- m on th sen te nc es , whi ch res ul te d fr om

a si gn ifi can t d own wardva ria nc e fro m th ei r gu id el in e te rm s o f
12li fe i m

pr is on m en t, were subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm th ei r
se nt en ces . AFFIRMED.

13