# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 8- 16 30

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Edd ie Davi d C ox

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 14 , 20 18

Fi le d: Marc h 2 5, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re GRUENDER, KELLY , and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.Fo ll owi ng Edd ie Co x’s co nv ic ti on on twel ve co un ts

, th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct

Co ur t fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Mi ss ou ri (“ W es te rn Dis tri ct ”) se nt en ced hi m to li fe 1

im pr is on m en t on Co un ts Fi ve an d Eig ht ba se d on th e Arm ed C a r e er Cri m in al Act

(“ ACCA”)

. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( e). Co x h as co m pl et ed hi s sen te nc es fo r th e ot he r

co un ts of hi s in di ct m en t. Thi s cou rt affi rm ed a li fe sen te nc e fo r Co x, Uni te d St at es

v. Co x , 94 2 F.2 d 12 82

, 12 86 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ), an d we de ni ed hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r le av e

to fil e a su cces si ve 28 U.S.C. § 22 55 m ot io n on th e ba si s he as se rts he re, se e Co x v.

Uni te d St at es , No. 16 -2 02 9 (8 th Ci r. Oct. 6, 20 16 ). Co x th en fil ed a pe ti ti on fo r writ

of ha be as co rp us un de r 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 1 i n t he Uni te d S ta te s Dist ric t Co ur t fo r th e

Cen tra l Dis tri ct of Ill in oi s (“ Cen tra l Dis tri ct ”). The Cen tra l Dis tri ct id en ti fie d wha t

it co ns id ered to be a “ st ru ct ur al pr ob le m ” wit h § 22 55 th at p r e v e nt ed Co x fro m

ob ta in in g rel ie f. Co x v. Kr ue ge r , N o

. 17 -1 09 9, 20 17 W L 47 06 89 8, at *4 (C.D. Ill

. Oct. 1 9, 2 01 7)

.

The Cen tra l Dis t r ic t va cat ed Co x’s ACCA-e nh an ced se nt en ces , Co un ts Fi ve

an d Eig ht

, an d or de red th at Co x be de li ve red to th e W es te rn Dis tri ct fo r res en te nc in g.

Co x , 20 17 W L 47 06 89 8 at *6

. The W es te rn Dis tri ct or de red an up da te d pr es en te nc e

in ve st ig at io n rep or t (“ PSR” ). The PSR cal cu la te d a to ta l of fen se l e v e l of 30

, a

cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI, an d a res ul ti ng gu i d e l i n e s ran ge of 16 8 to 21 0

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. The W es te rn Dis tri ct co nd uc te d a de no vo res en te nc in g. It

res en te nc ed Co x on Co u n t s Fi ve an d Eig ht , t he co un ts fo r whi ch th e se nt en ces ha d

be en va cat ed

, an d it al so res en te nc ed Co x on th e rem ai ni ng co un ts of hi s in di ct m en t

fo r a t ot al sen te nc e o f 96 6 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

Thi s cas e is in an od d pr oc ed ur al po st ur e be cau se th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct gr an te d

Co x § 22 41 rel ie f bu t th en or de red th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct co nd uc t th e res en te nc in g,

ra t h e r t h an do so it se lf. The Gov ern m en t di d no t ap pe al th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct ’s

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-de ci si on , an d th e W es te rn Dis tri ct was le ft wit h th e un fo rtu na te t as k of co nd uc ti ng

a res en te nc in g acco rd in g to an or de r fro m th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct th at is in te ns io n wit h

ou r m an da te s affi rm in g th e se nt en ce an d de nyin g Co x’s ap pl ic at io n fo r le av e to fil e

a su cces si ve § 22 55 m ot io n. Unl es s on e of ou r m an da t es co nt ai ns “ ex pl ic it or

im pl ic it in st ru ct io ns to ho ld fu rth er p ro ceed in gs , a di st ric t co ur t h as no au th or it y to

re-e xa m in e an is su e se tt le d by a hi gh er co ur t.” Beth ea v. Levi St ra us s & Co

. , 91 6

F.2 d 45 3, 45 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). Here, th e W es te rn Dis tri ct di d no t re-e xa m in e an is su e

de ci de d by th is co ur t be cau se th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct gr an te d th e § 22 41 r e li ef an d th e

W es te rn Dis tri ct mer el y co nd uc te d a res en te nc in g co ns is te nt wit h th e Cen tra l

Dis tri ct ’s o rd er. Bec au se th e W es te rn Dis tri ct ’s res en te nc e is no t i nc on si st en t wit h

ou r or de rs no r is it in co ns is te nt wit h 28 U.S.C. § 22 43

, whi ch al lo ws a co ur t he ari ng

a § 22 41 ha be as cl ai m to “ di sp o s e o f t h e mat te r as la w an d jus ti ce req ui re,” we

co nc lu de th e W es te rn Dis tri ct ha d au th or it y to co nd uc t th e res en te nc in g as it di d he re.

