[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 32 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :1 1- cr-8 01 22 -DTKH-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plai nt iff - App el le e, ve rs us SHEA JONES, a.k .a. Bla ck , Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st8, 2 01 2) Befo re HULL, MARTIN an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:

Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 1 of 9Sh ea J on es ap pe al s h is 13 5- m on th sen te nc e o n t he gro un ds th atitis bo th

pr oc edur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le . After ath or ou gh rev ie w of t he reco rd , we affi rm . Jo ne s was ch arg edinanele ve n- co un t i nd ic tm en t wi th va rio us dru g a nd fir earm rel at edoff

en se s. He ag reedto pl eadgu il ty to d eal in g i n afir earm witho ut a li cen se , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 22 (a)( 1) (A) (Co un t 1 ); andpo ss es si on of a n un reg is te redsh ort-b arre le d ri fle , invi ol at io n o f 26 U.S.C. § 5 86 1( d) (Co un t 2 ). The rem ai ni ng ni ne co un ts were d is m is se d. The ch arg es aro se fro m

sal es Jo ne s an d o th ers m ad e to anun de rco ve r of fic er b etweenAug us t 2 01 0 a ndMay 201 1. Du rin g t ha t t im e, Jo ne s s ol d o ve r 80 fir earm s an d dru gs to th e und erco ve r of fic er. Non e o f th e fi rearm sal es oc cu rred 1 atth e sa m e ti m e as th e dru g s al es . The pro ba ti on off

ic er p rep areda pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt ( PSI) , gr oupi ng th e two off

en se s t og ethe r an d c al cu la ti ng Jo ne s’s s en te nc e und er U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 , th e g ui de li ne ap pl ic ab le to fir earm off en se s. Th e p ro ba ti on of fic er i nc lu de d i n t he cal cu la ti on in crea se s fo r va rio us sp eci fic off en se ch arac te ris ti cs . At is su e inth is ap pe al is th e ap pl ic at io n o f a 4 -le ve l i nc reas e Acc ordingto the prese ntence investigation report, Jones sold 84 weapons. J ones 1 disputes three of

these sale s. This discrepa ncy has no impact on the se ntencingcalc ulations. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) (C). 2

Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 2 of 9un de r § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) . Thatsubs ect io n p ro vi de s,

If the de fen da nt. . .[u]sedor p os se ss edan y fir earm or a m m un it io n i n co nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y off en se ; o r po ss es se d o r tr an sf erre d an y fir earm or am m un it io n wi th kn owl ed ge , in te nt , or re as on to be li ev e th atitwou ldbe us edor p os se ss edinco nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y off en se , in crea se by 4 lev el s. U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) . The p ro ba ti on off ic er co nc lu de d t ha t the 4-l ev el in crea se ap pl ie d b ecau se Jo ne s s ol d dru gs to th e und erco ve r of fic er wh il e arm ed with fi rearm s. J on es ’s to ta l ad jus te d o ffen se lev el , coupl edwith acri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory of I , y ie ld eda gu id el in e ran ge of 1 35 to 16 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e fo r Co un t 1 was fi ve y ears ’ im pr is on m en t; th e m ax im um forCo un t 2 was t eny ears ’ im pr is on m en t. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 9 24 (a)( 1) (D); 26 U.S.C. § 5 87 1. Jo ne s’s o bjec te d t o t he § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) in crea se , arg ui ng th atth ere was no ev id en ce the gu ns were i n c on ne ct io n wi th an ot he r cri m e o r th athe ha d a ny reaso n to be li ev e th ey

wou ldbe us edinth atm an ne r. At s en te nc in g, the co urt cl ari fie d t ha t J on es ne ve r so ldgu ns an d dru gs at t he sa m e ti m e, an d t he co urt re m ov edfro m th e PSI t he st at em en t tha t J on es ha d s ol d th em to ge th er. Jo ne s ar gu edth at§ 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) di d n otap pl y be cau se itwas pu re s pe cu la ti onth athe wou ldha ve kn own th atth e g un s wo ul d b e u se d i n o th er cri m in al act iv it ie s. Th e g ov ern m en t re sp on de d t ha t J on es ha d re as on to be li ev e 3 Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 3 of 9th atth e g un s wo ul d b e u se d i n o th er ac ti vi ty, sp eci fic al ly dru g t raff ic ki ng , bec au se Jo ne s s ol d t he gu ns an d dru gs to th e sa m e und erco ve r of fic er. The go ve rn m en t fu rth er s ta te d tha t the m anne r in whi chJo ne s co nduc te d t he sal es sh owe d t ha t h e kn ew th e g un s wo ul d b e u se d i n o th er cri m es . The g ov ern m en t n ot edth atJo ne s di d n otcarry

th e g un s o utinth e o pe n wh enhe de li ve redth em , andso m e o f th e gu ns ha d n o s eri al nu m

be rs . The co urt d et erm in edth at§ 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) ap pl ie d b ecau se Jo ne s wo ul d ha ve kn own th athe so ldth e g un s t o adru g d eal er, an d g un s h av e th e ab il it y to faci li ta te dru g c rimes. The co urt the n re vi ewedth e se nt en ci ng fact or s i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 35 3( a) t o fa sh io n t he sen te nc e. The c ou rt n ot edth atJo ne s was y ou ng an d h ad no si gn ifi can t cr im in al hi st ory . Butth e co urt was co nc ern edov er the lar ge nu m be r of guns in vo lv ed , m an y

of wh ic h h adbe enst ol enor we re u nt race ab le . Ci ti ng th e n eedto pro te ctth e p ub li c an d p ro vi de a se nt en ce tha t wo ul d a ctas a de te rren t, the co urt s ta te d t ha t a s en te nc e wit hi n t he gu id el in e ran ge wou ldbe ap pr op ria te . The co urt s en te nc edJo ne s t o 1 35 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, wh ic h co ns is te d o f 15 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n C ou nt1 an d aco ns ecu ti ve 12 0- m on th se nt en ce o n C ou nt2. Thi s i s J on es ’s app eal . W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e und er a d efer en ti al ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n s ta nd ard . Gal l v. Un it ed Stat es , 55 2 U.S. 3 8, 4 1 (2 00 7) . W e m ay “ se t 4 Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 4 of 9as id e a s en te nc e o nl y if we d et erm in e, aft er g iv in g aful l m eas ur e o f de fere nc e to th e se nt en ci ng jud ge , th atth e se nt en ce i m po se d t ru ly is u nr eas on ab le .” Uni te d St at es v. Ire

y , 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) ( en ba nc ), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S.Ct . 18 13 (20 11 ). Ourrev ie w for

reas on ab le ne ss in vo lv es two st ep s. Fi rs t, we en su re tha t the se nt en ce was pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e, m ean in g t he di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly cal cu la te d t he gu id el in e ran ge , tre at edth e Gui de li ne s as advi so ry , con si de redth e § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, d idno t s el ecta se nt en ce b as edon cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, an d ad equa te ly exp la in edth e ch os ensen te nc e. Gal l , 55 2 U.S. at51 . Once we de te rm in e th ata se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly sou nd , we exa m in e whe th er the sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le inli gh t o f th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Id. The pa rty who c ha ll en ge s t he sen te nc e b ears th e b ur de n t o s ho w itis un reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e rec or d a ndth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Uni te d Sta tes v. To me , 61 1 F .3d 13 71 , 13 78 (11 th Cir .), cer t. d en ie d , 13 1 S .Ct. 6 74 (20 10 ). On ap pe al , Jo ne s ar gu es th atth e fo ur -le ve l en ha nc em en t i s i m pr op er be cau se th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o d em on st rat e a co nn ect io n b etweenan y fir earm he so ldan d a no th er o ffen se , whi chren de rs hi s s en te nc e p ro cedur al ly un reas on ab le . He als o a rg ue s tha t the sen te nc e im po se d was subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se itwas g reat er tha n n eces sary to ach ie ve th e g oa ls of 1 8 5 Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 5 of 9U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). We addres s ea chis su e in tu rn .

A. Proc edur al reas on ab le ne ss W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs us in g acle ar erro r st an dard . Uni te d Sta tes v. J

or di, 41 8 F .3d12 12 , 12 14 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ Fo r a fac tu al fin di ng to be cle arl y

erro ne ou s, thi s co urt, af

te r rev ie win g a ll of t he ev id en ce, m us t be lef t wi th a de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m mit te d.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro dr ig ue z-Lo pe z , 36 3 F .3d11 34 , 11 37 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . The g ov ern m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce an y fact s n eces sary

to supp ort a s en te nc e en ha nc em en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. As kew , 19 3 F .3d11 81 , 11 83 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Sect io n 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) in st ru ct s t he di st ric t co urt t o i nc reas e th e b as e of fen se lev el by fou r po in ts if t he de fen da nt“ [u ]sedor p os se ss edan y fir earm or amm un it io n i n c on ne ct io n wi th an ot he r fel on y off en se ; o r po ss es se d o r tr an sf erre d an y fir earm or a m m un it io n wi thkn owl ed ge , in te nt , or re as on to be li ev e th atit wou ldbe us edor p os se ss edinco nn ect io n wi th an ot he r fel on y off en se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) . “ Inco nn ect io n wi th ” m ean s “ if t he fir earm or a m m un it io n faci li ta te d, o r ha d t he po te nt ia l o f fac il it at in g, an ot he r fel on y off en se .” Id. , co m m en t. (n . 14 (A)). W e h av e co ns is te nt ly ado pt edanex pa ns iv e in te rp ret at io n o f th e p hr as e “ in 6 Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 6 of 9co nn ect io n wi th .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ma to s- Rod ri gu ez , 18 8 F .3d13 00 , 13 08 -0 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) . Furt he r, we ha ve lo ng ackno wled ge d t ha t “ [g ]uns an d v io le nc e go ha nd -in -h an d wi th il le ga l dru g o pe rat io ns .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Hr oma da , 49 F.3d 68 5, 6 89 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ); se e a ls o Un it ed Stat es v. Cr uz , 80 5 F .2d14 64 , 14 74 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 6) (“ [G]uns are a t oo l o f th e dru g t rad e.”). Here, al th ou gh th e co urt cl ari fie d t ha t J on es ne ve r so ldgu ns an d dru gs at th e sa m e ti m e, th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt the ap pl ic at io n o f § 2 K2.1 (b )(6 )(B) . The rec or d s ho ws tha t J on es so ldth e g un s an d dru gs to th e sa m e p ers on , andth e qua nt it y of d ru gs was s uc h t ha t J on es ha d t o kno w th e b uyer was di st rib ut in g dru gs to ot he rs . Thes e fac ts are s uf fic ie ntforth e g ov ern m en t t o m eetit s b ur de n andto est ab li sh th atth e en ha nc em en t ap pl ie d. Acco rd in gl y , we co nc lu de th atJo ne s’s s en te nc e is pro cedur al ly reaso nabl e. B. Subs ta nt iv e Rea so nabl en es s The di stric t co urt m

us t i m po se a se nt en ce “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t g reat er tha n ne ces sa ry to co m pl y with the purp os es ” li st edin18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ), in cl ud in g th e n eedto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he off en se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pr ov id e jus t p un is hm en t fo r th e o ffen se , det er cr im in al co nduc t, an d p ro te ctth e publ ic fro m

th e d efen da nt ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a)(2 ). Inim po si ng a pa rti cu la r se nt en ce, the co urt m us t al so co ns id er the na tu re an d 7 Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 7 of 9ci rcu m st an ces of the off en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e d efen da nt , th e ki nd s o f se nt en ces av ai labl e, th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge , th e p ert in en t p ol ic y st at em en ts of t he Sen te nc in g C omm is si on , th e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es , andth e n eedto pro vi de res ti tu ti on to vi ct im s. Id. § 3 55 3( a)(1 ), (3 )-(7 ). Altho ug h we d o n otau to m at ic al ly pres um e a s en te nc e fal li ng withi n t he gu id el in e ran ge to be reas on ab le , we ord in ari ly exp ectsu cha se nt en ce t o b e reas on ab le . Uni te d Sta tes v. Hu nt , 52 6 F .3d73 9, 7 46 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A se nt en ce i m

po se d wel l b el ow the st atut ory m ax im um pe na lt y is an ot he r in di cat or of a reas on ab le sen te nc e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Go nz al ez , 55 0 F .3d13 19 , 13 24 (11 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Here, we co nc lu de th atth e se nt en ce i m po se d was subs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le . The di st ric t co urt p ro pe rly con si de redth e g ui de li ne s as well as t he § 3 55 3( a) fact or s wh enfas hi on in g i ts sen te nc e. Afte r ba la nc in g the m it ig at in g fa ct or s, s uc h as Jo ne s’s yout h a ndlac k o f si gn ifi can t cr im in al hi st ory , aga in stth e se rio us ne ss of th e o ffen se , th e num

be r of gu ns in vo lv ed , th e n eedto pro te ctso ci ety , andth e de te rren t ef

fect , th e co urt i m

po se d asen te nc e atth e lo w endof t he ap pl ic ab le gu id el in e ran ge . Mor eo ve r, th e to ta l s en te nc e im po se d was well be lo w th e to ta l m ax im um sen te nc e o f 18 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e 8 Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 8 of 9se nt en ce i m

po se d a s re as on ab le . AFFIRMED.

9 Case: 12-10320 Date Filed: 08/08/2012 Page: 9 of 9