Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 10588

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. SH AN N O N D EW AY N E D AV I S D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f o rt he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s , Fo r tW o r t h Divi s i o n N o. 4: 04- C R

- 00199- 1
B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D efen da n tSh an n on D ew ayn e D avis a pp eal s hi s s en t en ce upon rem an d on t he b as i s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur tfail e d t o c o ns i de rt he a m e ndm e nt s t o t he gui de l i ne s e l i m i nat i ng t he di s pa r i t y i n se nt e nc e s fo rco c ai ne po w de ra nd c o c ai ne ba s e . Bas e d o n o urc o nc l us i o n t hatt he s e nt e nc e i m po s e d di d notre s ul tf r o m a ny g u id e lin e s e r r o r , w e a ffir m . United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 10588

2 I. I n 2005, D a vis p l eade d gui l t y t o o ne c ountof di st r ibut i ng m or e than 10 gram s of

coc ai n e base. Th e di st ri ctcourtdep art ed u pw ard f rom t h e gu i del i n es r a n g e a n ds e n te n c e dD a v is to 2 9 3 m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t. Uni t e d S t at e s v. D a v is , 4 78 F. 3d2 66, 2 70 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. On app e al , t hi s c o ur tv ac at e d the se nt enc e a nd re m anded f orr es ent enc i ng bas ed o nly on th e quantit y o f dr ugs th a t D a v is in te n d e d to p r o v id e inth e n a r c o tic s tr a n s a c tio n . I d. at 271
- 74. B ased on a r ec al c ul at ed dr ug w ei ght a n d t he Sent enc i ng G ui deli nes i n ef fec tatt hat t i m e, t h e P S R cal cul ated a t ot al o ffen se l evelof 31. W i t h hi s c ri m i n alhi st ory c a te g o r yo f V , D a v is ’ s g u id e lin e s ra n g e o f im p r is o n m e n t w a s 1 6 8 -2 1 0 m o n th s . A t t h e re s e n te n c in gh e a r in g , D a v is a r g u e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld t ak e i n t o accoun tt h at, un der t h en - proposedam en dm en ts to the G u i del i n es redu ci n g t h e base of fen se l evelf

or c ocai n e base of

fen ses, hi s t ot alof

fen se l evel w oul d be 29, r at hert han 31. D avi s ar gued t hatthe i m pri so nm entr ange provi dedb y t h e t h en - ef fect ive G u i del i n es w as per se u n reasona bl e as evi den ced byt he pr o po s e d a m e ndm e nt s . The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi d no te xp l i c i t l y ad dr e s s t he cocai n e b ase/pow der di spari t y an d the proposedam en dm en t s t o t h e G u i del i n es. Inst ead , ita n n ou n ced i t s d eci si on to up w ardl y dep artf rom t h e gu i del i n es r an ge. I n s upp o r t o f t he upwar d de pa r t ur e , t he di s t r i c tc o nc l ude d thatt he Se nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s d idn o t a d e q u a te lya d d r e s s D a v is ’ s c r im in a l h is to r yc a te g o r ya n dh is po s t
- s e nt e nc i ng c o nduc t . St at i ng t hat i t w as f o l l o w i ng t he i ns t r uc t i on s of § 4A 1. 3( a) ( 4) (A) to d epa rtu pw ardl y, the di st ri ctcou rt“usedthe cri m i n alhi st ory ca teg oryap p l ic a b le to d efen d a n ts w h ose cri m i n a lh i storyor l i k elih oo dto r e c i d iv a t e mo s tc l o s e l yr e s e m b l e s t h a to f t h e defe nda n t . ” F i n d i n gal e v e lVI cri m i n alhi st ory category st i l li n suff i ci en ti n D avis ’ s c i rcum st an ces, t h e di st ri ct cou rt “m ov edin crem en tally d ow n th e sen ten ci n g tab l e to a n off en se leve l33 . ” Th atof fens e l eve l and c r i m i nalhi st or y c at ego r y r es ul t ed i n a r ange o f 235 t o 2 93N o. 07- 10588

3 m on t h s of

im pri sonm en t . T h e d i st ri ctcou rtsen t en ced D avis t o 280 m on t h s of i m pr i s o nm e nt . Davi s t i m e l y ap pe al e d.
II
. D a v is ’ s p r in c ip a l a r g u m e n t o n a p p e a l is t h a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le b eca u se th e d i stri ct cou rt did n ot tak e th e coc a i n e b a se/po w d er d i sp a ri ty i n to c o ns i de r at i o n i n s e t t i ng t he s e nt e nc e . D avis a r gue s t hatt he Se nt e nc i ng C om m i ssi on ’ s prom u l gati on of t h e am en dm en t s t o the cocai n e b ase off en se l evel r e f l e c t e d the Com m i s s i o n’ s de t e r m i nat i o n t hatt he G ui de l i ne s , p ri or t o t he am en dm en t s, w ere not reasona bl e. Th e G overnm en t coun t ers t h at th e di st ri ct c o ur tw as r e quir e d t o a pply t he G ui de l i ne s i n ef fe c tatt he t i m e of

s e nt e nc i ng and t hat , if D av i s w ant s t o be re s e nt e nc e d unde rt he am e nde d Gui de l i ne s , a s m ad e r e t r o ac t ive , am o t i o n f o rr e duc t i o n o f

s e nt e nc e und e r 18 U
. S. C. § 35 82 (c ) i s t he a p p r o p r ia te re m e d y . Foll o w i ng D av i s ’ s r e s e nt e nc i ng, t he Supr e m e Cour the l d, i n Ki m brough v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 12 8 S .C t. 55 8 , 57 5 ( 2 0 0 7 ), tha t a d i stri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s di s c r e t i o n when itde t e r m i ne d that t he c o c ai ne b as e /po w de rdi s pa r i t y unde rt he G u id e li n e s r e s u lt e d“i n as e n t e n c e ‘gr e a t e rth a n n e c e s s a r y ’ to a c h ie v e § 3 5 5 3 (a )’s p u r p o s e s , e v e n inam in e - r u n c a s e .” T h u s , Ki m brough m ad e itc l e art hatt he d i stri ct cou rt ha d d i scre ti on to i m p ose asen ten ce b elow the gu i d eli n es ra n ge to a c c o u n t fo rth e d is p a r ityinits co n s id e r a tio n o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s . I d. D u r in gth e p e r io db e tw e e n D a v is ’ s c o n v ic tio n o n F e b r u a r y4 , 2 0 0 5 , a n dh is re sen t en ci n g on M ay 11 , 200 7, t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g C om m i ssi on sub m i t t ed to C on gress t h e proposed am en dm en t s t o t h e G u i del i n es w i t h res pect t o t he b as e o f

fe ns e l e ve lf

o ro f fe ns e s i nvo lvi ng c o c ai ne b as e . Se nt e nc i ng G ui deli nes f

ort he U n i ted St at es C our t s, 72 Fed. R eg. 28558, 28558 (M ay 21, 2007) (not i ng t he subm i ss i on o f t he pr opo se d am endm ent s t o Congre ss on M ay 1 , 20 0 7 ), 28 5 7 1 -72 (th e p rop ose dam en d m en ts)
. T h e g oa lof th e a m en d m en tsN o. 07- 10588

4 w as t o red u ce the di spari t y betw een of fen se l evel s f

or c ocai n e base an d p ow der c o c ai ne a nd t o dos o b y r e duc i ng t he bas e of fe ns e l e ve l s f

o rt he v ar i o us c o c ai ne b a s e w e ig h t c a te g o r ie s . S ee 72 F ed. R eg. 285 72-73. Th e proposed gu i del i n es am endm ent s bec am e ef fec t ive on N ove m ber1, 2007, af t erD avi s’ s r es ent enc i ng. 72 Fe d. Reg
. 2 85 58 ; U ni t e d St at e s Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n G ui de l i ne sManua l , Su pp. toA ppendi x C , am endm ent s 706, 711; U .S .S .G
. § 2 D 1 .1(c ); se e 2 8 U. S
. C. § 9 94 (p)
. Ef

fe c t iveM ar c h 3 , 2 00 8, w hi l e t hi s dir e c ta ppe alw as pe ndi ng, t he C om m i ssion am en d edthe p oli cystatem en t i n § 1B 1 . 1 0 to m a k e th e a m en d m en ts t o the base of

fen se l evel s f

or cocai n e b ase ret roact ive. 7 3 F e d
. R e g . 2 1 7 ; U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1 .1 0 . S eeU
. S. S. G
. App. C, am en d. 7 13 , a t5 6 ( Supp
. M ar . 3 , 2 00 8)
. The G ui de l i ne s pr o vi de t hata co ur tm ayre duc e a def e nda nt ’ s t e r m of

i m pr i s o nm e nt fo llo w in gth e p r o c e d u r e s o u tlin e din§ 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ). I d. A f t er Un i t ed S t a tes v. B ooker , 5 43 U
. S. 2 20 ( 20 05 ) , w hi c h r e nde r e d the p r e v i o u s l yma n d a t o r yS e n t e n c i n gGu i d e l i n e s a d v i s o r y , t h i s c o u r tr e v i e ws s e n te n c e s fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Un i t ed S t ate s v. C i sneros- G u t i errez , 517 F. 3d 751, 76 4 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. I n G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 2 8 S
. C t . 5 8 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e S u p r e me C ou rt bi f

u rcat ed th e process f or revi ew i n g a sentence: ( 1) ap pel l ate c ou rt s m u st en sure t h at the di st ri ctcou rtd i d n otcom m i ta si gn i f i can tprocedu ralerr or, such as t r e at i ng t he G ui de l i ne s a s m and ator y orfail i ng t o pr o pe r l y c al c ul at e t he gu i d eli n es ra n ge ; an d( 2 ) if th e se n ten ce is pro ced u ra l l y so u n d , the ap p ell a te cou rt m u st th e n co n sid e r th e “su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss ” of th e se n te n ce u n der a n a b u s e -o f-d is c r e tio n s ta n d a r d
. I d. (c i t i ngG a ll , 128 S
. C t . at 597 )
. Th i s c ou rt c o nt i nue s t o r e vi e w adi s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s i nt e r pret ati o n o ra ppli c at i o n o f t he G u id e lin e s d e n o v o a n dits fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o r . Id
. I n Uni t e d St at e sv . Bur ns , th is co u rt a d d re ss e dth e im p a ct o f Ki m brough an d the cocai n e base g u id el i n es am en dm en t s on pre- am en dm en tsentences. Uni t e d St at e sv . Bur ns , 52 6 F. 3d 85 2 ( 20 08 )
. Burns w as c o nvic t e d o f o ne c o unt of conspi racy to posses s w i t h i n t en tt o di st ribu t e coc ai n e base an d tw o coun t s ofN o. 07- 10588

5 a id in ga n da b e tt in gth e d is tr ib u tio n o f c o c a in e b a s e . I d. at8 55
- 56 . Bur ns s o ugh t a dow nw ar d depar t ure bas ed on t he c oc ai ne bas e/pow derdi spar i t y be f or e a nd at hi s s e nt e nc i ng he ar i ng, w hi c h w as hel d be f o r e t he opi ni o n i s s ue d i n Ki m brough a n db e fo r e th e g u id e lin e s a m e n d m e n t. I d. a t8 60 . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d the depar t ure , s t at i ng: [T ] h e gu i del i n es are w h at t h e gu i del i n es are t oda y . . . T h e C ou rt f i n ds t h at th e fact s d o n o t w a rr an ta dow n w ard d epa rt u re . . . f or t ak i n g i nt o c o ns i de r at i o n t he dif fe r e nc e b e t w e e n c r ac k c o c ai ne c r i m e s und e rt he g ui de l i ne s an d c o c ai ne o f fe ns e s und e rt he gui de l i ne s a s ade c i s i o n t hat ’ s b e e n m ad e b y t h e C o ngr e s s o f t he U ni t e d St at e s a nd the Se nt e nc i ng Com m i s s i o n. . . . The Cour tf i nds i t h a s n o-l i m i ted d i scre ti on , i f a n y. A n d i f I d o ha ve d i sc r e tio n , I exerci se m y di scr et i on not t o dow n w ard d epa rton that basi s. Id
. a t8 6 0 -6 1 . O n a p p e a l, t h is c o u r td e t e r m in e dth a tth e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s de c i s i o n i n Ki m brough a nd the c o c ai ne base/po w de ra m e ndm e nt s t o t he G u i d eli n es m a d e relev a n t th e d i str ic t c ou rt’ s sp ecif i c statem en ts ab ou t its d is c r e tio n a t s e n te n c in g . I d. Thi s c o ur tc o nc l ude d, “ [W ] e can n ott e l lf r o m t he reco r d whethe r , if

t he j udg e ha d k no w n t hathe c o ul d c o ns i de rt he po l i cy di s ag r e e m e nta s a n a ddit i o nalfac t o ri n t he ‘ array of fac t o r s w ar r ant i ng c o ns i de r at i o n’i n hi s a nalys i s unde r8 U
. S. C. § 355 3( a) , i tw o ul d ha vea f fe c t e d the u l ti m a te sen ten ce im p ose don B u rn s. ” I d. at 861
- 62. Th eref ore, t h i s c ou rt v a c a t e da ndr e m a nd e df o rt hed i s t r i c tc o ur tt o “ a na l y z e t heSe c t i o n 3 5 5 3 ( a) fa cto rs inli g h t of Ki m brough
. ” I d. at 862 . I n t h ree un pu bl i shed cases, t h i s c ou rt h a s s im il a r ly r e m a n d e dforre se n te n cin ginli gh t of Ki m brough
. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Jon es , 28 3 Fed
. Appx. 25 4 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 8) (unpub l i s he d) ;Un i t ed S t ate s v. How ard , 2 8 0 F e d . A p p x . 4 4 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (u n p u b lis h e d); Uni t e d S t at e s v. R am i rez , N o . 0 6 -3 1 1 1 8 (5 th C ir . M a y2 7 , 2 0 0 8 ) (u n p u b lis h e d). D avis rai sed t h e is sue of the di spari t y i n the d i st ri ctcourtan d requ est ed th a t th e cou rt con sider th e dispa ri ty a s a factor i n d eterm i n i n g t h e se n te n c e . A s not ed pr evi ous l y, t he di st r i c tc our tdi d notc om m enton the ar gum entatN o. 07- 10588

6 s e n t e n c i n g , a l t h o u g h iti m p l i c i t l yd e n i e dt h e r e q u e s tb yi n s t e a dd e pa r t i ng u p w a r dfr o m th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d , [W ]he n I con siderallof th e factors t h a t th e C ou rt i s ob l i ga tedto con sider i n sen ten ci n g, I’ m sa ti sfi ed th a t a n u p w a rd d ep a rtu re in th i s ca se is th e a p p rop ri a te t h i n g to d o a n dw ou l dbe n ece ssa ryto ach i eve a reasona bl e sentence, t ak i n g i n t o accoun tal lof t h e fact ors t h at are t o be consi dered u n der 18 U n i t ed S t ates C o d e, Secti on 3 5 5 3 (a). T h e di st ri ctcourtt h en expl ai n e d tha titdeter m i n ed an app ropri ate r an ge of i m pri sonm e n t by referenci n g t h e rang es un der a h i gh er c ri m i n alhi st ory c at e go r y t hatt he c o ur tf o und m o r e r e pr e s e nt at iveof D avis ’ s hi s t o r y and l i kel ihood o f

r ec i divi sm . U l t i m at ely, t he c our t st at ed, “ [ I ] n ar r ivi ng at[t he 280- m ont h] s ent enc e[ , ] Ic ons i der ed the r ec om m ended advi so r y gui deli ne r ange, as w ellas t he st at ut or y co nce r ns l i st ed i n 18 U ni t ed St at es C ode , Sec t i on 3553( a)

. . . . ” As i n Burns , iti s u n cl ear f rom t h e st atem en t s m ad e by the di st ri ctcourt at s en t en ci n g w h et h er th e di st ri ctcourtw ou l d hav e i m posed t h e sam e sentence had i t know n t hat i t c oul d c ons i der poli c y di sa gr ee m ent as a fac t or a l on g w i th th e o th e r§ 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to r s . Se eBur ns , 5 2 6 F .3 da t 8 6 2 . H o w e v e r , th is c a s e is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m Burnsi n a s i gni f i c antw ay. Specif

i c al ly, w hi l e t he appea l w as p en di n g an d aft er Ki m brough , D avis f i l ed a p ro s e § 3582 (c) ( 2) m ot i on based o n t he r e t r o ac t ivea m e ndm ent s , a nd the di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d the m o t i o n. A l t h ou gh t h e § 3582 (c) ( 2) m ot i on an d order den yi n g i ta re n otpart of t h e rec ord on app eal , w e el ectt o t ak e j u di ci alnoti ce of t h e § 358 2(c) ( 2) order, h aving given th e p a r tie s a n o p p o r tu n ityto a d d r e s s its s ig n ific a n c e . S ee F ED . R. E VID . 20 1 . In ad dit i o n, al t ho ught he di s t r i c tco ur tm aynothavehad j ur i s di c t i o n t o r e s o lvet he m o t io n b e c a u s e D a v is ’s a p p e a l w a s p e n d in gi n t h is c o u r ta tth e ti m e , t h e o r d e r ’s p r a c t ic a l e ffe c tis to p r o v e c o n c lu s iv e lyth a ta n ye r r o rin t h e d i s t r ic tc o u r t ’s s e n te n c e is h a r m le s s .N o. 07- 10588

7 In th e d e n ia l , t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idw h a t D a v is s e e k s inth is a p p e a l; it c o ns i de r e d the c r ac k a m e ndm e nt s w he n a nalyz i ng hi s s e nt e nc e . I n do i ng s o , t he di st ri ctcourtnoted t h at itcon si dered t h e § 355 3( a) fact ors, pu bl i c s afet y i ssues, D avi s’ s pos t
- se nt enc i ng c onduct , and i t s ow n det er m i nat i ons duri ng t he o r i gi nal se nt enc i ng hear i ng. The di st r i c tc our tf urt he r n oted it s ear l i erf i ndi ngs t hat D a vi s’ s c r i m i nalhi st or y w as underr epr es ent ed and thatD avi s w as l i kely t o r e o f f e nd. Thedi s tric tc o urtf u rt h er s peci f

i cal l y st ated t h at, “ [w ] h i l e i n carc e r at e d, defenda n tha s c on t i n u ed to di sobey the rul es and ha s sh o w n n o res pect f or a u th o r ity
. H e h a s g iv e n th e co u r t n o re a s o n to b e lie v e h e h a s c h a n g e dh is behavi or ; r at her , he has only c onf i r m ed t he c our t ’ s f

i ndi ngs t hathe i s ata hi gh ri sk to com m i tf

u t u re c ri m es. ” T h e di st ri ct court setout t h e rang e of i m pr i s o nm e ntund e rt he a m e nde d G ui de l i ne s and s pe c i f i c all y r ej e c t e d r e duc i ng D a v is ’ s s e n te n c e e v e n w ith th e n e w g u id e lin e s ra n g e . T h e r e fo r e , w h ile in o th e rcir c u m s ta n c e s are m a n dm ig h t b e w a r r a n te din li g h t of B u rns and Ki m brough , th e o r d e r d e n y in gth e § 3 5 8 2 (c )(2 ) m o tio n cle a r ly e s t ab l i s he s t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur tw o ul d no ta dj us tt he s e nt e nc e i n li ghto f t he cocai n e base/pow der di spari t y given D avis ’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory an d other circum st an ces. Th u s, t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s or der den yi n g t h e § 358 2(c) ( 2) m ot i on i n di cat es th at th e sentence di d n otres u l tf rom an y p u rp o rte d gu i del i n es er ror a n dth e r e fo r e n e e dn o t b e v a c a te d
. S ee Un ited S ta tes v . B o n illa , 524 F. 3d 647, 65 6- 57 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 8) (ho l di ng t hatpr o c e dur ale r rordi d no tr e quir e v ac at i ng se n te n ce w h e re th e se n te n ce im p o se d d id n o t re su lt fro m th e g u id e li n e s e rr o r); D a v is , 47 8 F
. 3 dat 27 3 (i n con tex t of po st- B ookerm i sapp l i c at i o n o f t he G ui de l i ne s , c o ur tl o o ke d t o w he t he rthe sent e nc e r e s ul t e d f r o m t he m i sapp l i cat i on , noti n g pre- B ookerh a r m le s s e r r o rs ta n d a r d ) ; bu tse e Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mej i a-Hu erta , 48 0 F
. 3 d71 3 , 72 0 ( 5 thC i r. 20 0 7 ) (pos t- B ookercase a p p ly in gh a r m l e s s e r r o rs ta n d a r d , lo o k in gto w h e th e rth e G o v e r n m e n t c o u ldN o. 07- 10588

8 sh o w b e y o nd a r e a s o nab l e d o ub t t ha t d i s t r i c t c o ur t wou l d ha v e i m p o s ed s am e se n te n ce a b se n t th e er ro r). II I. D avis ’ s oth er c h al l en ges t o hi s s en t en ce are w i t h ou tm erit . D avis argu es t h at th e di st ri ct court abu sed i t s di scr et i on w h en i t dep art ed upw ard based on t he und e r r e pr e s e nt at i o n of hi s cr i m i nalhi s t o r y andhi s c o nduc tw hi l e i n pr i s o n. H e a s s e r ts th a t h is cr im in a l h is to r yw a s a d e q u a te lyre p r e s e n te db yh is cl assif i cat i on of cat egory V becau se h i s pri or c on vi ct i on s w ere “vi rt u al l y al lf or ei t h er m i sdem ean ors or st ate j ai l fel on i es. ” D avis al so argu es t h a t th e court fa ile dto ta k e in to a c c o u n t h is y o u th a t th e tim e o f h is p r io r c o n v ic tio n s . D a v is f ur t he ra s s e r t s t hatt he de gr e e o f t he de pa r t ur e w as unr e as o nab l e , g i ve n t he sm al la m ou n tof cocai n e b ase involved , h i s ag e, a n d t h e “non

- agg ravated n ature of his pr i or co n victi on s. ” Fo l l o wi ng B ooker , t h i s c ou rtha s c on cl u dedt h at a s en t en ci n g court does n otabu se its di scr et i on i n deci di n g t o up w ardl y dep artw h en it s r eason s f or doi n g so ( 1) ad van ce th e obj ect ives setf ort h i n § 3553 ( a) ( 2) , an d ( 2) are j u st i f i ed b yth e fa c ts o f th e ca s e . Un itedS ta tes v. Z u n iga -Per a lta , 4 4 2 F
. 3 d3 4 5 , 34 7 ( 5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 26 S. Ct
. 2 95 4 ( 20 06 )
. Se c t i o n 4A1. 3 o f t he G ui de l i nes provi des f

or an upw ard depa rt u re w h en a defen da n t ’ s c ri m i n alhi st ory cat egory do e s no tr e pr e s e ntt he s e r i o us ne s s o f ade fe nda nt ’ s c r i m i n alhi s t o r y o rt he l i ke l iho o d thathe w i l lr e o f fe nd. Sec t i o n 355 3( a) ( 2) (A)

- ( C) i ns t r uc t s s e nt e nc i ng courts t o consi der t h e n eed f or th e sentence i m posedt o ref l ectt h e ser i ou sness o f t he o f fe ns e , pr o m o t e r e s pe c tf o rt he l aw, pr o vi de j us tpun i s hm e ntf o rt he o ffe n s e , a ffo r da d e q u a te d e te r r e n c e to cr im in a l co n d u c t, a n dp r o te c t t h e p u b lic from f u rth er crim es o f th e d efen d a n t. In i t s det ai l ed exp l an ati on of t h e dep art u re, t h e di st ri ctcourtexpl ai n ed t h at itreli ed on D avis ’ s ext en sive cri m i n alhi st ory a n d h i s post
- convic t i on c o n d u c t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te dD a v is ’ s s e v e n d is c ip lin a r yin fr a c tio n s w h ile inN o. 07- 10588

9 c u s to d y , in c lu d in go n e th a t o c c u r r e dw h ile D a v is w a s a w a itin gre s e n te n c in g . A d d it io n a ll y , t h e c o u r tfo u n dth a tr e li a b le in fo r m a t io n s h o w e dth a tD a v is ’s c r i m i nalhi s t o r y s ubs t ant i all y unde r r e pr esented hi s c r i m i nalhi s t o r y andt he lik e lih o o do f r e c id iv is m . A lth o u g h D a v is w a s o n ly2 3 y e a r s o ld ,“a t t h e tim e o f h is ori gi n alsentence he h a d a f ive- year span of

cr i m i n alcondu cti n cl u di n g seven ad ul tc o nvic t i o ns and onej uve ni l e c o nvic t i o n. ” Al t ho ughm o s to f t he c o nvic t i o ns w e r e m i s de m e ano r s , t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts t at e d, t he y w e r e f o ro f f e n s e s mo r es e ri o us t h an t h ey f

i rstapp eared. T h e c o n v i ct i on s w ere f or of fen ses t h at th e di st ri ct court determ i n ed w ere s eri ou s, i n volvi n g n arcot i cs, f i rearm s, f

l eei n g f rom pol i ce a n dfig h tin gw ith p o lic e . D av i s do e s no tc hall en ge t h e r e l i ab i l i t y o f t he i nf o r m at i o n o n whi c h t he court reli ed. R ather, he cha l l en ges t h e concl u si on s th e di st ri ct court drew f rom D avis ’ s c on du ctan d circu m stan ces. Sect i on 355 3( a) specif i cal l y perm i t s a d i s tr ic t c o u r t t o co n s id e r“t h e h is to r ya n dch a r a c te r is tic s o f th e d e fe n d a n t” in fash i on i n g a sen ten ce. § 3 5 5 3 (a)( 1 ). T h e statu te req u i res th e d i stri ct cou rt t o seta sentence t h at prom ot es “ respect f or t h e l aw ” an d “prot ect [ s] t h e pu bl i c f rom f u rt h erc r i m e s o f

t he de fe nda nt . ” § 3 55 3( a) ( 2) (A) a nd ( C)
. Si m i l ar l y, s e c t i on 4A 1. 3 speci f

i cal l y provi des f

or an u pw ar d d e p art u re w h en t h e di st ri ctcourt d e te r m in e s t h a t a d e fe n d a n t’s cr im in a l h is to r yca te g o r yd o e s n o t a c c u r a te ly r e fl e c th is h is t o r yo rp o t e n t ia l r e c id iv is m . I n th e fa c e o f t h e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s detai l ed an al ysi s of

t h e fact ors an d D avis ’ s c i rc u m st an ces, D avis ’ s c on cl u sory as s e r t i o n t hatt he § 3 55 3( a) fac t o r s di d no tj us t i f y t he de pa r t ur e i s i ns uf f i c i e nt to s h o w th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e dits d is c r e tio n . S eeZ u n iga -Per a lta , 442 F
. 3 d a t 3 4 7 . D a vis l i k ew i se h a s n ot sh ow n tha t th e d i stri ct cou rt ab u sed its di s c r e t i o n i n t he e xt e nt o f i t s de pa r t ur e , f r o m t he 21 0- m o nt h upp e r l i m i t o f t he gui de l i ne s r ang e t o 2 80 m o nt hs , g ive n t he c i rcum st anc e s e xp l ai ne d b y t he d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee id
. at3 47
- 48 (upho l di ng a dep art u r e o f a l m o s tt w i c e t heN o. 07- 10588

10 ad vi sory gui del i n es r an ge given “ al lof t h e circum st an ces” )
. T h u s, D avis ha s not show n th at hi s s en t en ce w as un reasona bl e. IV. D av i s a r gue s f

i nall y t hatt he di s t r i c t c o ur t vi o l at e d hi s Si xth Am e ndm e nt r i ghtt o aj ur y byf

i ndi ng fac t s “ e s s e nt i alt o t he s e nt e nc e , ” i nc l udi ng t he dr ug w e i ghta nd the f

i r e ar m po s s e s s i o n. Thi s ar gum e nt i s w i t ho ut m e r i t . W i t h t he G ui deli nes r ender ed adv i so r y by B ooker , “ t he Si xth A m e ndm e ntw i l lno ti m pe de as en ten ci n g j u d ge from fi n d i n g a l lfac ts rel ev a n t t o se n ten ci n g.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Joh n son , 4 4 5 F .3 d7 9 3 , 7 9 8 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 1 2 6 S
. Ct
. 2 8 8 4 ( 2 0 0 6 )
. As t h e di st ri ctcourtsentenced D avis un der an adv i sory gui del i n es r egi m e , t h ere w as no Sixth Am e ndm e ntv i o l at i o n. V
. F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , D a v is ’ s s e n te n c e is A F F IR M E D
.