2010 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 7-14-2010 

# U SA v . Thom a s Hint on P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-1427

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_2010

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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 . Thom as Hint on" (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 962. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/962NOT P 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. 08- 1427

_____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA

v. T HOMAS HI NT ON, A p p e llan t.

_______________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 02- cr - 769) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. E duar do C . R obr eno

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

J ul y13, 2010 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , J O R D A N a n d G R E E N A W A Y , J R ., C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: J ul y14, 2010)

_______________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_______________ J O R D A N , C i r cui tJudge . T hom as H i nt on appea l s fr om the j udgm entent er ed bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C ou rtfor the E ast ern D i stri ctof P enn sy l van i a i m po si ng a sent ence o f 21 0 m on ths’ i m pr i s onm entfol l ow i ng hi s convi ct i on forpos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne2

bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . H i nt on ar gues thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed by the D i s tr i ctC our ti s pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the C our tfai l ed t o pr oper l ycons i derthe fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) w hen i ts ent ence d hi m as a careeroff

end er unde r § 4B 1. 1 o f t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes. F or the fo l l ow i ng reas on s, w e w ill a f

f ir m . I . Backg r ound B e c a u se w e w rite o n lyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e a ss u m e f a m ili a rityw ith the fa ct s of thi s cr i m i nal cas e and the pr ocee di ngs i n the D i s tr i ctC our t . O n A ugus t5, 2001, Phi l adel phi a pol i ce of fi cer s r ece i ved a r eportthata man, l at eri dent i fi ed as H i nt on, had thr eat ened a notherm an w i th a fi r earm . W hen the pol i ce a rr i ved atthe s cene , H i nt on fl ed. A ft erhe w as appr ehende d bythe off i cer s , theys ear ched hi m and di s cover ed thathe w as carry i ng thi r ty - s even pa cket s of cr ack c ocai ne. T heyal s o found a f i r earm i n the ar ea H in to n h a d ru n th ro u g h b e f o re h e w a s c a u g h t. O n N o v e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , a g ra n d ju ryin th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia re tu rn e d a th re e -c o u n t in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g H in to n w ith p o ss e ss io n o f a f ire a rm in fur ther ance of a drug tr aff i cki ng cr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) ; pos s es s i on w i th the i nt entt o di s tr i but e coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) ; and p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm b ya c o n v ic te d f

e lo n , in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )( 1 ). A ju ryc o n v icte d H in to n o f p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te c o c a in e b a se , b u t f o u n d h im no tgu i l tyof the fi rearm off enses. T he D i stri ctC ou rtsent enced H i nton t o 2 16 m on ths’P ursuantt o § 4B 1. 1(a) of the U nit ed S t at es Sen t encing G uidel i nes, “[a] defen dan ti s a 1 car eeroffe nderi f ( 1) the def endantw as atl eas tei ght een y ear s ol d atthe t i m e the defe ndantcomm i t t ed the i ns t antoffe ns e of c onvi ct i on; ( 2) the i ns t antoffe ns e of convi ct i on i s a fe l onythati s ei thera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e; and ( 3) the def

endanthas atl eas ttw o pr i orfel onyconvi ct i ons of ei thera cr i m e of vi ol ence ora contr ol l ed s ubs t ance offe ns e. ” H i nt on does notdi s put e thathe w as over ei gh t een y ears old w hen he co m m i t t ed the offe nse, that hi s conv i ct i on un der § 84 1 is a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e , o r t h a t h e h a s tw o p ri o r c o n v ic tio n s f o r c ri m e s o f

v io le n c e . T h o se c rim e s o f

v io len c e w e re c o n v ictio n s f o r ro b b e ryin 1 9 9 0 a n d a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt i n 1993. H i nt on w as al s o convi ct ed of pos s es s i ng an i ns trum entof a c r i m e i n 1991 and theft a n d p o s s e s s in g c o c a in e in 1 9 9 3 . 3 i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and H i nt on appea l ed. W e af fi r m ed the convi ct i on butvaca t ed hi s s ent ence and r emanded forr e- s ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i th U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , w hi ch had be en dec i ded dur i ng the p e n d e n c yo f

H in to n ’s a p p e a l. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Hi nt on , 4 2 3 F . 3 d 3 5 5 , 3 6 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tr e- s ent ence d H i nt on on J anuary30, 2008. T he Pr e- Sent ence R eport( “PSR ”) pr epar ed i n advanc e of s ent enci ng cal cul at ed the bas e off ens e l evel as 22 and adde d t w o l evel s t o acc ountfors peci fi ed off ens e cha r act er i s t i cs . T he off ens e l evel w a s th e n in c re a se d to 3 2 b e c a u se H in to n q u a lifie d a s a c a re e r o f f e n d e r p u rsu a n t to § 4B 1. 1 of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . H i nt on’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryw as al s o enhanc ed fr om 1 a ca t egoryV t o a ca t egoryV I beca us e he i s a ca r eeroffe nder . T he advi s oryG ui del i nes ran g e w o u ld the ref

o re o rdin aril yb e 2 1 0 to 2 6 2 m o n ths o f im p ri so n m en t. H o w ev er, beca us e the s t atut orym axi m um fora convi ct i on pur s uantt o 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) i s 240 m on ths, the ad vis oryG uidel i nes range w as 210 t o 2 40 m on ths.S ec ti o n 4 A 1 . 3 (b)(1 ) of the S en tenc ing G u idelines stat es th at a d o w n w ard d ep arture 2 m ayb e w arran ted “ [i]f reli ab le i n fo rm ati o n ind icates tha t th e d ef en d an t’ s crim inal h ist o ry s ubs t ant i al l yover - r epr es ent s the s er i ous nes s of the def endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryorthe lik e lih o o d th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t w ill c o m m it o th e r c ri m e s .” T he C our tal s o or der ed H i nt on t o paya fi ne of $1, 000 and a s peci al as s es s m entof 3 $100. 4 T he p art i es di d n ot obj ectt o the PS R , and the D i stri ctC ou rtado pted i t s fi nd i ng s, i ncl udi ng the ca l cul at i on of the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange a s 210 t o 240 m onths of im p ri so n m en t and three y ea rs of su p erv ised release . H inton d id n o t object t o the C o u rt ’s ca lculati o n o f th e G u idelines ran g e, bu t r eq u ested a d o w n w ard d ep arture. T h e C o u rt 2 deni ed the mot i on fora dow nw ar d departur e, expl ai ni ng thatH i nt on had a “ l engthy cr i m i nal hi s t ory ” and, thus , i tw as “ent i r el yappr opr i at e thathe be de s i gnat ed as a ca r eer crim inal in this ca se.” (A p p . at 17 . ) H inton then req u ested a v arian ce fro m the a d v isory G u id e lin e s ra n g e , arg u in g th a t th e c rim e in v o lv e d a sm a ll am o u n t o f c ra c k c o c a in e , d id noti nvol ve an a ctual s al e, and thatthe fe der al s ent ence w as s i gni fi cant l yhi gherthan the se n ten c e h e w o u ld re c e iv e if h e h a d b e e n p ro se c u ted in sta te c o u rt. H e a lso a rg u e d th a t a s ent ence under§ 2D 1. 1 – the s ect i on of the G ui del i nes thatw oul d have appl i ed, w er e he nota ca r eeroffe nder– w oul d pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence and w as s uffi ci entt o m eett he goal s of s ent enci ng. T he governm entoppos ed H i nt on’ s r eques tfora var i ance . T he C our tdecl i ned t o i m pos e a s ent ence bel ow the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence d H i nt on t o 210 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, among ot herpenal t i es . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 3T he D i s tr i ctC our texer ci s ed j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231. W e have 4 ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T i t l e 18, Sect i on 3553( a) r equi r es a courtt o cons i derthe fol l ow i ng fac t or s w hen 5 se n ten c in g a d e f

e n d a n t: ( 1) the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e f e n d a n t; ( 2) the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed – ( A) t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , t o p r o mo t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, a n d to p ro v id e ju st p u n ish m e n t f o r th e o f f e n se ; (B ) to a f f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c rim in a l co n d u c t; ( C ) t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the def endant ; and ( D ) t o pr ovi de the def

endantw i th neede d educa t i onal orvocat i onal trai ning, m edical care, or ot her corr ect i on al treatm ent i n the m ost e f f e c tiv e m a n n e r; 5 II. D i s cus s i on 4 O n a p p e a l, H in to n c o n ten d s th a t th e se n ten c e im p o se d b yth e D istric t C o u rt is p ro c e d u ra llya n d su b sta n tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e C o u rt se n ten c e d h im p u rsu a n t to the G ui del i nes r ange f

orcar eeroffe nder s and fa i l ed t o adequa t el ycons i deral l of the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs w h e n s e n te n c in g h im . O urpr ece dentr equi r es a di s tr i ctcourtt o undert ake thr ee s t eps w hen s ent enci ng a d e f e n d a n t. F ir s t, it m u s t c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te th e d e f e n d a n t’ s G u id e lin e s ra n g e . U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 462 F. 3d 237, 247 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T hen, the courtm us trul e on any m o tio n s f

o r d e p a rt u re s u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s p ro v is io n s . I d. T hir d, i tm ust“exerci se [i t s] di s cr et i on bycons i der i ng the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s i n s ett i ng the s ent ence . . . . ” I d. (i n terna l brac k ets, cit ati o n s, an d q u o tat ion s o m itted). 5(3 ) th e k in d s o f se n ten c e s a v a ilab le; ( 4) the ki nds of s ent ence and the s ent enci ng r ange e s t abl i s hed for– (A ) th e a p p lica b le c a teg o ryo f o f f e n se c o m m itt e d b yth e a p p lica b le c a teg o ryo f

d e f e n d a n t as se t f

o rth in th e g u id e lin e s ... ; ( 5) anypert i nentpol i cys t at ement. . . i s s ued bythe Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on ...; (6 ) th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rra n ted se n ten c e d isp a rities a m o n g d e f e n d a n ts w i th s i m i l arr ecor ds w ho have be en found gui l tyof s i m i l arconduct ; and (7 ) t h e n e e d to p ro v id e re s titu tio n to a n yv ic tim s o f th e o f f e n s e . 6 W e re v ie w th e s e n te n c in g ju d g m e n t o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n , exami ni ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entforpr ocedur al err orand s ubs t ant i ve re a s o n a b le n e s s . G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). A trial c o u rt m a yc o m m it pr ocedur al err ordur i ng s ent enci ng by“fa i l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) t he G ui del i nes r ange, tr eat i ng the G ui del i nes as m andat ory , fai l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rlye rro n e o u s f a c ts, o r f a ili n g to a d e q u a tely expl ai n the chos en s ent ence – i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on foranydevi at i on fr om the G ui del i nes r ange. ” Id . H o w ev er, w h en co n side ri n g the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors, a d istri ct co u rt “nee d notm ake f

i ndi ngs as t o eac h fac t ori f the r ecor d otherw i s e makes cl earthatthe courtt ook the fa ct or s i nt o acc ount . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Les s ner , 4 9 8 F . 3 d 1 8 5 , 2 0 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). W e cons i derthe t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s w hen r evi ew i ng the s ubs t ant i ve re a s o n a b le n e s s o f

a s e n te n c e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (e n b a n c ). “T h e to u c h sto n e o f ‘re a so n a b len e ss ’ is w h e th e r th e re c o rd a s a w h o leH i nt on’ s br i ef i s notent i r el ycl earas t o how he bel i eves the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed w hen 6 s ent enci ng hi m . W e not e thathe does notar gue thathe di d notqual i fyas a ca r eer o f f e n d e r u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 . T o th e e x ten t h e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n b yd e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r a d o w n w a rd d e p a rtu re , w e lac k ju risd ictio n to re so lv e h is c laim . U n les s it a p p e a rs th a t th e D istric t C o u rt m ista k e n lyb e liev e d th a t it l acke d author i tyt o gr ants uch a de partur e, “[w ] e do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew di s cr et i onarydeci s i ons bydi s tr i ctcourt s t o notdepartdow nw ar d. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 566 F. 3d 353, 366 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ar gas , 477 F. 3d 94, 103 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ) . H i nt on does notar gue, and the r ecor d does noti ndi cat e, thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tw as oper at i ng unders uch a mi s appr ehens i on. 7 re f le c ts ra tio n a l a n d m e a n in g f u l c o n s id e ra tio n ” o f

th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs . U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r i er , 4 7 5 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 7 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e n b a n c ). H i nt on does nots peci fi cal l yi ndi cat e w hi ch of the § 3553( a) fac t or s he bel i eves t he D istric t C o u rt f

a iled to a d e q u a telyc o n sid e r w h e n se n ten c in g h im . In a n yc a se , h is 6 arg u m en t th at th e D istri ct C o u rtfa il ed to g ive “ m ea n ing fu l con side rati o n to the statu tory fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ” ( A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at14) i s nots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d. I n fac t , the tr ans cr i ptof the r e- s ent enci ng hear i ng es t abl i s hes thatthe D i s tr i ct C o u rtco n side red H inton ’s arg u m en ts as to the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d ap p li ed tho se f ac tors w h e n d e te rm in in g h is s e n te n c e . Forexampl e, H i nt on ar gued that§ 3553( a) ( 1) , w hi ch addr es s es the natur e and c irc u m sta n c e s o f

th e o f f e n se a n d th e 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, s uppor t ed a s ent ence bel ow the G ui del i nes r ange be caus e the off ens e i nvol ved ap p rox im ately3 g ram s o f c rac k co ca ine a n d d id n o t i n v o lve a n ac tual sale. T h e C o u rt agr eed w i th H i nt on thatthe off ens e i nvol ved a r el at i vel ys m al l amount of cr ack c ocai ne butdet erm i ned thatthe amountof drugs w as notthe “c entr al fea tur e” of the s ent enci ng8

beca us e the C our tw as t as ked w i th det erm i ni ng the “appr opr i at e puni s hm entfora ca r eer crim inal. ” (A p p . at 28 -29 . ) T h u s, the C o u rt , takin g H inton ’s ex tens ive c ri m inal h ist o ry i nt o acc ount , concl uded that§ 3553( a) ( 1) di d nots uppor ta var i ance fr om the G ui del i nes ra n g e a n d th a t a s u b s ta n tia l s e n te n c e w a s re q u ir e d in th is c a s e . T he C our tal s o cons i der ed and pr oper l yr ej ect ed H i nt on’ s ar gum entthata l es s er sen tenc e w as a p p rop ri ate b ec au se h e w o u ld h av e re ce ived a lesse r sen tenc e if h e w ere p ro s e c u te d in s ta te c o u rt . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ); see al so U nited S tates v. C lark , 4 3 4 F .3 d 6 8 4 , 6 8 7 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ T h e so le c o n c e rn o f se c tio n 3 5 5 3 (a )(6 ) is w ith s ent enci ng di s par i t i es among feder al defe ndant s . ”) . T he C our tnot ed thatthe l onger fede r al s ent ence r es ul t ed fr om H i nt on’ s ext ens i ve cr i m i nal hi s t ory . I n fac t , H i nt on agr eed w i th the C our tthathe pr obabl yw oul d have r ece i ved s i m i l ars ent ence s i n s t at e and f eder al cou rt , excep tthat the fe deral sent encing g uidel i nes refl ect ed a p oli cycho i ce t o p un i sh re c id iv is m m o re s e v e re ly. In a d d iti o n , the C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t itd id n o t b e liev e th a t H in to n w a s u n lik e lyto comm i tfutur e cr i m es , s peci fi cal l yfi ndi ng thatH i nt on “has notbeen r ehabi l i t at ed, and thathe i s a dange rt o t he publ i c. ” ( A pp. at28. ) T he C our tnot ed thati t s concl us i on w as b o ls te re d b yth e f

