FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ug. 7, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 15022 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 5 7 - CR- 3 - M CR U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s D A V I D I S A I A H R O G E R S , a .k .a . R a in , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 7, 2008) B efo re M A R C U S , W IL S O N an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D a v id I s a ia h R o g e r s ap p e a ls h is 2 3 6 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rc o n s p ir a c y to di stri bu t e and po ss es s w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e 1, 00 0 k i l og ra m s or m ore of a m i xtur e a nd s ubs t a nc e c ont a i ni ng ade t e c t abl e a m ountof m a r i j ua na , i n vi ol a t i on of 2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ii) a n d 8 4 6 . R o g e r s m a k e s s e v e r a l a r g u m e n ts on appeal . F i rs t , R og er s c on t es t s the am ou ntof drug s t o w hi ch the di stri ctcourt h e ld h im a c c o u n tab le , a n d h e a ls o a s s e rts th a t th e c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e “to ta lly excl ud ed” the am ou ntof cocai ne fr om hi s off ense l evel ca l cul at i on , i m po se d as re lev an t co n d u ct, b ec au se R o g er s p ro v id ed th e in fo rm atio n ab o u t th e c o n sp irac y’s c oc a i ne i nvol ve m e ntt o l a w e nf or c e m e nta ge nt s . S e c ond, R oge r s a r gue s tha tthe c ourtc l e a r l y e rr e d by f

i ndi ng tha the c om m i tt e d the i ns t a ntof f e ns e w hi l e on pr oba t i on. T hi r d, R oge r s c ont e s t s the c ourt ’ s appl i c a t i on of a n obs truc t i on of ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t a n d its d e n ia l o f r e d u c tio n s f

o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility a n d s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. F o u rth , R o g e r s a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f

o rth m o r e f

u lly b e lo w , w e a f

f irm . I. W e r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr orthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i on of

the drug qua nt i ty f

orw hi c h R oge r s i s a c c ount abl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “F o raf a c tu a l f in d in g to b e ‘c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s ,’ w e, ‘ af t erre vi ew i ng al l of the evi dence, m ustbe l ef tw i th a defi ni t e and fi rm3

c onvi c t i on tha tam i s t a ke ha s be e n c om m i tt e d. ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R o d r ig u e z - L o p e z , 3 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . B ec ause R og er s argues f or the fi rs tt i m e thatthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed § 1B 1. 8, w e r e vi e w tha ti s s ue onl y f orpl a i n e rr or . “ A n appe l l a t e c ourtm a y not co rrectan erro r th e d efen d an tfai l ed t o rai se i n th e d i stri ctco u rtu n l ess th ere i s: ( 1) e rr or , ( 2) tha ti s pl a i n, a nd ( 3) tha ta f f e c t s s ubs t a nt i a l r i ght s . ” R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d at12 98 (quo t at i on and ci t at i on om i tt ed). “ If al l three cond i t i on s are m et , an ap p e lla te c o u rt m a y th e n e x e r c is e its d is c r e tio n to n o tic e af o r f e ite d e rr o r , b u t o n ly i f ( 4) the e rr ors e r i ous l y a f f e c t s the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” I d . R oge r s ’ s a r gum e nttha the i s r e s pons i bl e f orl e s s tha n 1, 000 ki l ogr a m s of m ar i j uana i s w i tho utm er i ti n l i gh tof the fa ctthathe adm i tt ed du ri ng hi s pl ea he a r i ng a nd i n hi s w r i tt e n a nd s i gne d pl e aa gr e e m e nttha the w a s r e s pons i bl e f or m o r e th a n 1 ,0 0 0 k ilo g r a m s o f m a r iju a n a . I n h is b r ie f o n ap p e a l, h e a g a in a c know l e dge s tha the pl e d gui l ty t o i nvol ve m e ntw i th ove r1, 000 ki l ogr a m s of m a r i j ua na . T hus , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d note rrby hol di ng R oge r s a c c ount abl e f or a n a m ountof

m a r i j ua natha tw a s c ons i s t e ntw i th, a nd, i n thi s c a s e , l e s s tha n, the a m ountt o w hi c h he a dm i tt e d. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l s on, 884 F . 2d 1355, 1356 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ [ t ] he f i ndi ngs of

f a c tof the s e nt e nc i ng c ourtm a y be4

b ased o n ev i d en ce h eard d u ri n g tri al , fact s ad m i tt ed b y a d efen d an t ’ s p l ea o f g u i l ty, undi s put e d s t a t e m e nt s i n the pr e s e nt e nc e r e port , ore vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d a tthe s e n te n c in g h e a r in g ” ) . E ve n though R oge r s a dm i tt e d t o be i ng r e s pons i bl e f ora tl e a s t1, 000 ki l ogr a m s of