In ad di ti on , pr in ci pl es of co or di na te juri sd ic ti on do no t ba r th e res en te nc in g as

Co x arg ue s. W he n ou r di st ric t co ur ts rece iv e an o r d e r p u rp or ti ng to co nf er

res en te nc in g juri sd ic ti on , t he y are no t ob li ga te d t o a gr ee wi th an ot he r di st ric t co ur t

th at a de fen da nt is en ti tl ed to rel ie f. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Aug in as h

, 26 6 F.3 d 78 1, 78 4
(8 t h C i r

. 20 01 ) (s ta ti ng th at gi vi ng pr eced en ti al weig ht to di st ric t co ur t op in io ns is

di sc ret io na ry ); 21 C.J .S. Co ur ts § 25 3 (“ Co ur ts of [co or di na te ] juri sd ic ti on are co ur ts

of eq ua l di gn it y as to th e m at te rs co nc ur ren tl y co gn iz ab le

, ne it he r ha vi ng su pe rv is or y

po wer ov er th e ot he r.”). The W es te rn Dis tri ct in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd an d

de te rm in ed Co x’s res en te nc e. W e se e no is su e wit h co or di na te juri sd ic ti on whe re th e

W es te rn Dis tri ct vo lu nt ari ly resen te nc ed Co x.

Co x arg ue s t ha t th e W es te rn Dis tri ct erro ne ou sl y co nd uc te d a de no vo

res en te nc in g. He cl ai m s th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct “ ex ceed ed th e sc op e of th e gr an t

of § 22 41 rel ie f” by res en te nc in g Co x on al l of th e co un ts

, in st ead of jus t Co un ts Fi ve

an d Eig ht

. Bu t ev en if we as su m e th at th e sc op e of th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct ’s or de r bo un d

th e W es te rn Dis tri ct

, th e W es te rn Dis tri ct di d no t ex ceed th e sc op e of th e or de r. The

-3

-Cen tra l Dis tri ct ’s or de r sa id th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct sh ou ld co ns id er whe th er Uni te d

St at es v. Rive ra , 32 7 F.3 d 61 2 (7 th Ci r. 20 03 ), ex te nd s to Co x’s cas e. In Rive ra , th e

Sev en th Ci rcu it de ci de d th at res en t e n c i n g a de fen da nt on a co un t th at was no t

ch al le ng ed on ap pe al do es no t vi ol at e th e Dou bl e J eo pa rd y Cl au se be cau se a

de f e n d a n t “ ha s no le gi ti m at e ex pe ct at io n of fin al it y in an y di sc ret e po rti on of th e

se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e aft er a pa rti al ly su cces sf ul ap pe al .” Ri v e r a , 32 7 F.3 d at 61 4
(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. In ot he r wor ds

, th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct in te nd ed th at

th e W es te rn Dis tri ct co ns id er wh e t h er it co ul d res en te nc e Co x on th e en ti re

se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e.

Co x ne xt arg ue s th at th e Dou b l e J e o p ard y Cl au se al lo wed res en te nc in g on ly

on Co un ts Fi ve an d Eig ht

, th e fo rm erl y ACCA-e nh an ced co un ts

, be cau se th ey were

th e on ly se nt en ces th e Cen tra l Di st ric t va cat ed an d be cau se Co x ha d “ fu ll y

di sc ha rg ed ” hi s ot he r se nt en ces

. W e rev ie w do ub le jeop ard y is su es de no vo

. Uni te d

St at es v. Oko li e , 3 F.3 d 28 7, 28 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). We h a v e h e ld th at “ res en te nc in g

on th e se rv ed po rti on of

. . . two in te rd ep en de nt se nt en ce s d o e s no t vi ol at e do ub le

jeop ard y .” Uni te d St at es v. Alt on , 12 0 F.3 d 11 4, 11 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ). A pr is on er who

co ll at eral ly at ta ck s a po rti on of a jud gm en t reo pe ns th e en ti re jud gm en t “ an d can no t

se le ct iv el y craf

t th e m an ne r in whi ch th e co ur t co rrec ts th at jud gm en t.” Id

. Thu s, th e

W es te rn Dis tri ct di d no t vi ol at e th e Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl au se whe n it res en te nc ed Co x

on all co un ts

.

Fi na ll y , Co x arg ue s th at th e W es te rn Dis tri c t c o ns id ered im pr op er fact or s,

fai le d to ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n it s sen te nc e, an d im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

se nt en ce. Fi rs t, we fin d no pr oc ed ur al erro r

. Th e W es te rn Dis tri ct ad eq ua te ly

ex pl ai ne d it s se nt en ce. Se e Gal l v. Uni te d St at es , 5 52 U.S. 3 8

, 5 1 (2 00 7)

. It no te d

Co x’s hi st or y of “ de st ru ct iv e” an d “ vi ol en t” co nd uc t as well as th e “ rep et it iv e na tu re”

of hi s offe ns es . The co ur t al so co m m en te d on Co x’s “ la ck of wil li ng ne ss to refo rm [h is ] co nd uc t u po n s en te nc e aft er s en te nc e.”

-4

-Seco nd

, th e se nt en ce, al th ou gh lo ng , was no t su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

. W e

rev ie w th e reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce for an abu se of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v.

Jen ki ns , 75 8 F.3 d 10 46

, 10 50 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n

whe n it (1 ) fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t f a c t o r th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t

w e i g h t ; (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ; or ( 3 )

co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a cl ear

e r ro r of jud gm en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Feems te r , 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 9 )

(in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

The W es te rn Dis tri ct co ns id ered th e ap pr op ria te 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fact or s.

Co x ci te s no th in g in th e re c o r d t o su pp or t hi s arg um en t th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct

im pr op erl y rel ie d on th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng de ci si on

. Se e Si ng er v. Har ri s , 89 7 F.3 d

97 0, 98 0 (“ W e can no t te ll whe th er th e di st ric t co ur t e r r e d i n a ru li ng if [Ap pe ll an t]

do es no t di rect us to a pl ace in th e reco rd whe re we can fin d it

. . . .”). Nev ert he le ss , th e di ss en t arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t in pa rt “ jus ti fie d” it s se nt en ce ba se d on th e

or ig in al li fe se nt en ce im

po se d in 19 90

. Pos t

, at 7. The di st ric t co ur t no te d th at Co x’s

co nd uc t, the na tu re of his cri m es , th e rep et it iv e na tu re of his cri m es , and hi s l ack of

wil li ng ne s s t o r efo rm hi s co nd uc t “ up on se nt en ce aft er se nt en ce ex hi bi ts th at th e

i n te nt io n of Ju dg e Hun te r in se nt en ci ng [h im ] in it ia ll y to a li fe se nt en c e w a s a

reas on ab le an d ap pr op ria te de te rm in at io n an d th at an ex te ns iv e an d le ng th y se nt en ce

is ap pr op ria te .” W e do no t th in k th e di st ric t co ur t’s co m m en t in di cat es th at it

jus ti fie d it s se nt en ce ba se d on th e or ig in al se nt en ce. Rat he r, th e d i s t r i c t co ur t

ob se rv ed th at it s own reas on in g was co ns is te nt wit h th at of th e or ig in al se nt en ci ng jud ge

.

Co x’s fu rth er arg um en t th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct pl aced to o gr eat an em ph as is

on hi s cri m in al hi st or y al so fai ls

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Th or ne , 89 6 F.3 d 86 1 (8 th Ci r.

20 18 ) (h ol d i n g t ha t th e “ co ns id erat io n of [th e de fen da nt ’s] cri m in al hi st or y an d

li ke li ho od to reci di va te was no t erro r”). Fi na ll y , Co x arg ue s th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct

ab us ed it s di sc ret io n by no t co ns id eri ng hi s po st -o ffen se reh ab il it at io n, fam il y ne ed s,

-5

-an d hi s ag e. Bu t Co x arg ue d hi s fam il y ne ed s in hi s se nt en ci n g memo ran du m an d

rai se d hi s reh ab il it at io n arg um en t at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , an d th e W es te rn Dis tri ct

reco gn iz ed th at Co x was at a n “ ad va nc ed ag e” at th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng . Thu s, we

pr es um e th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct co ns id e red th es e fact or s. Se e Uni te d St at es v.

Ti mbe rl ak

e , 67 9 F.3 d 10 08

, 1 0 1 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (p res um in g th at th e di st ric t co ur t

co ns id ered m it ig at in g fact or s wh e r e th e de fen da nt rai se d th em in hi s se nt en ci ng

m em or an du m a n d a t th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng ). The W es te rn Dis tri ct ad eq ua te ly

ex pl ai ne d it s se nt en ce an d pr op erl y co ns id ered th e ap pr op ria te fact or s. Thu s, we fin d

no pro ced ur al or s ub st an ti ve erro r in th e res en te nc e. 2

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we af fir m

.

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I ag ree wit h th e co ur t th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct ha d th e au th or it y to res en te nc e

Co x fo ll owi ng th e Cen tra l Dis tri ct ’s va cat ur of hi s l i fe se nt en ces as il le ga l. And I

ag ree th at un de r ou r pr eced en ts

, th e W es te rn Di s t r i c t was au th or iz ed to un bu nd le

Co x’s se nt en ci ng pa ck ag e an d res en te nc e hi m on al l co un ts

. S e e U n i t ed St at es v.

McArt hu r, 85 0 F.3 d 92 5, 94 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (rejec ti ng th e arg um en t th at un bu nd li ng

is pe rm is si bl e “ on ly whe n th e va cat ur of on e co nv ic ti on pe rm it s th e di st ric t cou rt at

re se nte nc ing to ap pl y a ne w en ha nc em en t un de r th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ”);

Alt on , 12 0 F.3 d at 11 6 (h ol di ng th at th e Dou bl e Je op ard y Cl au se is no t im pl ic at ed by

res en te nc in g on th e se rv ed po rti on of a se nt en ce to whi ch a ne w en ha nc em en t ap pl ie s

du e to th e va cat ur of an ot he r co nv ic ti on ). Bu t in m y vi ew, t h e s e n t e n ce th at th e

W es te rn Dis tri ct im

po se d was su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

.

Co x arg ue s th at th e W es te rn Dis tri ct erre d in de nyin g hi s Ru le 35 (a) m ot io n. 2

“ W e rev ie w qu es ti on s of la w pr es en te d in Ru le 35 m ot io ns de no vo .” Uni te d St at es

v. Jet t

, 78 2 F.3 d 10 50

, 10 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). In th at m ot io n, C o x mad e t h e sa m e

arg um en ts ad dr es se d th ro ug ho ut th is op in io n. Thu s, th e W es te rn Dis tri ct di d no t err in de nyin g t he m ot io n.

-6

-W he n Co x was or ig in al ly se nt en ced in 19 90

, th e PSR cal cu la te d a m an da to ry

G ui de li ne s ran ge of 36 0 m on th s’ to li fe im pr is on m en t, an d th e W es te rn Dis tri c t

im po se d a wit hi n- Gui de li ne s li fe se nt en ce on s e v e r a l co un ts

. W he n he was

res en te nc ed in 20 18 , t he up da t ed PSR cal cu la te d a reco m m en de d Gui de li ne s ran ge

of 16 8 to 21 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t, an d th e W es te rn Dis tri ct va rie d up ward s fro m

th e to p of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge b y 7 5 6 mo n t hs to im po se a to ta l se nt en ce of 96 6

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. In su pp or t of th is se nt en ce, th e W es te rn Dis tri ct ci te d Co x’s

“ le ng th y an d e xt en si ve cri m in al hi st or y ,” hi s “ ex tre m el y de st ru ct iv e co nd uc t, so m e

of whi ch was vi ol en t in na tu re,” hi s “ la ck of wil li ng ne ss to refo rm [h is ] co nd uc t,” an d

th e o rig in al jud ge ’s “ in te nt io n . . . in sen te nc in g [C ox ] in it ia ll y to a li fe s en te nc e.”

Bec au se th e 96 6- m on th se nt en ce is ou ts id e th e Gui de l i ne s ran ge , we do no t

pr es um e th at it is reas on ab le

. See Uni te d St at es v. Mo ral ez, 80 8 F.3d 36 2, 36 8 (8t h

Ci r. 20 15 ). W he n co ns id eri ng th e se nt en ce’s reas on ab le ne ss , we “ co ns id er th e ex te nt

of th e de vi at io n” fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge , whi le gi vi ng “ du e de fere n c e t o th e

di st ric t co ur t’s” weig hi ng of th e st at ut or y se nt en ci ng fact or s. Id

. (q uo ti ng Gall

, 55 2

U.S. at 5 1)

.

The up ward va ria nc e im

po se d by th e W es te rn Dis tri ct is a 36 0- pe rcen t in crea se

ov er th e to p of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge an d tra ns fo rm s wha t wou ld ha ve be en a se nt en ce

o f t i me s erv ed to an effe ct iv e li fe se nt en ce. The W es te rn Dis tri ct jus ti fie d th is 63

-

y ear va ria nc e ba se d, in pa rt, on an im pr op er fact or

—t he or ig in al l i f

e s en te nc e

im po se d in 19 90

. Sect io n 35 53 (a) do es no t cal l fo r co ns id erat io n of a d e fen da nt ’s

o rig in al se nt en ce, an d fo r go od reas on : Co x’s or ig in al se nt en ce was ba se d o n

st at ut or y m an da to r y mi ni m um s an d a m an da to ry Gui de li ne s ran ge th at no lo ng er

ap pl y

. See Uni te d St at es v. Tid well

, 82 7 F.3 d 76 1, 76 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (ex pl ai ni ng

3

Orig in al ly, C o x w a s se nt en ced to li fe im pr is on m en t on th ree co un ts

. His 3

co nv ic ti on on on e of th os e co un ts was su bs eq ue nt ly va cat ed by th is co ur t. See Co x, 94 2 F.2 d at 12 84 –8 6. The rem ai ni ng two co un ts were su bjec t to th e ACCA’s 15 -y ear

m an da to ry m in im

um se nt en ce. Afte r Jo hn so n v. Uni te d St at es , 13 5 S. Ct

. 25 51

-7

-th at whe n res en te nc in g a de fen da nt un de r § 22 55

, th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ap pl y “ th e

gu id el in es in effe ct at th e ti m e of res en te nc in g, no t at th e ti m e of th e or ig in al

se nt en ci ng ”). By co ns id eri ng Co x’s or ig in al se nt en ce at res en te nc in g, t he W es te rn

Dis tri ct im

po rte d i na pp li cab le st at ut es an d Gu id el in es in to th e n ew se nt en ce.

The rem ai ni ng fact or s co ns id ered by th e W es te rn Dis tri ct were pr op er, bu t th ey

do no t pr ov id e th e “ si gn ifi can t jus ti fic at io n” ne ces sa ry to su pp or t su ch a su bs ta nt ia l

va ria nc e ab ov e th e reco m m en de d Gui de li ne s ran ge , Gall

, 55 2 U.S. at 50

, es pe ci al ly

whe n Co x ha s de m on s t r a te d po st -o ffen se reh ab il it at io n by m ai nt ai ni ng a cl ean

di sc ip li na ry reco rd in pr is on fo r ne arl y th ree de cad es , am on g ot he r th in gs

. See Uni te d

St at es v. Mi ch ael

, 90 9 F.3 d 99 0, 99 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (p er cu ria m ) (v acat in g a se nt en ce

th at was 96 6 pe rcen t ab ov e th e rev oc at io n G u i d el in es ran ge as su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le whe n th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai n th e va ria nc e an d m ay

no t ha ve be en “ su ffi ci en tl y in fo rm ed ” ab ou t th e cas e); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Aleo

, 68 1 F.3 d 29 0, 30 2 (6 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (v acat in g a se nt en ce th at w a s 14 5 pe rcen t ab ov e

th e G uid el ine s ra

nge as subs tant iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se “ th e jus ti fic at io ns of fere d

by th e di st ric t co ur t d[ id ] no t su pp or t th e en or m ou s va ria nc e”); cf., e.g ., Uni te d St at es

v. Es p in oz a, 83 1 F.3 d 10 96

, 10 98 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (co nc lu di ng th at th e de fen da nt ’s

“ hi gh ris k of

re-o ffen di ng ” an d “ th e n eed to pr ot ect th e pu bl ic ” jus ti fie d a se nt en ce

12 pe rcen t ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ); Mo ral ez, 80 8 F.3 d a t 36 8– 69 (co nc lu di ng

th at th e “ br ead th of [th e] cri m in al en te rp ris e” an d t he de fen da nt ’s “ pr im ary” rol e in

th e en te rp ris e jus ti fie d a se nt en ce 25 pe rcen t ab ov e th e Gui de li ne s ran ge ). Bec au se

th e W es te rn Dis tri ct im

po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce, I wou ld rem an d

th e cas e to th e Weste rn Dis tri ct for res en te nc in g.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

(2 01 5) , t he ACCA no lo ng er ap pl ie d a nd th e st at ut or y m ax im um se nt en ce on th os e

two co un ts fel l t o 1 0 years. Co x’s Gu id el in es ran ge was a ls o l owe r at res en te nc in g be cau se he no lo ng er qu al ifi ed as a care er offen de r an d bec au se of ot he r ch an ge s in

th e Gui de li ne s.

-8

-