T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta, a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its p e r s u a s i v e v a l u e c o n s i s t e n twi th F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 2 . 1 ( e f f. De c . 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 2 . 1 (ef f. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### D e c e m b e r 28, 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. N o. 06- 1256 D A V ID S A C H S , als o k n o w n a s D a v id E t an L e S achs, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR - 0 0 2 8 4 - WYD) ( D . C ol or ado)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e H E N R Y , B R I S C O E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt o honorthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al ar gum ent . See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( f) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s , ther efor e, o rd e re d s u b m itte d w ith o u t o ra l a rg u m e n t. D efe ndantD avi d Sachs ( “Sachs ”) appea l s hi s s i x- m onth s ent ence forvi ol at i ng t he- 2-

t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and a f f i r m. Sachs admi t t ed t o s i x vi ol at i ons of the t erm s of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e betw een J une 20, 2005, and February15, 2006, forfai l ur e t o part i ci pat e i n a drug/ al cohol tr eatm entpr ogr am and poss es s i on/us e of a contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . Sachs t es t ed pos i t i ve for m a riju a n a u se f

o u r tim e s b e tw e e n Ja n u a ry2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , an d F e b ru a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 6 . B e c a u se h is m o st s e rio u s v io latio n w a s a G ra d e C v io latio n , h is a d v iso ryg u id e lin e ra n g e w a s f o u r to t en ( 4- 10) m onths of i m pr i s onm ent . Super vi s ed R el eas e V i ol at i on R eport( “V R ”) at8- 9. A tSachs ’ J une 2006 r evoca t i on hear i ng, hi s defe ns e couns el , the governm ent , and the pr obat i on offi cerr ecomm ended thatSachs be s ent ence d t o a comm uni tycorr ect i ons c e n ter (“ h a lf

w a yh o u se ” ). S p e c if

ica lly , S a c h s’ a tto rn e yn o ted th a t S a c h s h a d p a ss e d a ll hi s drug s cr eeni ngs fr om the begi nni ng of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e i n M ayof 2005 thr ough the dat e of hi s r evoca t i on hear i ng, w i th the exc ept i on of a br i ef r el aps e i n J anuaryand Februaryof 2006. Sachs ’ att orneyal s o comm ent ed thatSachs came fr om a tr oubl ed hom e l i fe buthad t aken r es pons i bi l i tyand moved outon hi s ow n, w hi l e att endi ng gr oup ther apyforhi s drug us e. She ar gued thats endi ng Sachs , w ho w as tw enty - thr ee y ear s ol d, to p riso n a g a in w o u ld n o t “a d d re ss w h a t w e a re try in g to d o , w h ich is try in g to g e t th is y oung per s on on the r i ghtpath. ” Sent enci ng T r ans cr i pt( “ST ”) at5. T he governm ent echoe d thes e conc erns , not i ng thatSachs w oul d be unl i kel yt o gai n anythi ng fr om another t erm of i ncar cer at i on, butthata hal fw ayhous e w oul d pr ovi de a s t abl e envi r onm entfor hel pi ng Sachs t o r emai n drug- fr ee. Si m i l ar l y , the pr obat i on offi cer ’ s V R r ecomm endedT h e f a c to rs s e t f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) in c lu d e : 1 the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the def endant ; the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed – t o r efl ectthe s er i ous nes s of the offe ns e, t o pr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe o f f e n se ; 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; t o p ro tec t th e p u b lic fr om fur thercr i m es of the def endant ; and t o pr ovi de the def endantw i th neede d e d u c a tio n a l o r v o c a tio n a l train in g , m e d ica l ca re , o r o th e r c o rre c tio n a l trea tm e n t in th e m o s t e f

f e c tiv e m a n n e r. 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 3- r e q u i r i n g S a c h s t o l i v e i n a c o m m u n i ty c o rr e c t i o n s c e n t e rf o ra p e r i o d o f

u p t o 1 8 0 d a ys beca us e s uch a f

aci l i tyw oul d m eethi s need “ of addi t i onal s tructur e and s upervi s i on” w hi l e al l ow i ng hi m “t o s ecur e ver i fi abl e empl oym entand r ece i ve addi t i onal drug and a lc o h o l tr e a tm e n t.” V R a t 8 -9 . T he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed thes e r ecomm endat i ons , r evoked Sac hs ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e, and i m pos ed a s i x- m onth pr i s on s ent ence fol l ow ed bytw o y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. O ne of the s peci al condi t i ons of Sachs ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e r equi r ed hi m t o r es i de i n a hal fw ayhous e forup t o 180 day s . I n arr i vi ng atthi s s ent ence , the courts t at ed the f o llo w in g : [l ] etm e j us tnot e thatthe C our tacknow l edges thatthe U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C o m m iss io n G u id e lin e s a re n o w a d v iso rya n d th e C o u rt, w h ile in a d d iti o n to cons i der i ng the G ui del i nes has al s o t aken i nt o acc ountthe s ent enci ng fac t or s found at18 U ni t ed St at es C ode s ect i on 3553( a) , and the C our taff i r m at i vel yfi nds thatt he s ent ence w hi ch i tw i l l i m pos e i n thi s m att eri s a r eas onabl e s ent ence w i thi n the m e a n in g o f

th e la w . S T a t 1 7 -1 8 . O n appea l , Sachs ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl yl ong i n l i ghtof the s ent enci ng fac t or s of 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) and thatthe di s tr i ctcourtappl i ed the i ncorr ect 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 O th e r f a c to rs in c lu d e p e rtin e n t g u id e lin e s, p e rtin e n t p o licysta tem e n ts, th e n e e d to a v o id unw ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es , and the nee d t o pr ovi de r es t i tut i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. C o n tr e ra s -M a rt in e z , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 2 n .3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ).

- 4- s t andar d i n det erm i ni ng hi s s ent ence . W e w i l l notr ever s e a s ent ence i m pos ed af t er r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e i f w e ca n det erm i ne fr om the r ecor d thati tw as r eas oned an d rea so n ab le. U n it ed S tat es v . C o n tr era s-M arti n ez , 4 0 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 1 (10 th C ir . 2005) . T hi s courtr evi ew s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr orand i t s l egal c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . U n ite d S ta te s v . T s o s ie , 3 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 7 -1 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n r evi ew i ng a s ent ence forr eas onabl enes s , thi s courtcons i der s w hetherthe s ent ence w as r eas oned, orcal cul at ed, pr oper l yunderthe advi s oryG ui del i nes and w hetherthe s ent ence i s r eas onabl e i n l i ghtof the fa ct or s enumer at ed i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . U ni t ed St at es v. K ristl, 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 -5 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W h e n a d istric t co u rt “ p ro p e rly cons i der s the r el evantG ui del i nes r ange a nd s ent ence s the def endantw i thi n thatr ange, t he s e n te n c e is p re s u m p tiv e ly re a s o n a b le .” Id . a t 1 0 5 5 . Sachs ’ s ent ence fal l s w i thi n the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange a nd Sachs chal l enges o n lyth e len g th , an d n o t th e c a lcu latio n o f h is s e n ten c e . T h e re f

o re , S a c h s’ s e n ten c e is p re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le. S a c h s s e e k s to re b u t th is p re su m p tio n b ya rg u in g th a t h is se n ten c e w a s u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt ig n o re d re lev a n t § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs in im p o s in g h is s e n te n c e . A l though t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s expl i ci tr efe r ence t o the § 3553( a) fac t or s w as so m e w h a t p e rf

u n c to ry , the re c o rd re v e a ls th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d th e se f a c to rs in- 5-

det erm i ni ng Sachs ’ s ent ence . A ts ent enci ng, the di s tr i ctcourtcomm ent ed on the number of S achs’ vi olat i on s and the repeat ed p at t ern of sub st ance a bu se duri ng S achs’ s upervi s oryr el eas e. H e not ed thatSachs ’ cl ean drug t es t s di d notoffs etthe ones he had fai l ed, ther e s houl d be s om e form of puni s hm entfors om eone w ho t es t s pos i t i ve fordrug us e on fourocca s i ons , and thatSachs had notr ecogni zed the ful l ext entof hi s drug pr obl em. See 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( court s m us tcons i der“the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the o ff en se a n d the h ist o ryan d ch ara cterist ics o f th e d ef en d an t”). In a d d it ion , the c o u rt i ndi cat ed thats endi ng Sachs t o j ai l “w i l l caus e hi m t o m or e appr opr i at el yr efl ecton w hat he nee ds t o do” and that“ther e has t o be a mor e s ubs t ant i al cons equenc e” f ors om eone w h o re p e a te d ly u s e d d ru g s w h ile o n s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . S T a t 1 6 . S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) (sen tenc ing co u rtm u st co n side r “n ee d fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed to af fo rd adequa t e det err ence , ” “pr om ot e r es pectforthe l aw , ” and “ pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entfort he o f f e n s e ” ). In lig h t o f

th e se c o m m e n ts, w e a re sa tisf ied th a t th e d istric t co u rt a d e q u a tely c o n s i d e r e d th e r e l e v a n ts e n t e n c i n g f a c t o r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g S a c h s ’ s e n t e n c e . A d d i t i o n a l l y, thi s courthas “made i tqui t e cl earthatthe s ent enci ng courti s notr equi r ed t o cons i der i nd i vidual l yeach f

act or l i st ed in § 35 53 (a) befo re i ssui ng a sent ence.” C on trer asM a rtin e z , 4 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 2 (q u o tin g U n ited S tate s v . K e lley , 3 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 )). M o re o v e r, w e d o n o t “d e m a n d th a t th e d istric t co u rt ‘re c ite a n ym a g ic w or ds ’ t o s how us thati tful fi l l ed i t s r es pons i bi l i tyt o be mi ndful of the fa ct or s that C ongr es s has i ns truct ed i tt o cons i der . ” I d. B eca us e the r ecor d r evea l s thatthe di s tr i ct- 6-

c o u rt c o n sid e re d th e re lev a n t f a c to rs e n u m e ra ted in § 3 5 5 3 (a ), S a c h s h a s f a iled to s u f f ic ie n tly re b u t th e p re s u m p tio n th a t h is s e n te n c e is re a s o n a b le . F inally , S ac h s arg u es th at his sen tenc e is u n rea so n ab le be ca u se th e d istri ct co u rt appl i ed the i ncorr ects t andar d. I n det erm i ni ng Sachs ’ s ent ence , the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed th a t in a d d iti o n to its c o n sid e ra tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s a n d § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs, th e se n ten c e it im p o s e d “ [ w a s ] a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e la w .” S T a t 1 7 -1 8 . Sachs ar gues thathi s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e bec aus e the di s tr i ctcourts houl d have i m pos ed a s ent ence “s uffi ci ent , butnotgr eat erthan nec es s ary ” t o compl yw i th the p u rp o se s s e t f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) ra th e r th a n a “ re a so n a b le” se n ten c e . H e a ss e rts that“a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j ob i s nott o i m pos e a ‘ r eas onabl e’ s ent ence . R ather , a di s tr i ct c o u rt’s m a n d a te is to im p o se ‘a se n ten c e su f f icie n t, bu t n o t g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ry , to compl yw i th t he purpos es of § 3553( a) ( 2) . R eas onabl enes s i s the appe l l at e s t andar d of r evi ew i n j udgi ng w hethera di s tr i ctcourthas acc om pl i s hed i t s t as k. ” U ni t ed St at es v. F o re m a n , 4 3 6 F .3 d 6 3 8 , 6 4 4 n .1 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). B eca us e Sachs ’ s ent ence w as w i thi n the r ecomm ended a dvi s oryG ui del i nes r ange, i ti s pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e. “A defe ndantm ayr ebutthi s pr es um pt i on by d em o n str ati n g that the s en tenc e is u n rea so n ab le i n li g h t of the o ther se n tenc ing fa ctors l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” K r i s t l , 437 F. 3d at1055. A l though Sachs corr ect l yas s ert s that r eas onabl enes s i s an appe l l at e s t andar d of r evi ew , he has fai l ed t o s how thathi s s ent ence is u n re a so n a b le in lig h t o f th e f a c to rs s e t f

o rth in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). T h e d istric t co u rt e x p re ss ly n o ted th at i t con side red the § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors a n d w e h av e c o n clud ed that the d istri ct co u rt- 7-

adequa t el ycons i der ed thes e fa ct or s and i m pos ed a r eas onabl e s ent ence . Sachs cannot a ss e rt th a t h is s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le s im p lyb e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt u lti m a tely concl uded that“i n addi t i on t o cons i der i ng the G ui del i nes ” and “ t aki ng i nt o acc ountthe s ent enci ng fac t or s found at18 U ni t ed St at es C ode Sect i on 3553( a) , ” Sachs ’ s ent ence w as al s o a “r eas onabl e s ent ence w i thi n the meani ng of the l aw . ” ST at17- 18. B eca us e the d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r e d th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t o r s a n d i mp o s e d a r e a s o n a b l e s e n t e n c e , we cannotconcl ude thatthe di s tr i ctcourtappl i ed an i ncorr ects t andar d i n s ent enci ng Sachs m e re ly b e c a u s e it a ls o s ta te d th a t S a c h s ’ s e n te n c e w a s re a s o n a b le . S a c h s’ s e n ten c e is p re su m p tiv e lyre a so n a b le. B e c a u se h e h a s f a iled to d e m o n stra te that the d istri ct co u rtign o red relev an t § 3 5 5 3 (a) fa ctors o r ap p li ed the in co rrect st an d ard in se n ten c in g h im , w e w ill A F F IR M th e d istric t co u rt. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge