FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCTOB ER 19, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 08 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 01 74 -J RH-WLB-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us KENNET H DARRELL STEVENS, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t forth e So ut he rn Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 1 9, 2 01 0) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d M ARTIN, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Ken ne th Darrel l St ev en s ch al le ng es hi s s en te nc e fo r po ss es si on of afir earm
an d a m m un it io n b y

a co nv ic te d fe lo n i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) . Stev en sco nt en ds th athi s 7 7- m on th sen te nc e, a 1 4- m on th va ria nc e fro m th e upp er en d o f th e 5 1 t o 6 3 m on th s ra ng e d et erm in edby the sen te nc in g g ui de li ne s, i s b ot h pr oc edur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
. St ev en s ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco ur t p ro cedur al ly erredin im po si ng an up wardde pa rtu re b as edon hi s cr im in al hi st ory sco re o f 31 po in ts be cau se th e
co urt d idno t fo ll ow t he pro cedur es requi redby U .S.S.G. § 4 A1.3 an d b ecau se th e
co urt re li edon m is ta ke n fa ct s ab ou t t he na tu re o f hi s cr im in al hi st ory . Stev en s al so arg ue s t ha t, ev enif t he di stric t co ur t d idno t err in im po si ng th e d ep artur e, hi s
se nt en ce was ne ve rth el es s u nr eas on ab le be cau se : (1 ) th e d is tri ctco ur t erro ne ou sl y
co nc lu de d t ha t h e h ada hi st ory of v io le ntcri m es , (2) hi s 7 7- m on th sen te nc e was
un reas on ab le fora “ st atus ” cri m e, (3 ) th e co ur t erredin fin di ng th atSte ve ns po se d a ri skof r eci di vi sm

de sp it e m it ig at in g e vi de nc e, an d (4 ) th e co ur t erredin
co nc lu di ng th atSte ve ns sh ou ldbe in carc erat edin st eadof b ei ng tre at edfor
subs ta nc e ab us e. Alt ern at iv el y , Ste ve ns arg ue s t ha t h is sen te nc e is un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt co ns id eredon ly one of t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s
an d fa il edto co ns id er h is m it ig at in g e vi de nc e o r ad equa te ly exp la in it s s en te nc e. I. W e rev ie w th e rea so nabl en es s o f a s en te nc e im po se d u nd er t he advi so ry
se nt en ci ng gu id el in es on ly for anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Gal l v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 52
2U.S. 38 , 56 , 12 8 S .Ct. 5 86 , 60 0 (2 00 7) . The b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng

un reas on ab le ne ss li es wit h the party chal le ng in g t he sen te nc e. Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W he n re vi ewin g s en te nc in g d eci si on s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n, we u se a two -s te p p ro ces s. “ Fi rs t, we re vi ew to ‘ en su re t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt co m

m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t p ro cedur al erro r, su ch as f ai li ng to cal cu la te (orim

pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng ) th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e, tr eat in g t he Gui de li ne s
as m an da to ry , fai li ng to co ns id er t he § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s, s el ect in g asen te nc e b as ed
on cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s, o r fai li ng to ad equa te ly exp la in th e ch os en
se nt en ce— in cl ud in g a n e xp la na ti on foran y de vi at io n fr om

th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e.’” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sha w, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (quo ti ng Gall , 55 2 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 97 ). The d is tri ctco ur t n eedno t s pe ci fic al ly dis cu ss each § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or , pro vi de d t ha t the co ur t ac kn owl ed ge s t ha t i t co ns id eredall of t he fact or s. Tal le y , 43 1 F .3dat 7 86 . The d is tri ctco ur t’s fi nd in gs of f actsupp or ti ng a
se nt en ce ar e rev ie wedon ly for cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Doca m po , 57 3 F .3d 10 91 , 10 96 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). If t he di st ric t co urt’s s en te nc in g d eci si on is pro cedur al ly sou nd , we m us t th en de te rm in e whe th er t he sen te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le in li gh t o f th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or s. Gal l, 5 52 U.S. at 5 1, 1 28 S.Ct . at 5 97 . The d is tri ct
co urt’s s en te nc in g d eci si on wil l b e se t as id e o nl y if we d et erm in e, “ aft er g iv in g a 3fu ll 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 un reas on ab le .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ). The sen te nc in g ju dg e sh ou ld“ se t fo rth en ou gh to sat is fy th e ap pe ll at e co ur t t ha t h e ha s co ns id eredth e p art ie s’ arg um en ts an d h as a reas on edba si s fo r ex erci si ng hi s
own leg al de ci si on m ak in g aut ho rit y .” Rit a v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 56 , 12 7 S .Ct. 2 45 6, 2 46 8 (2 00 7) . Whi le a di st ric t co urt i s re qu ire d t o e va lu at e al l o f th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, i t i s p erm it te d t o a tt ach gre at er wei gh t t o o ne fact orov er ot he rs . Sha w, 56 0 F .3dat 1 23 7. St ev en s co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co urt d idno t fo ll ow t he pro cedur es requi redby U .S.S.G. § 4 A1.3 in arri vi ng at h is ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e. The c ou rt n ot edat the sen te nc e h eari ng th atth e PSR

in di cat edth atanup wardde pa rtu re u nd er § 4A1 .3 m ig htbe
warra nt ed , anditall owe d S te ve ns to pre se ntm it ig at in g e vi de nc e. The c ou rt f ou nd th atSte ve ns ’ cri m in al hi st ory sco re u nd er the gu id el in es di d n otad equa te ly tak e in to acco un t h is ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st ory or h is “ al arm in g l ev el of r eci di vi sm .” The co urt l at er ex pl ai ne d wh y th e n atur e an d e xt en t o f St ev en s’ cri m in al hi st ory
was of the ki ndor d eg ree n otad equa te ly tak en in to co ns id erat io n b y th e gu id el in es :

4Thi s de fen da nt ha s ov er twi ce th e cri m in al hi st ory po in ts ne ed ed

to pl ace hi m in th e hi gh es t Cri m in al His to ry Cat eg ory , th a t is , a Cat eg ory VI. At le as t two of hi s co nv ic ti on s were no t co un te d, a s t he se nt en ci ng gu id el in es di rect th at on ly a max im um of fo ur on e-p oi nt co nv ic ti on s be co un te d pu rs ua nt to Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne Sect io n 4A1 .1(c ). Mr. St ev en s ha s be en arre st ed al m os t ev ery y ear si nc e ag e 20
. A rev ie w of hi s c r i mi n a l hi st ory rev eal s th at th e on ly y ears th at Mr. St ev en s was no t arres te d wer e th e y ears th athe was i nc arce rat ed
. The Co urt al so no te s th a t Mr. St ev en s’ r eco rd refl ect s a nu m be r of ve ry se rio us cri m es , in cl ud in g at ta ck s on law of fic ers , vi ol en t cri m es , po in ti ng gu ns at ot he rs , an d hi s pa st act iv ity refl ect s a to ta l la ck of res pe ct of au th or it y i n t h a t he ha s ha d a nu m be r of pr ob at io n rev oc at io ns . Cl earl y , Mr. St ev en s’ eg reg io us cri m in al reco rd refl ect s an al arm in g le ve l of reci di vi sm an d ali ke li ho odof fu rth er of fen se s whe n no t i nc arce rat ed
. Doc . 28 at 2 0– 21 . Stev en s as su m es th at , bas edon th es e st at em en ts , th e d is tri ct
co urt i m po se d a n upwardde pa rtu re o n t he ba si s t ha t h is “ cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory
subs ta nt ia ll y

un de r-re pr es en t[e d] th e se rio us ne ss of [ hi s] cri m in al hi st ory or t he li ke li ho odth at[he ] wil l co m m itot he r cri m es .” U.S.S.G. § 4 A1.3 (a)( 1) . He arg ue s th atif t he co urt d idim

po se anup wardde pa rtu re, i t was pro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e co urt d idno t fo ll ow t he pro cedur es setou t i n U.S.S.G. § 4A1 .3. Inord er t o d et erm in e whe th er t he di st ric t co ur t i m po se d a n upward de pa rtu re o r an up wardva ria nc e, we lo okto whet he r th e co ur t ju st ifi edth e
se nt en ce b y

cit in g t o asp eci fic gu id el in es pro vi si on au th or iz in g d ep artur e (wh ic h
wou ldin di cat e an up wardde pa rtu re) o r in st eadgro un de d i ts de ci si on on it s

5de te rm in at io n t ha t t he gu id el in es ran ge was i na de qu at e (wh ic h wo ul d i nd ic at e an

up wardva ria nc e). See Uni te d S ta te s v . Kapo rd el is , 56 9 F .3d12 91 , 13 16 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ); Un it edSta te s v . Eld ic k, 4 43 F.3d78 3, 7 88 n.2 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). In t hi s
cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t m en ti on § 4 A1.3 or a ny oth er g ui de li ne s p ro vi si on
au th or iz in g d ep artur e. In st ead , th e co ur t ex pl ic it ly foundth atth e g ui de li ne s wer e in ad equa te , anditba se d t ha t d et erm in at io n o n c on si de rat io ns dra wn fr om th e fact or s l is te d i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a): Acco rd in gl y , th is Co urt ha s de te rm in ed th at th e im pr is on m en t ran ge es tabl is he d by th e advi so ry gu id el in e syste m do es no t ad equa te ly ad dr es s th e fact s of th is cas e. The ne ed to im po se a s e n t e n c e whi ch refl ect s th e se rio us ne ss of th e of fen se , pr om ot es res pe ct fo r th e la w an d pr ov id es a jus t pu ni sh m en t whi le se rv in g as a de te rren t to ot he rs as well as pr ot ect in g th is co m

m un it y fro m fu rth er cri m es of Mr. St ev en s w e r e al l fact or s co ns id ered by th is Co ur t in de te rm in in g th at a se n t e n ce ou ts id e th e ad vi so ry

gu id el in e syst em

is ap pr op ria te . Doc . 28 at 2 1. We con cl ud e th atth e d is tri ctco ur t re li edon anup wardvaria nc e in st eadof a n upwa rdde pa rtu re i n i m po si ng th e ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e, an d fo r th atreas on itwas n otrequi redto fol lo w th e p ro cedur es setfor th in § 4 A1.3
. It wa s n otcle ar erro r fo r th e d is tri ctco ur t t o d et erm in e fro m th e u nd is pu te d fact s tha t St ev en s’ cri m in al hi st ory in cl ud edin st an ces of v io le nc e, an d i t was no t
an ab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e co ur t t o c on si de r th os e fac ts in sen te nc in g S te ve ns to a te rm of i m pr is on m en t t ha t was ab ov e th e ran ge pro vi de d fo r by the gu id el in es .

6See Sh aw, 56 0 F .3dat 1 24 0– 41 (affi rm in g a n upwa rdva ria nc e o f 83 m on th s

ba se d p rimaril y

on di st ric t co urt’s co nc lu si on th ata gr eat er s en te nc e was ne ed edto pr om ot e d et erre nc e an d ares pe ctforth e la w inli gh t o f de fen da nt ’s ext en si ve cri m in al hi st ory ); Un it edSta te s v . W il li am s, 5 26 F.3d13 12 , 13 23 –2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 20 08 ) (i t was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n fo r th e d is tri ctco ur t t o c on si de r de fen da nt ’s pri oroff

en se s i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r to im po se anup wardva ria nc e
ev en th ou gh th os e o ffen se s wer e al read y co ns id eredin cal cu la ti ng de fen da nt ’s cri m in al hi st ory

sco re). Fi na ll y , Ste ve ns ’ se nt en ce i s p ro cedur al ly reaso nabl e b ecau se th e d is tri ct
co urt co ns id eredall of t he 18 U.S.C. § 3 35 5 fa ct or s an d a de qu at el y ex pl ai ne d i ts
se nt en ce. The co urt’s s ta te m en ts du rin g t he he ari ng sh ow tha t i t co ns id eredth e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts , th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es , andth e st atut ory fact or s, t hu s
sa ti sf y in g t he requi rem en ts of § 35 53 (c). Alt ho ug h the co ur t fo cu se d o n t he da ng ers po se d b y

Ste ve ns ’ “ al arm in g l ev el of r eci di vi sm ,” th e rec or d m ak es cle ar th atth e co urt al so co ns id ered“ [t]he ne edto im po se a se nt en ce wh ic h re fle ct s t he
se rio us ne ss of t he off

en se , pro m ot es res pe ctfor th e la w andpro vi de s a ju st pu ni sh m en t wh il e se rv in g a s a d et erre ntto ot he rs .” Cf. Uni te d S ta te s v . Iriz arry, 45 8 F .3d12 08 , 12 11 –1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (affi rm in g adi st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on to ap pl y anup wardva ria nc e b as edon a si ng le § 3 55 3( a) fa ct or , th e n eedto pro te ct
7th e p ub li c fro m fur th er cr im es of t he de fen da nt ). Ther efo re, the di st ric t co ur t’s
reas on edex pl an at io n o f it s s en te nc in g d eci si on is su ffi ci en t fo r us to fin d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y th e m an ne r in whi ch itarri ve d a t a
se nt en ce o ut si de th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge . II. St ev en s co nt en ds th athi s s en te nc e is subs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt erredby con cl ud in g tha t h is cri m in al hi st ory was “ vi ol en t.” We di sa gr ee. St ev en s’ ext en si ve reco rdin cl ud es fou r co nv ic ti on s fo r ba tt ery, on e o f whi chin vo lv edSte ve ns pu nc hi ng hi s v ic ti m in th e fac e. On s ti ll an ot he r oc cas io n, St ev en s p un ch edhi s v ic ti m in th e fac e se ve ral ti m es , th rew h er d own , ki ck edhe r in th e ri bs , sp atin he r fac e, an d d rag ge d h er d own a ha ll way whi le ho ld in g akn ife to he r th ro at . Stev en s was als o c on vi ct edof p oi nt in g agu n a t an ot he r pe rs on an d of ob stru ct in g l aw en fo rcem en t o ffi cers , in cl ud in g re si st in g a rres t. Fi na ll y , du rin g hi s co m m is si on of the off

en se at i ss ue in th is cas e, St ev en s re pe at ed ly pun ch edth e
arre st in g o ffi cer i n t he face whi le th e o ffi cer t rie d t o s to p S te ve ns fro m swal lo win g drug s. It wa s n otun reas on ab le forth e d is tri ctco ur t t o s en te nc e St ev en s t o a77
- m on th term

of i m pr is on m en t fo r wha t St ev en s ca ll s a “ st atus ” cri m e. Alt ho ug h St ev en s was co nv ic te d o f be in g afel on in po ss es si on of afir earm an d a m m un it io n, 8he was a rres te d wh il e at te m pt in g t o s el l i ll eg al dru gs to a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t,
an d h e as saul te d t he arre st in g o ffi cer. Hi s 7 7- m on th sen te nc e is well be lo w th e st atut ory m ax im um sen te nc e o f 10 y ears im

pr is on m en t. See Sh aw, 56 0 F .3dat 12 39 –4 0 (a ffi rm in g t he di st ric t co ur t’s upwa rdva ria nc e fro m a gu id el in es ran ge of 30 to 37 m on th s t o t he st atut ory m ax im um of 1 20 m on th s b as edon th e d efen da nt ’s twen ty-si x kno wn o ffen se s t ha t g av e h im a cri m in al hi st ory

sco re o f 20 ). The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i ts co ns id erat io n o f St ev en s’
m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces ev id en ce o r hi s re qu es t fo r drug tre at m en t i ns te adof in carc erat io n. As th e co urt n ot ed , Ste ve ns ha d b een arre st edalm os t ev ery y ear o f hi s adul t l ife , he h ada hi st ory of v io le nc e, he ha d d em on st rat eda di sr ep ectof
au th or it y , andhi s cr im in al hi st ory sco re o f 31 was t he hi gh es t t he co ur t h adsee n. The co urt was no t o bl ig at edto acce ptor b e swa y edby the tes ti m on y of S te ve ns ’ br ot he r an d m ot he r th athe was turni ng hi s l ife aro un d “ pr io r to th is las t ev en t.” In fact , Ste ve ns was a rres te d fo r th e o ffen se th atledto th is sen te nc e dur in g t he pe rio d he was a tt en di ng co urt-o rd eredweek ly cou ns el in g s es si on s fo r subs ta nc e ab us e. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ldth atSte ve ns ’ ab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e is bo th pr oc edur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le
. AFFIRMED
.

9