# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 A rgued A ugust 5 , 20 08 Deci ded A ugust 2 1, 20 08

B efo re R IC H A R D A . PO SN E R, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e

N o. 08- 1008 U N IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P la intif f-A pp ellee,

v. THOMAS T RAMM ELL , D efend a nt-A pp ella nt. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct C ou rt forthe W estern District of W i sc o ns i n. N o. 07CR 90 J ohn C. S habaz, Judg e . OR D ER T h om as T ra m m ell p lea d ed gu ilty to on e c ou n t o f arm ed ba n k ro b b er y. See 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 113( a) , ( d). The dis tr i ct c ourti m posed a 200- m onth s entence to r un consec uti vel y t o a fed er al s en te n c e T ra m m ell w as alre ad y s er vin g for a d iffer en t b an k ro b b er y. T ra m m ell appeal s, ar gui ng tha t the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on bydecl i ni ng to i m pose a c on c u rre n t s en te n c e. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtw as en tit led to im p os e a co n se c u tiv e s en te n c e in o r de r“ t o a c hi e v e a r e a s o nab l e p un i s hme nt ” f o rthe o ffe ns e , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 5 8 4 ; U. S
. S
. G. § 5 G1
. 3 ( c ) , a n d i ta r t i c u l a t e d l e g i t i ma t e r e a s o n s f o rd o i n gs o a ts e n t e n c i n g . T h e r e f o r e , we affir m . NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1

### 08-1008 Pag e 2

O n July 8, 2005 , Tram m ellente red a ban k i n H ud son, W iscons in, ha nd ed the teller a n o t e d e ma n d i n gmo n e y, d i s p l a y e d th e h a n d l e o fa g u n, a n d fl e d th e b a n kwi th$ 2 , 1 0 1
. H e w as not apprehended un ti lsi x m onths l ate r, afterhe r obbe d anotherbanki n Fo re st Lake, M i nnesot a. He ple aded gui l ty to the M i nnesot a r obbe ryand w as sente nced by the Unite d St at es D ist ric t C ou rtfor th e D ist ric t o f M in n es ot a t o 1 33 m on th s’ im p ris on m en t, U nited State s v. Tram m el l , N o. 06 -30 (A D M /JSM ) (D . M in n . July 13 , 200 6), 18 m on th s b elo w h is ad vis or y g u id elin es ran ge , U nite d States v. Tram m el l , 22 7 F ed. A pp ’ x 529 , 53 0 ( 8th Ci r. J uly3, 2007 )
. Duri ng the M i nnesot a pro ceedi ngs, Tra m m el lwas nevergi ven a n opportunity t o st ip u lat e t o th e a rm ed ba n k ro b b er y h e h ad co m m itt ed in W isc on sin
. SeeU. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1
. 2 ( c )
. I fh e h a d b e e ng i v e nth a to p p o r tu n i ty a n d a v a i l e d h i ms e l fo fi t, T r a mme l l —a c ar ee r offe n d er , see U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1— w oul d have f aced a com bi ned gui del i nes r ange of18 8 to 235 m onths f orbo th o ffenses , the sam e r ange he l ate r f aced f orthe W i sco nsi n offense alo n e. A l m osta yea r afterthe M i nnesot a s entence was i m posed, Tra m m el lwas i nd i cted f o rthe W i sc o ns i n b an kr o bb ery . In e xc ha ng e f o rhi s g ui l typl ea, the g o ve r nm en t r ec o m m en ded th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t i m po se a wi th i n- g ui del i ne s se nt en ce t o r un c on c u rre n tly w ith h is u n d isc h ar ge d se n te n c e fo r th e M inn es ot a h eis t. A t s entencing the di str i ct c ourti nvi ted the pro secuto r to com m ent o n the f act that T ram m ellw as no t given a ch an ce to stipu late to the W iscons in crim e w he n h e w as before th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti nMi n n e s o t a . T h e p r o s e c u t o rn o t e d th a tT r a mme l lh a d r e c e i v e d a b e l o wgu id elin es se n te n c e fo r th e M in n es ot a ro b b er y a n d th en ob se rv ed th ath er offic e w ou ld probabl y no t hav e r eco m m ended a “dow nw ar d var i ance in thi s type o fcas e. ” She sai d that that i s why her offi ce “ do[ es] n’tty pica l l y c ar e t o al l ow our c ri m es to be s entence d i n other co ur ts . ” The di st r i ctc o ur t r epl i ed, “ Pa r ti cul ar l y M i nne so ta . ” Af te re xpl aini ngt o the dist ri ct c ourtthati fTra m m el lhad bee n gi ven a n opportunity t o sti pu l ate , hi s guidel i nes ra n ge for b ot hcr im es w ou ld h av e b ee nth e s am e a s h is gu id elin es ran ge for th e W isc on sin c rim e a lon e, th e p ro se c u to r su gg es te d th ata w ith in -gu id elin es co n c u rre n t s en te n c e w ou ld b e re as on ab le. D efe n se co u n se l likew ise req u es te d a c on c u rre n t s en te n c e, ar gu in g th atT ra m m ell h ad n otp u lled a w ea p on d u rin g th e ro b b er y a n d h ad vo lu n ta rily p ar tic ip at ed in co uns el i ngpr o g r ams whi l e i n pr i so n. De fen se c o uns ela l so po i nt ed o uttha t j us t be f o r e he robbed the bank i n W i sco nsi n, Tra m m el lst opped taking m edi cati on forhi s bi pol ar d iso rd er be c au se h e c ou ld n o lon ge r affo rd it. The dis tr i ct c ourtr evi ew ed a l ett erfro m Tra m m el l ’ s wife desc ribi ng hi m as w on d er fu l hu sb an d an d ex p lain in g th ath e w ou ld be m iss ed te rrib ly b y h is c h ild re nw h ile i n pr i so n. T he c o ur t al so c o ns i der ed ani m pac t st at ements ubmi tt ed bythe t el l era t th e

### 08-1008 Pag e 3

W iscons in ban k, w hich stated that after the robbery sh e suffered from pa nic atta cks at w ork an d ni g ht m ar es . T he t el l ers ai d tha t i t m ade he rha ppy t o kno w tha t Tr amm el lwas b eh i nd bar s a nd that“foral lshe car es, he c an st ay l ock ed up fo r l i fe. ” The cour t a l so re vi ew ed Tram m el l ’ s cr i m i nalhi sto ry, wh i ch i ncl ud ed two robber i es, burg l ar y o fa m oto r vehi cl e, th eft, an d p os se ss ion of m ar ij u an a. The dis tr i ct c ourtst ate d that a fterr evi ew i ng U.S
. S. G. § 5 G1. 3— the guidel i ne that ad d resses sen ten cing a d efend an t w ho is sub j ect to an un d ischa rged sent en ce— th e cou rt w as “not persuaded thata concurr ent s entence i s a r esponsibl e a nd r eas onabl e s entence that i s no t g re ate r than nece ssa ryi n thi s par ti cul arcas e. ” The cour t a cknowle dged T ra m m ell’s tro u b led ch ild h oo d an d h ist or y of a lco h ol ab u se , bu t itals o c om m en te d on h is extensi ve cri m i nalhi sto ry, hi s hi sto ryo fadj usti ng poo rly t o i ncarc er ati on, and the f act that he r obbe d the W i sco nsi n bank onl y fi ve m onths afterbeing r el eas ed fro m pri son. “ Pri or ter m s o fi m pri sonm ent, ” the co urt concl ud ed, “have had l i ttl e i m pact o n hi s cr i m i nal thi nki ng. ” Bel i eving i t l i kely that Tr am m elwould, i fgi ven the o pp or tuni ty, co nti nue to com m i t cr i m es and prese nt a danger to the c om m unity, the dist ri ct c ourtf ound that a 20 0- m onth co nsecuti ve sente nce “i s r eas onabl e a nd nece ssa ryto sa ti sfy the st atuto rypurposes of senten cing.” Th is senten ce, the cou rt said, w ou ld “h old th is defen d an t acco un table for a ser i ous c ri m e o fvi ol ence, ” “ prot ect the c om m unity fro m furthercr i m i nalact i vi ty, ” “ ser ve as a d et er re n t n otto h im bu t t o ot h er s,” “a c h iev e p ar ity w ith th e s en te n c es of sim ilar ly sit u at ed offe n d er s,” an d affo rd T ra m m ell re h ab ilita tiv e o p p or tu n itie s. On app ealTra m m elar gues that the di str i ct c ourter re d by i m posi ng hi s s entence to run cons ecu tively to his M inn esota sent en ce an d that the resu lti ng sent en ce is therefore u n re as on ab le. A w ith in -gu id elin es se n te n c e is p re su m p tiv ely rea so n ab le on ap p ea l, see, e . g. , U nite d States v. Tahz ib , 5 1 3 F
. 3 d 6 9 2 , 6 9 4 ( 7 thC i r . 2 0 0 8 ) , a n d th e b u r d e nt o o v e r c o me th atp re su m p tio nis T ra m m ell’s , s e e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey, 516 F.3d 553 , 556 (7th C ir. 2008 ). Th e d istri ct cou rt, cha rged w ith selecting an ap p rop riate pu nish m en t for T ram m ell ’s cri m e, had br oad di scr eti on t o choos e whether to i m pose a co ncurr ent o r a co nsecuti ve se n te n c e. See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3584; U
. S. S. G
. § 5G 1.3( c). In ex ercising tha t d iscretion, th e cou rt w as re quir ed to co nsi der the f acto rs se t for th in 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) , such a s the natur e o f the o ffense, the hi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs o fthe defe nd ant, the need to punish and deter c rim in al a c tiv ity , an d th e p os sib ility of p ro vid in g th e d efe n d an t w ith reh ab ilita tiv e s er vic es . See 18 U .S.C . §§ 3 55 3(a ), 358 4; see also U nited Sta tes v. To ck es , N o. 07
- 3294, 2008 W L 2550733, at * 3- 4 ( 7th Ci r. J une 27, 20 08)
. W e r evi ew the sente nce the di str i ct c ourti m posed f oran ab u se of d isc re tio n . See To ck es , 200 8 W L 25 50 73 3, at*3. Tram m el lco ncedes that the di str i ct c ourtco m m ented o n sev er alo fthe § 3 553( a) f acto rs atse ntenci ng, but he ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtneve rthel ess abuse d i ts disc re ti on b y fa ilin g t o a n aly ze a d iffer en t s etof fac to rs , th os e c on ta in ed in U .S.S.G . § 5G 1.3

### 08-1008 Pag e 4

A pp l i cati on N ote 3. Ap pli cati on N ote 3 offer s a nonexhausti ve l i st off acto rs thata dist ri ct co ur t sh o ul d c o ns i derwhende ci di ngwhethe rt o i m po se a c o ns ec ut i ve o rc o nc ur r en t sente nce— such as the type and l ength ofthe und i schar ged se ntence, the ti m e l i kely t o be se rv ed on th atse n te n c e b efo re rele as e, an d w h ich co u rtim p os ed th e o th er se n te n c e, as w ell as the usual§ 3553 ( a) f acto rs . Tr am m el lm ai ntai ns thatthe dist ri ct c ourtdi d not adequatel y a dd re ss the f acto rs co ntai ned i n the appli cati on not e, but eve n he a cknowle dges that i t was notm andator y forthe cour t t o do so
. I t w a s m andator y forthe cour t t o consi der the § 35 53( a) f acto rs , 18 U
. S. C. § 3 584, and the tr anscr i pt ofthe sente nci ng hea ring m ake s cl earthati t di d. A l though Tr am m el lco rr ectly points o ut thatthe dist ri ct c ourtdi d not ex p lain h ow ev er y on e o f th e s ta tu to ry fac to rs it list ed w as se rv ed by th e s en te n c e it im p os ed , su c han ex er c ise w as n otn ec es sa ry : “[A ] d ist ric t c ou rtj u d ge n ee d n otap p ly a ll § 3 553( a) f acto rs i n a s yst em ati c o r ‘ checkl i st f ashi on. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , N o. 06
- 3812 , 2008 W L 27789 29, at * 4 (7th C ir. J uly 18, 2008). Th e d istri ct cou rt exp lai ne d w hich statu tory f acto rs gui ded i ts deci si on t o i m pose a 2 00- m onth co nsecuti ve sente nce; nothi ng m or e was re q u ire d
. Se ei d. ; U nite d States v. N it ch , 477 F.3d 933 , 937 (7th C ir. 2007 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. D e an , 41 4 F .3d 72 5, 72 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). T ram m ellalso all ud es to the exc ha ng e betw een the p rosecu tor and the d istri ct cou rt co nc erni ngthe b el o w-gui del i ne s se nt en ce Tr amm el lr ec ei ve d f o rthe M i nne so tab an k robber y. He ar gues that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co m m ents “dem onst ra ted a disf avo r” with that sente nce, but that re adingi s a st re tch. The pr ose cutorsa i d that he r offi ce g ener al l y s eek s t o av o i d ha vingc r i m es c o m m i tt ed i n i ts j ur i sdi ct i o n t r i ed an d s en te nc ed el se wher e; the dist ri ct c ourtr epl i ed, “[ p]ar ti cul ar l y M i nnesot a. ” Taken in conte xt, the re m ar k s ugges ts that the c ourtm ay vi ew the Dist ri ct Cour t forthe Dist ri ct o fM i nnesot a a s m or e a pt to be l eni ent than the Dist ri ct Cour t forthe W est er n Dis tr i ct o fW i sco nsi n. But i t doe s no t sugge st that the di str i ct c ourtwas dis sat i sfi ed w i th o r seco nd

- guess ed the re aso nabl eness of T ra m m ell’s p rior se n te n c e. A c c or d in gly , w e A FF IR M
.