a c t th a t H in to n c o m m itte d th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e w h ile h e w a s o n p ro b a tio n . T hus , al though the C our tdi d notexpl i ci t l yr ej ectH i nt on’ s ar gum entthathi s s ent ence sh o u ld b e lo w e re d b e c a u se h is p re v io u s c o n v ictio n s w e re c o m m itt e d se v e ra l y e a rs p rio r toA s th e G o v e rn m e n t c o rr e c tly a rg u e s , U ni t ed Stat es v. R i os , N o . 0 2 - 8 2 8 - 0 3 , 2 0 0 9 WL 7 383750 ( E . D . Pa. Feb. 9, 2009) , and U nited S tates v. R i vera , 5 3 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 5 2 7 ( E . D. Pa. 2008) , w hi ch H i nt on ci t es i n hi s appel l at e br i ef, ar e i nappos i t e. I n thos e ca s es , the d e f e n d a n ts w e re s e e k in g a re d u c tio n o f th e irs e n te n c e s u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 2 (c )( 2 ). T he def endant s had bee n s ent ence d pur s uantt o § 4B 1. 1 of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes but ar gued thattheyw er e el i gi bl e fora modi fi cat i on of thei rs ent ence aft erA m endment706 low ere d the b ase o ff

en se lev els fo r co ca ine b ase o ff en ses in § 2 D 1 . 1 o f th e G u idelines . In both R i os and R i vera , the D istric t C o u rts re jec ted th e se a rg u m e n ts b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n ts w er e s ent ence d pur s uantt o § 4B 1. 1, not§ 2D 1. 1, and, thus , A m endment706 di d not a p p ly . T h e se d e c isio n s d o n o t su p p o rt H in to n ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to 9 the pr es entoffe ns e, i ti s cl earthatthe C our tr ej ect ed the i m pl i cat i ons of s uch an a r gum ent

– n a m e ly th a t H in to n w a s re h a b ilita te d a n d u n lik e ly to c o m m it c ri m e s in th e f u tu re . Fur theraddr es s i ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s , the C our tdeci ded thata “s ubs t ant i al se n ten c e ” (A p p . at 2 7 -2 8 ) w a s n e c e ss a ryto re f lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se , to p ro m o te re s p e c t f

o r t h e la w , a n d to p ro v id e a d e q u a te d e te rr e n c e . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) ( 2) . T he C our tal s o deci ded thata s ent ence of 210 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch w as s i x m onths s hor t erthan the s ent ence or i gi nal l yi m pos ed, w as appr opr i at e, bas ed on i t s r ecogni t i on thatH i nt on had compl et ed voca t i onal s ki l l cl as s es i n pr i s on and had no di s ci pl i naryi s s ues w hi l e i ncar cer at ed. S e e id . L a stly , the C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t a s e n t e n c e o f

2 1 0 mo n th s wa s “ s u f

f i c i e n t , b u tn o g r e a t e rth a n n e c e s s a ry . ” ( Ap p . a t2 9 . ) By s o concl udi ng, the C our tr ej ect ed H i nt on’ s s ent enci ng ar gum entthata l es s ers ent ence u n d e r § 2 D 1 .1 w a s s u f

f icie n t to m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts o f § 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 ), sp e c if

ica lly , “to aff or d adequa t e det err ence ” and “ t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the d ef en d an t. ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a)(2). 7p ro p e rl yc o n s id e r t h e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs w h e n im p o s in g h is s e n te n c e .

10 T hus , aft err evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e ar e unabl e t o fi nd anypr ocedur al err ori n the s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng. T he D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yundert ook eac h of the thr ee s t eps out l i ned i n G unt er , and the tr ans cr i ptof the hea r i ng es t abl i s hes thatthe C our tcons i der ed H i nt on’ s ar gum ent s r egar di ng the § 3553( a) fac t or s and ca r eful l yappl i ed the § 3553( a) fac t or s w hen i m pos i ng the s ent ence . W e al s o concl ude thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tw as su b sta n tiv e lyre a so n a b le. “ [ I]f th e d istric t co u rt’s s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra llyso u n d , w e w ill aff i r m i tunl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on th a t p a rt ic u la r d e f

e n d a n t f o r t h e re a s o n s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p ro v id e d .” Tom ko , 562 F. 3d at 568. H er e, the C our tw as cl ear l yconce rned w i th puni s hi ng and det err i ng H i nt on and det err i ng otherr epea toffe nder s . T he amountof drugs i nvol ved i n the off ens e and the pas s age of

t i m e betw een H i nt on’ s pr evi ous convi ct i ons and the i ns t antoffe ns e do not r enders uch conc erns unr eas onabl e. T hus , a s ent ence of 210 m onths – atthe l ow end of th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e – w a s n o t s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . I I I . C onc l us i on A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entand s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt .