## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07
- 3373 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OS HUA M. L IDDELL, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant .

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 06 C R 40008

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judge
.

____________ A RG UE D M AY 8, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2008

____________
Befo re M A NI ON, E VANS, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . W I L L I A MS, Cir cu i tJudg e . Defendant J oshua Li d d ell pl e d g u i l t y t o t wo fe d e r a l d r u gc h a r g e s a n d wa s s e nt e n c e d t o 24 0 mo n th s i n p r i s o n a s a c a r e e r o ffe n d e r . He c l a i ms th e d i s t r i c tc o u r te r r e d b y no tg r o u p i n gth e s e t wo charg es tog etherwh en i t ca l cul ate d his se ntenci n g gui delin e ra n ge . L id d ell a lso co n te n d s t h at res en te n c in g is n e c e s s ar y in ligh t o f th e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s d ec isio nin K im bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 1 28 S
. Ct
. 5 58 (20 07 ) , a nd he2 N o. 07
- 3373
c l a i ms tha th i s s e nt e nc e is unr e a s o nab l e . We c o nc l ud e Kim b r ough do es no t affec t Li ddel l ’ s se nt en ce o n c o unt o ne a nd the di st r i ctc o ur t di d n o t er r i n i ss ui ngthi s se ntence . Pursuant to the par ti es’ st ip ula ti on, we i ssue a li m ited rem an d on cou nt tw o i n li gh t of Kim b r ough
.

I . B AC KGR OUND Th i s i s the se cond ti m e we have encounter ed thi s ca se. B ec au se w e a l r ea d y d isc u ss ed th e u n d er lyin g fa c ts in so m e d et ail in ou r p re vio u s o p i n ion , w e w ill on ly m en tio n th e fa c ts n ec es sa ry to res olv e t h is a p p ea l. See U nite d State s v. Liddel l , 492 F.3d 920 ( 7th Cir. 2007). On M ay 4, 20 06 , Li dd el l pl ed gui l ty to tw o counts of posse ssi on with the i ntent to dist ribute fi ve gr am s o r m or e o fa m ix tu re o r substa nce co ntai ni ng co cai ne bas e. See 21 U. S
. C. §§ 84 1( a) ( 1) , 84 1(b) ( 1) ( B)
. The ch ar g es w ere base d on i nci dents o ccurr i ng o n M ay 9, 20 03 ( coun t tw o) an d N ovem ber 22, 2005 (coun t one). I n bet w een these tw o i nci dents, Li dd el l was convi cted i n I l l i noi s s tat e co urt oftwo other fel oni es

— posse ssi on w ith int en t to d ist rib u te c oc ain e a n d ag gr av at ed d om es tic batt ery

— f orwh i ch he s er ved 60 days’ i m pri sonm ent. Forco unt one ofthe federa l char ges ( cor re sponding to the l astdrug tr an sa c ti on) , the dist ri ct c ourthad to deci de w hetherthe tw o pri orstat e convi cti ons quali fi ed L i d d ell for se n te n c in g a s a ca re er offe n d er . See Uni ted St at es S en te n c in g C om m iss ion G uidel i nes M anual ( U. S
. S
. G. ) § 4 B1
. 1 ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( t o b e e l i g ib l e f o r c a r e e r o ffe nd er sente nci ng, a defe nd ant m ust h av e “at l eas t tw o pri orN o. 07
- 3373 3

Althou g h th e Supr em e Cour tr ec en t l y l i m i t ed whatc on- 1 st itutes a “c ri m e ofviole nce, ” see Bega y v . Uni t e d Stat es , 1 28 S. Ct. 1581, 1588 ( 2008) , Lidd el l do es n o t a rgue thataggravated dom estic b at t er y i s no ta c ri m e ofvi ol en c e, s o we do not consi der thati ss ue here. fel ony conv ictions of either a crim e of viol en ce or a 1 contr ol l ed substa nce o ffense” )
. A doptingthe p robati on o ffi ce ’ s r ec o m m endat i o n, the c o ur t co nc l ude d tha t th e st at e co nv i ct i o n f o r c o ca i ne po ss ess i o n was r el at ed to the con d uc t ch arged i n cou nt one an d did not cou nt tow ard ca r ee r o ffen ders ta tu s. So th e co ur t di d no t appl y the ca r ee r o ffen derg ui del i ne s an d s en ten ced Li ddel l t o the sta tutor y m i ni m um o f12 0 m onths’ im p risonm ent o n count one, and 1 05 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent on count tw o, w i th the se ntences to r un concurr entl y. The go ver nm ent a p p eal ed the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entence . W e v acat ed the sente nce a nd r em anded , co ncl ud i ng tha t th e st at e co ca i ne c o nv i ct i o n was no t r el at ed to the ch ar g ed co nduc t a nd so the co ur t sh o ul d ha ve a ppl i ed th e car eero ffender gui del i nes when sentencing Li dd el l o n c ou n t o n e. See Liddel l , 49 2 F
. 3d at 922- 24 ( ci ti ng U nited S t a tes v. Herna nd ez , 3 3 0 F
. 3 d 9 6 4 , 9 8 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) )
. On r emand, the di st r i ctc o ur t co m put ed th e se nt en cing gui del i ne r ange f orea ch count separ ate l y ( ra therthan gr oupingthe tw o counts and cal cul ati ng a si ngl e r ange) an d de te r m i ned thatthe c ar ee r o ffen derpr o vi si o ns yi el ded a ra nge o f26 2- 327 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent o n c o u n tone . T h e c o u r tth e n s e n t e n c e d L i d d e l l t o a b e l o wgui del i ne te rm o f24 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent o n count one,4 N o. 07
- 3373
an d 8 7 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm en t o n c o untt wo, t o r un c o nc u rre n tly . L id d ell th en filed th is a p p ea l.
II. A N A L Y S IS A . T h e d istr ict cou rt p rope rl y d ecline d t o group cou n ts one and two. Liddellcl ai m s the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have gr ouped counts one and tw o tog etherbefor e dete rm i ni ng w hether he was a c ar eero ffender. W e r evi ew t h e co urt’ s deci si on n otto gro u p t h e s e c ou n ts d e n ov o. U nite d State s v. A lcala , 35 2 F.3 d 1 15 3, 11 56 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh e r m an , 268 F. 3d 539, 54 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. L idd el l se em s t o bel i eve (but doe sn ’t exp li citly ar g u e ) th at ifthe cou nt s are gr ou p ed , his tw o in te rv en in g s ta te co n vic tio n s w ou ld no l on gerbe “pri orfel ony convi cti ons” because they w oul d occur afterthe ear l i erof the tw o gr ouped offenses , an d so Lid d ellcou ld n ot be sen ten ced as a career offend er. W e do not agr ee, however, thatgr oupingthe tw o counts woul d ch an g e Li ddel l ’ s ca r ee r o ffen der st atus . Ev eni fthe two c o unt s wer e g r o upe d, we w ou l d us e th e dat e o fthe l a tero ffen se i n the g r o up i n de te r m i ni ngwhethe r the unr el at ed st at e fel o ny conv ict i o ns wer e “pr i o r ” to the gr oup . See U nite d S t at e s v. Be l t on , 890 F.2d 9, 10 ( 7th Cir. 1989 ) ( “N othi ng i n the guid el i nes’ defi ni ti on o fa car eer o ffe n d e r r e q u i r e s . . . th a t e v e r y a c t c o n s t i tu t i v e o ft he offense und er l yi ng hi s cur re nt co nvi cti on have been com m i tte d after th e pr i orco nvi cti on, and w e ca n thi nk o f no re aso n f or such a re quir em ent. ”)
. W e have su gg ested th ata n un r el at ed fel o ny c o nv i ct i o n i s “pr i o r ” t o a c o nspi ra cy f orpurposes o fthe car ee r offender gui del i nesN o. 07
- 3373 5 when th e co ns pi r ac y b egi ns befo r e th e co nv i ct i o n a nd c on tin u es aft er w ar d
. Id. at10
- 11 ; see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gare ch t, 183 F. 3d 671, 675 (7th Cir
. 1999) ( m odi fyi ng Bel t on by hol ding that a fel ony convi cti on that o ccurs duri ng an on go in g c on sp ira c y c an be a “p rior ” c on vic tio n on l y if it is unrelated to the con sp iracy). S i m i l ar l y, i t m ak es s en se tha t an unr el at ed fel o ny c o nvi cti on i s pri orto a “ group” ofo ffenses i fthe convi cti on o cc ur s be f o r e atl ea sto ne o fth e o ffen se s i n the g r o up. To h old ot h er w ise w ou ld lea d to a n on se n sic al r e su lt

— Liddel l wo ul d b e b e t t e r o ffb e c a us e h e wa s c ha r g e d wi th tw o gr ouped offen ses thatst ra dd l ed hi s unre l ate d stat e fel ony c on vic tio ns than i fhe ha d been char ged o n j ust count on e ( w hi ch i nvol ved the l ate r- occur ring o ffense in th e g ro u p ). See Be l t on , 8 90 F. 2d at 10- 11 ( noti ng tha t “[ t] he o nl y practical e ffec t” o fa s i m i l ara r g um en t i n the dr ugc o ns pi r ac y c o nt ex t “ w ou l d b e to g i ve the g o ve r nm ent a n i ncenti ve to see k c onvi cti on f oro nl y s o m uch of the d efend an t’s part ici p ation in th e con tinu ing con sp iracy as p ostd ated his prior conviction ”). At a ny r at e, we al r ea dy ex pl aine d why co unto ne a nd count tw o ar e unrel ate d and shoul d not be gr ouped togeth er: Liddell ’ s s tat e incarc er ati on s epara te d the conduct c h ar ge d i n C ou n t O n e fro m th e c on d u c t c h ar ge d in b o th hi s s ta t e c o n v i c t i o n a n d i n C o u n tT wo , [ s o ] we fi nd tha t tho se ea r l i ero ffen se s ar e no t r el at ed to Co unt O n e. . . . The gui del i nes expli ci tl y sta te that dist ri ct c ou rt s sh o ul d c o m put e se nt en cingg ui del ine r an g es o n a6 N o. 07
- 3373
c ou n t-b y-c ou n t b as is. See U .S.S.G . § 1B 1.1 (d ); see also U nited Sta tes v. D e la To rre, 327 F.3d 605 , 609 (7th C ir. 2003 )
. . . . Li dd el l [ sh oul d have be en] se ntenced as a ca r ee r o ffen derf o r [ co unto ne ] and no t [ co untt wo]
. To ho l d o th er wi se no t o nl y woul d c o nfl ict w i ththe gui del i nes, but i t would s tr ai n j ud i ci alr esou rces b y f or ci ng the go ver nm ent t o b ringm ult i ple , se parat e ind ictm en ts agains t d efend an ts li ke L id d ellto ensu re th atsu chde fen dan ts do no t g eta mor e l en i en t se nte nc e si m pl y b ec au se a l l o fthe iro ffen se s ar e co nsol i dated i n a s i ngl e ind i ctm ent. Liddel l , 49 2 F
. 3d at 924. A l though Liddell cl ai m s the “l aw o f th e ca se ” do ct rine d o es n’ t pr ec l ude us fr o m c ha ng i ng th i s dec i si o n, he ha sn ’ t pr o vi d ed a goo d r ea so n f o r us to re vi si t the i ssue. A n d t he two federa l drug charg es

— w hi ch are based on inci dents separat ed by m or e than twoa n d -a-half years

— do n o ti nv o l v e the s a me v i c t i m or the s am e t ra nsacti on, and do notse em to be oth er w ise re lat ed
. See U. S
. S. G. § 3 D1
. 2
. T he r e f o r e , we c o nc l ud e the di strictco urt cor re ctl y dete rm i ned that the c ounts s ho ul d n o tb e g r o up e d.
B . Th e Su pr e me C o urt ’ s de c i s i o n i n Kimb r ough v . Uni ted States do e s no tr e qui r e us t o r e ma nd f or r esent encing. At o r ala r g um ent, we as k ed th e par ti es whethe r the S upr eme Co ur t’ s r ec en t dec i si o n in Kim b r ough , 128 S
. Ct. at 564, had any effect on thi s ca se. The part ies fi l ed supp l em ental m em or anda add re ssi ng thi s i ssue. They st i pu l ate d to a l i m i te d r emand o n c o untt wo ( co r r es po ndi ngt o theN o. 07
- 3373 7

A brie fas ide on the dist inct ion b etw een pow der cocai ne, 2 cocai ne base, and crack coc aine m ight b e u se ful. “Pow der coc ain e” (co c a i n e h y d ro ch lorid e) is a salt tha t is no t easily sm oked because itdecom poses bef ore v a p orizi ng. Bu t pow der c a n be conve r t e d i n t o i t s mo r e s mok e a b l e “ b a s e ” f o r m, k n o wn as “c oc ai ne bas e” or “fre eba s e c oc ai ne . ” Be c aus e m ak i ng f re eba s e ge ne ra l l y re qui re s the use ofan ex pl os i ve s ol ven t( l i ke ethe r) , m any d eal ers i nst ead use baking soda to m ake “crac k c oc ai ne , ” whi c h i s m er el y the s t re etna m e f or a type ofc oc ai ne b a se th a t is le ss p u re b u t sa fer an d ea s ie r t o m a k e. S ee U n i te d Sta t es v. Edw ar ds , 3 9 7F
. 3 d 5 7 0 , 57 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; An dr e w C. M a c N a lly , C omm ent : A Functi onal i stA ppro ach t o the D ef i ni t i on o f “ Co c a i ne Ba s e ” i n § 841 , 74 U. Ch i. L. R ev. 711, 713, 716- 21 (2 0 0 7 ); Jaso n A . G ill m er , N ote: U n it ed Stat es v. Clary : Equ al P ro tection an d the C ra ckS tatu te, 45 Am
. U.L. R ev . 497, 508- 10 (1 9 9 5 ). ea rlier inc id en t) p u rs u an t t o t h e p r oc ed u re se t fo rt h in U ni t e d St at e s v. Tayl or, 520 F. 3d 746, 748-49 ( 7th C ir. 2008). H owever, the gov er nm ent op posed any re m and on cou nt one (corresp ond ing to the later incide nt ). W hen Liddel l was sente nced, U
. S. S.G. § 2 D1. 1 s tat ed that in d ivid u als w h o d ea l in c oc ain e b as e (in c lu d in g c rack) 2 ar e su bj ec t to the s ame gui del i ne r an g e as tho se who deal i n 100 ti m es as m uch pow der coca i ne. Thi s 1 00- to- 1 ( or “ c r a c k/ po wde r ” ) di s pa r i t y i s a l s o p a r to fthe f edera l con troll ed sub stan ces sta tu te. 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1)
. Aft erthe S upr eme Co ur t dec i ded th atth e fede r als en te n c in g g u id elin es w er e m er ely ad vis or y, see U nited Sta tes v. B o o k er, 54 3 U.S
. 22 0, 26 4- 65 ( 2005 ) , so m e di str i ct c ourt s be g anc o r r ec tingf o r the 1 00
- to
- 1 di spa r i tyb y s en te nc i ng8 N o. 07
- 3373

Acc or di ngl y, Li ddel l c ann otbe ne fi tonc ountone f ro m r ec en t 3 am en d m en ts to section 2D 1.1 tha t retro activ ely red u ced offen se le v el s fo r c e r t a i n c ra ck d efe n d a n ts. S eeSupp le m ent to the 2007 G u id el in es M a n u a l 1 -4 (20 0 8 ) (U .S.S .G . § 1 B 1 .10 ); U .S.S .G ., S u p p le m en t to A p p en d ix C 22 6 -3 1 (20 0 7 ) (A m en d m en t 7 0 6 ). cr ac kde fen dan ts b el o w th eirg ui del i ne r an g e. W e co nc l u d e d , h o we v e r, th a tdi s t r i c tc o u r t s c o u l d n o ti s s u e b e l o wgui del i ne se n te nces m er el y b ecause theydi sag re ed w i th th e p olic y u n d er lyin g t h is d isp ar ity
. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 4 5 0 F
. 3 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 5
- 7 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 )
. T h e S u p r e me C o u r tr e v e r s e d u s i n K im b r ough , co ncl ud i ng tha t be cause “th e coca ine G uid eli ne s, li ke allother G u idelines, are adv i so r y o nl y, ” di st r i ctc o ur ts may co nside r the cra ck/pow der di spari ty i n f ashi oni ng an app ro p ri ate senten ce th ati s no t “g r ea te r tha n n ec es sa r y ” to s er ve the obj ecti ves ofse n te n c i ng. See12 8 S
. Ct. at56 4 ( ci ti ng 18 U. S
. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) )
. We s ub s e qu e nt l y h e l d tha ta l i m i ted r emand an d r es en te nc i ngmightb e appr o pr i at e when a defen dan t m akes, f o r the fi r stt i m e o n a ppea l, a n a r g um ent b ase d onKi m b r ough
. See Tayl or, 52 0 F
. 3d at 746- 47 ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pal adi no , 40 1 F
. 3d 471 , 481- 84 ( 7th C ir. 2005)). He r e , Li dde l l wa s n o ts e nt e nc e d o n c o un to ne b a s e d o n U. S
. S
. G. § 2 D1. 1 an d i ts 1 00
- to
- 1 d i spa r i ty . I ns te ad, he 3 was s en te nc ed bas ed o n c ar ee r o ffen derg ui del i ne U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1, wh i ch calcu lat es offense l eve l s ba sed o n th e st atut o r y m ax i m um s en te nc e f o rthe unde r l y i ng o f f e n se . See U nite d State s v. Harris , N o . 0 7
- 2 1 9 5 , 2 0 0 8 WL 3012 362, at * 12 ( 7th Cir
. A ug. 6, 2008 )
. To i l l ustr ate , se cti onN o. 07
- 3373 9 4B1. 1 a ss ign s a bas e o ffense l eve l o f37f orthe cri m e that Liddellwas convi cted o f

— d ealing fi ve gram s or m ore ofco cai ne base

—bec au se th at offen se carries a statu tory m ax i m um o fl i fe i m pr i so nm en t ( due t o hi s pr ev i o us c on vic tio n for a felo n y d ru g off en se ). See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B )
. I fL i d d e l l h a d i n s t e a d p e d d l e d fi v e g r a ms orm or e o fpow der c oca i ne, se cti on 4B 1.1 would have ass i gned a base offense l evel of 34
. See i d. § 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C) ( st atut o r y maxi m um of 30 y ea r s f o r de fen dan ts wi tha pr i o r fel o ny dr ugc o nv i ct i o n)
. Af te r a ccounti ngf o r the th re e-le ve l ac c ep ta n c e o f re sp on sib ility re d u c tio n, L id d ell f ac ed a ca r ee r o ffen derg ui del i ne r an g e o f2 62
- 32 7 m o nths f orhi s cr ac k c onvict i on; he woul d have f aced a car eer offender ra nge o f18 8- 235 m onths had he in stead been convi c t e d o fde a l i nga n e qu i v a l e nta mou nto fp o wder coca i ne. So the differ enti altr eat m ent o fcr ack and pow der c oc ain e c er ta in ly affe c te d t h e gu id elin e ra n ge t h at L id d ell f aced o n count one. But the probl em f orL id d ell i s that th is d isp ar ity d id n otst em from th e g u i d elin e it se lf butfr o m the s ta tu to r y maxi m um tha t th e g ui del i ne re fer en c ed
. Harris , 2008 W L 30123 62, at* 12 ( “T o the e xt en t th a t a se n te n c in g d isp ar ity m igh t o c c u r u n d er § 4B 1.1 b as ed u p on th e t yp e o f co c ain e in vo lve d , i t d oe s n otres u lt f r o m th e no w-a dvi so r y dr ug qua nt i ty tabl e, but is the pr o du c t o fa disc re pancy cr eat ed by st atute .”). A n d “[w ]h ile the s entenci ng g uidel i nes m ay be o nl y a dv iso ryf or dist ri ct j ud ges , co ngre ssi onall egi sl ation i s no t. ” Id. S o “a sente nce e nter ed und erthe car eero ffen d er gui del i ne, § 4B 1.1, r ai ses no Kim b r ough pr o bl em be ca us e to the extent i t t re ats cr ack coca i ne di ffer entl y fro m pow der10 N o. 07
- 3373
co ca i ne , the di spa r i tya r i se s f r o m a s ta tu te , no t f r o m the advi sor y guidel i nes. ” Id. at*13 ; see also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ha rper, N o. 06-2064, 2 008 W L 24208 67, at * 4 (7th C ir. Jun e 17, 2008 ) (un p ub li sh ed ) (“ Kim b rou gh and the re vi sed sent e nc i ngg ui de l i ne s h a d n o e ffe c to n [ the de fe nd a nt ’ s] car eero ffender sta tus. ”)
. W e re affi rm that Kim b r ough , w hi ch onl y inter prete d the “c oca i ne gui del i nes, ” di d not change the way co u rt s cal cul ate car eero ffender gui del i ne r anges . Li ddel l, ho wev er, a l so make s a mor e nua nc ed ar g um en t ba se d o n Kim b r ough : w h il e a di str i ct c ourtcannot co ns i derthe c r ac k/ po wder di spa r i tyi n c al cul at i ngthe car eero ffender gui del i ne r ange, i t ca n consi der the di spar i tya s a r ea so n f o r i ss ui nga b el o w-gui del i ne s en te nc e. Be ca us e Li ddel l di d not ra i se thi s ar g um en t i n the dist ri ct c ourt, o ur r evi ew i s f orp lain err or . That r equi re s us to deter m i ne wh ether( 1) there w as er ro r ( 2) thatwas pla i n and ( 3) that“a ffect[ s] subst anti alr i ghts. ” W e m ust als o c on sid er w h et h er to co rre c t t h e e rro r b ec au se it (4) “ se riou sly affe c t[s ] th e fa irn es s, in te gr ity or p u b lic re pu tat i on o fj ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs. ” See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hatte n-Lubi ck, 5 25 F
. 3d 575, 5 82 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8) ( quo ting U nite d S t at e s v. O l ano , 5 0 7U. S
. 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( i nt e r na l qu otation m arks om itted ))
. W e fi rs t e xam i ne wh ether t h er e was an “ er ro r” her e. W hethera cour t ca n consi der the cr ack/pow der di spari ty as a r eas on f ori ssui ng a sente nce bel ow the c ar eero ffender g ui d e l i n e s i s n o t a t r i v i a l q u e s t i o n . T o b e g i n, the S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n h as ch o se n ca r ee r o ffen derg ui del i ne ra nges base d on 28 U
. S. C. § 9 94( h), w h i ch pro vi des thatN o. 07
- 3373 11 “[ t] he [ S en te nc i ng ] Co m m is si o n s ha l l a ss ur e th atthe g ui del i ne s spe ci fy a s en te nc e to a t er m o fi m pr isonm en t at ornearthe m ax i m um te rm autho ri zed” f oran o ffense c o m m itt ed by a c ar ee r offe n d er . See U
. S. S. G. § 4B 1.1 ( back gr ound) ( noti ng tha t thi s gu idel i ne i m ple m ents Cong re ss ’ s di re cti ve und erse cti on 9 94( h))
. S o f ora cra ck co caine offens e, sect i o n 9 94 ( h) di r ec ts t he S en tenci ng Com m i ssi on t o peg the car eero ffende r gui delin es ator n ea r th e m ax im u m te rm s o f im p ris on m en t in th e fe d er al c on tr olle d su b st an c es st at u te , w h ich st ill re ta in s a cr ac k/ p ow d er d isp ar ity
. See 21 U
. S. C
. § 841(b)(1)
. This l i nk be tw een th e gui del i nes a nd the contr ol l ed su b st an c es st at u te m i g h t s ee m to su gg es t t h at a c ou rtis l i m i ted i n i ts abi l i ty to i ssue bel ow-gui del i ne se ntences to car eero ffenders base d sol el y o n the cour t’s bel i efthat the cr a c k/ po wde r di s pa r i t y i s u nwa r r a nt e d. Cf. U nited Sta tes v. G lo ver, 4 79 F
. 3d 51 1, 5 22 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( “[ T] he car eero ffender rul es po se leg alr atherthan f actuali ssues f o r a s en te ncing j udg e, whi chr emov es the r ul es fr o m the reach of Appr e ndi[ v . N e w Jersey, 5 30 U. S
. 4 66 ( 20 00 ) ] a nd B o o k eraltogethe r. ”); U nited Sta tes v. Wo o da rd, 408 F. 3d 396, 399 (7th Cir. 2005) (“ B o o k erdoes notaffect § 9 94( h), wh i ch ca l l s f o r c ar ee r o ffen der s to b e se nt en ce d a t o r n ear th e statu tory m ax im um . ”). Buto th ers ta tu to r y pr o vi si o ns s ug g es t th atthe S en te nc i ngCo m m i ss i o n h as s o m e d i sc r et i o n in f o r m ul at i ng gu id e l i n e s u n d er se c tio n 99 4(h ). See 28 U
. S. C
. § 994(a)- (f ) (p ro vid in g C om m iss ion w ith it s g en er al g u id elin e p ro m u lgat i on a uthor i ty) ; i d. § 9 94 ( o ) , ( p) ( pr o vi di nga m en dm en t author i ty to the Com m i ssi on)
. I nd eed , t h e Com m i ssi on ha s reli ed on th ese p rovisi ons to “m od ify” sect ion 994(h)’s12 N o. 07
- 3373 di r ec ti ve a nd s ta y t r ue t o a di ffer en t co ngre ss i o na l mandate

— avo i ding “un w ar ra nted sent enci ng di spari ti es am ong defe nd ants w i th si m i l ar r eco rds who have been f ound guil ty of si m i l ar cri m i nal conduct
. . . . ” See U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1
. 1 ( b a ckg r o un d) ( qu o t i ng2 8 U. S
. C. § 9 9 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) (in te rn al q u ot at io n m a r ks om itt ed )); s e eal s o i d. ( “T he Com m i ssi on’ s re fi nem ent of thi s defini ti on [ i n sec ti on 994( h)] o verti m e i s co nsi ste nt with C on gr es s’ s cho i ce o f a di r ec ti ve t o the Co m m i ss i o n r athe r tha n a mandat o ry m i ni m um se ntenci ng st at ute. ” ( ci ti ng S
. Rep. N o. 22 5, 98th Cong. , 1s t S ess . 17 5 ( 1983 ) )
. S o the t etherthatse cti on 994( h) cre ate s between the car eer offen d er gui del i ne s an d s ta tu to r y maxi m um s i s no t as t i g hta s i t m i g ht see m atfi rs t g l ance. M o r eo ve r, s ec ti o n 9 94 ( h) o nl y addr es se s whatthe Se ntenci ng Com m i ssion m ust do; i t doe sn’ t r equi re s e nte ncing cour ts to im p ose sen ten ces “a t or near” th e statu tory m axi m u m s. Kim b r ough it s e lfsu g g e s t e d th a tse ction 994 (h)’s di r ec ti ve t ar g et ed th e Comm i ss i o n, no t th e se nt en cing c ou rt s, w h en it ref er re d t o s e c tio n 99 4(h ) as an ex am p le ofCongr ess “di re ct[ i ng] se ntencing pra cti ces i n expres s te rm s” w h en itw an ts t o d o s o. Kim b r ough , 12 8 S
. Ct. at57 1 ( “F o r e xa m pl e, Co ng r es s ha s spe ci fi ca l l y r equi r ed th e Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i on to se t Guide lin es sente nces f or serious recid ivi st offen d ers ‘at or ne ar’ the statu tory ma x i mu m. 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 9 9 4 ( h )
. ” ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) )
. As the S eco nd Ci rcui t r ecent l y hel d post- Kim b rough : S ec ti o n 9 94 ( h)
. . . b y i ts te r m s, i s a di r ec ti o n t o the Se n te n c in g C om m iss ion , no t t o t h e c ou rt s, an d it fi nd s no expre ss anal og i n Ti tl e 1 8 o r Tit l e 2 1.N o. 07
- 3373 13 W hi l e 21 U. S
. C. § 84 1(b) ex pr es sl y es tabl i sh es the m inim um a nd maxi m um pr i so n t er m s th atthe cour t i s a l l owed to i m pose f orvi ol ations o f § 84 1( a) , the r e i s no s ta tu to r y pr o vi si o n ins tr uct i ng the c ourtto s en te n ce a car eero ffender at ornear th e s ta tu to r y m ax i m um . A nd whi l e th e se nt en cing sta tute ex p re ssl y di re cts the di str i ct c ourtto “co nsi der” the “ sente n c ing r ange est abl i shed f or. . . the appli cabl e ca teg or y o fdefendant as set forth i n th e guid eli ne s,” 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553(a)(4) (A ), i t do es noti ns tr uctthe c o ur t to i m po se s ucha sente nce. U nited Sta tes v. Sa nc hez , 517F.3d 65 1, 66 3 (2 d C ir. 20 08 ); see i d. at66 5 ( sect i on 9 94( h) w ou ld n ot pro hibi t a di str i ct cou rt f r o m i ss ui ng a be l o w-gui del i ne se nt en ce f o r a c ra c k d efe n d an t); see also U nit ed States v. M arti n , 52 0 F
. 3d 87, 9 6 ( 1s t Ci r . 2 00 8) ( r ej ec tingthe g o ve r nm en t’ s ar g um ent, bas ed on s ecti on 9 94( h), that the dist ri ct c ourter re d by aw ar ding a be l ow-gui del i ne se ntence to a cr ack car eer offe n d er ) ; i d. (“T h e Su p re m e C ou rt ’s re c en t d ec isio n in Kim b r ough open ed the doorf ora sente nci ng co urt to devi ate fro m the gui del i nes in an i nd i vid u alcas e e ven though that deviatio n see m i ngl y c ontr avene s a br oad p olic y p ro n ou n c em en t o f th e Se n te n c in g C om m i s sio n .” ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d) )
. Add i t i o na l ly, in a notherpost
- K im brough case , the gove rnm en t em p h a s ized that a district cou rt ca n s en te nc e be l o w the c ar ee ro ffend er gui del i ne s i fthe co ur t di sa g r ee s wi th the p oli cy unde r l y i ng t he c ra c k/ p ow d er d isp ar ity
. See G ov. S up p. M em o. at12
- 17, U nite d State s v. Harris , N o. 07-2195 (7th Cir. M ay 6, 2008 ).14 N o. 07
- 3373 M osti m port antl y, since B o o k er, the Suprem e Cour t has consiste ntl y r eaffi rm ed that all o fthe sente nci ng g uidelin es are ad vis or y. Se e, e . g. , Kim br ough , 12 8 S
. Ct. at56 4 (“[T]he coc aine G uid eli ne s, li ke alloth e r G uid eli ne s, are a d vis or y on ly . .
. ”); i d. a t5 7 7( S c a l i a , J
. , c o nc ur r i ng ) (“[T ]h e d ist r i c t c ou rtis fre e t o m ak e it s o w n rea so n ab le appl i ca ti o n o fthe § 3 55 3( a) f ac to r s, a nd t o r ej ec t ( afte r due c on sid er at ion ) th e a d vic e o f th e G u id elin es .”); Gall v. U nited Sta tes , 1 28 S. Ct. 58 6, 59 4 ( 2007 ) ( “[ T]he Gu i delin es are n ow ad vis or y . . . .”); R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 12 7 S. C t. 2456, 24 74 ( 2007 ) ( St eve ns, J
. , co ncurr i ng) ( “Itr ust that thos e j ud ges wh o had tre ated the Guidel i nes a s vi rtual l y m andator y duri ng the post
- B o o k eri nt er r egnum w ill no w rec og n ize th at th e G u id elin es are t ru ly a d visor y . ” )
. We ha v e c l e a r l y h e l d tha tthi s i nc l ud e s the c a r e er offe n d er gu id elin es . See Harr is , 2 008 W L 30123 62, at * 12 ( “[ O]ur disc ussi on s houl d not be r ead t o su gge st that § 4B 1.1 is anyl es s adv i so r y f o r a di st r i ctj udg e th anthe o the r s e nt e nc i ngg uidel i ne s . ” )
. And we h a v e a l r e a dy i nd icate d post- Kim b r ough tha t co ur ts c anc o ns i derthe cra ck/pow der di spari ty w hen r ese ntenci ng defendants w h o a re ca re er offe n d er s. See Ha rper, 2 008 W L 24208 67, at * 4 ( r ej ec tingthe g o vern m en t’ s ar g um en t th ata r emand in l ight of Kim b r ough was unn ec es sa r y b ec au se the dist ri ct c ourt h ad “i m posed a bel ow-gui del i nes s entence th at h ap p en s t o fa ll w ithin the g ui del i ne s r an g e he w ou ld h ave rece ived as a career offen d er”). H o wev er, no ne o fthi s he l ps th is p ar ti cul arde fen dan t because any er ro r here wasn’t “p l ai n. ” Se eO l ano , 507 U
. S. at 73 4 ( pl ain i s sy no ny m o us wi th“ cl ea r ” o r “ o bv i o us ”). K im br ough i t s e l fdi dn ’ tde a l wi th the c a r e e r o ffe nderN o. 07
- 3373 15 conte xt and as evi dent fro m the discussi on above , i t was not cl earbefor e thi s deci si on that Kim b r ough ’s ra tio n ale extends t o that con te x t. I t would be i napp ro pri ate to fin d p lain er ro r giv en th at th e law h as b ee n u n s e t tle d , see U nite d State s v. Stott, 24 5 F
. 3d 89 0, 90 0 ( 7th Ci r . 20 01 ) , a nd so w e fi nd that any er ro r here w as not p lain . Neither Kim b r ough no r a ny e xt en si o n o fi t r equi r es us t o r emand thi s ca se f orr ese ntenci ng o n count one.
C. Th e di st r i ctco urt ’ s se ntence was r easo nab l e. Liddellal so claim s th at hi s s entence o f24 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent i s unre aso nabl e, ev en tho ugh i t was 22 m onths bel ow the car eero ffender gui del i ne r ange of26 2- 327 m ont hs
. H e reason s t h a t b ecau se his p rison term double d up on r ese ntenci ng, the dist ri ct c ourtput to o m uche m pha si s o n the ne w gui del i ne ra ng e i n a r r i ving at the ne w se ntence. W he n c al cul at i nga se nt en ce , a di st r i ctc o ur t fi r stc al cul ate s the pro per ra nge under the s entenci ng g uidel i nes. I t th enc o ns i der s th atgu ide l i ne r an g e i n a ddi ti o n t o a ny o fthe o the r r e l e v a ntse nt e nc i ngf a c t o r s u nd e r 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 553( a) befor e a rr i vi ng at the appropr i ate se ntence. See U ni t e d S ta tes v . Dean , 414 F.3d 725 , 728-30 (7th C ir. 2005 ). A s w e d isc u s s ed above, the cou rt prop erly d eterm in ed th at L id d ell w as a c ar ee r offe n d er an d co rre c tly ar r i v e d a ta s e n t e n c i n gr a n g e o f2 6 2
- 3 2 7mo n th s . S o the sol e quest i on fo r us to d eci de i s whether the b el ow-gui del i ne se ntence that Liddellr ecei ved w as re aso nabl e. A se nt en ce wi th i n a pr o per l y c al cul ated g ui del i ne ra nge i s pre sum pti vel y r eas onabl e, so i t fol l ows that a16 N o. 07
- 3373 bel ow-gui del i ne se ntence is al so presum pti vel y r easonab l e aga i nst an att ack by a defe nd ant cl ai m in g t h at the s entence i s t oo hi gh
. See R it a , 12 7 S
. Ct. at24 62- 63; U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 415 F. 3d 606, 608 ( 7th C ir. 2005). Liddellhas not com e cl ose to r ebutting tha t pr esum p tion h er e. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ge orge, 403 F. 3d 470, 473 (7th C ir. 2005 ) ( “I t i s har d to concei ve ofbel ow-r ange sente nces th at w ou ld be u n r e a s ona bly high.”). A lthou gh Lid d ell ’s 24 0 m o nth s en te nc e i s do ubl e whati t was pr ev i o us l y, the fact r e m a ins th at on both occas ions th e d istri ct cou rt se n te n c ed h im len ien tly

— fi rst at th e m an d atory stat ut ory m i ni m um a nd the n wel l b el o w the a ppl i cabl e gu ideli ne ra n ge . A n d as th e g ov er n m en t n ot es , th er e is little ev idence thatthe cour t put t oo m uch w eig h t on the gui del i n e s g i v e n th a tL i d d e l l r e c e i v e d a b e l o w- g u i d e l i n e s e nte nc e. Pe r ha ps th i ng s w oul d ha ve b ee n di ffer en t i fthe cour t had r ese ntenced Li dd ell n ea r the t op ofthe new g ui del i ne r an g e, b uttha t i s a m at te r f o ra no th erda y a nd anothe r case .
I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ou rt’ s j ud gm ent o n count one. W e i ssue a L I MI T ED R EMA ND on count tw o for p roce eding s co ns i st en t wi th ouro pi ni o n in Taylo r, 52 0 F
. 3d at 748- 49.

9- 10- 08