m a r i j ua na , the di s tr i c tc ourthe l d hi m a c c ount abl e f oral e s s e ra m ount of m ar i j uana. S peci fi ca l l y, the courtfoun d thatR og er s w as ac coun t abl e f or a t ot al of 1, 067. 7 ki l ogr a m s of

m a r i j ua na , w hi c h c ons i s t e d of 911 ki l ogr a m s of

m a r i j ua na a n d 1 5 6 .7 k ilo g r a m s o f

m a r iju a n a - e q u iv a le n t c o c a in e . A lth o u g h th e c h a r g e to w hi c h R oge r s pl e d gui l ty di d nots pe c i f y c oc a i ne i nvol ve m e nt , the r e c or d, n o n e th e le s s , s u p p o rts th e c o u rt’s f in d in g w ith r e s p e c t to th e a m o u n t o f c o c a in e . C o- c ons pi r a t orJ ohn M i kha e l t e s t i f i e d tha the s ol d R oge r s 125 gr a m s of coca i ne on 4 o cc as i on s f or a t ot al of 50 0 g ra m s, and 1 ou nce on 1 0 o cc as i on s f or a to ta l o f 2 8 3 .5 g r a m s . A lth o u g h R o g e r s te s tif ie d th a t J o h n M ik h a e l p r o v id e d h im onl y tw o ounc e s of

c oc a i ne , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de t e rm i na t i on t o c r e di tJ ohn M i kha e l ’ s t e s t i m ony w a s w i thi n i t s e xc l us i ve pr ovi nc e . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 480 F . 3d 1277, 1280- 81 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 128 S . C t . 175 ( 2007) ( appl y i ng the pr i nc i pl e tha tc r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i ons a r e the e xc l us i ve pr ovi nc e of th e f a c t f in d e r ) . T h e b o ttle o f

in o s ito l a n d th e je w e le r ’s b a g g ie s th a t w e r e f o u n d in R o g e r s ’s r e s id e n c e d u r in g as e a r c h c o rr o b o r a te d th e c o u rt’s f in d in g s .5

S i gn i fi cant l y, the courtl i m i t ed i t s f i nd i ng t o tho se am ou nt s of c ocai ne thatw er e di r e c t l y a ttr i but abl e t o R oge r s . S e e U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 3, c om m e nt . ( n. 2) ( s pe c i f y i ng th a t in ac a s e in v o lv in g d ru g s , th e c o n s p ir a to r ’s r e le v a n t c o n d u c t in c lu d e s a m o u n ts di r e c t l y a ttr i but abl e t o the c ons pi r a t ora nd “ a l l r e a s onabl y f or e s e e abl e qua nt i t i e s of [drugs] thatw er e w i thi n the sc op e of the cr i m i nal ac t i vi ty that[the conspi ra t or] jo in tl y u n d er to o k ”) . T h u s, th e c o u rt d idn o t clear ly er r in fin d in g th at R o g er s’s

“ re l evantcond uct ” f

or pu rposes of ca l cul at i ng hi s bas e off ense l evel i ncl ud ed 1 5 6 . 7 k i l o g r a m s o f

m a r i j u a n ab a s e d o n 7 8 3 . 5 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e . S e e U. S . S . G. § 1 B 1 .3 & c o m m e n t. ( n .2 ) ; R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 da t 1 2 9 6 . F i nal l y, R og er s’ s argum entconcerni ng § 1 B 1. 8(a) i s w i tho utm er i tfor a t l e a s ttw o r e a s ons . F i r s t , the gove rnm e ntw a s e nt i t l e d t o r e voke the pl e aa gr e e m e nt b ased u p o n R o g ers’ s u n tru th fu l t est i m o n y ab o u tth e co cai n e. B ecau se cau se e x is te d f o rr e v o c a tio n o f

th e a g r e e m e n t, th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s n o t r e q u ir e d to w ith h o ld R o g e r s ’s s ta te m e n ts c o n c e rn in g th e c o n s p ir a c y ’s in v o lv e m e n t w ith c oc a i ne . S e e U . S . S . G . § 1B 1. 8( a ) . S e c ond, a l though R oge r s pr ovi de d i nf orm a t i on ab o u t th e c o n sp irac y’s c o ca in e in v o lv em en t, th e r ec o rd re flec ts th at R o g er s’s “in f o rm a tio n ” c o n f

irm e d in f o rm a tio n th a t w a s a lr e a d y k n o w n b y th e au th o r itie s . T hu s, i nform at i on thatthe conspi ra t ors w er e i nv ol ved w i th cocai ne w as ob t ai ned f r o m in d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e s . S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . P h a m , 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 9 , 1 2 4 4 ( 1 1 thRog ers ’ssix- month probatio na ry sentenc efo r his 2 00 5 pos se ssi on of mari jua na state 1 conviction was imposed on January 1, 2005, and expired on Jul y 3, 2005. 6 C i r . 2006) ( c onc l udi ng tha t , “ s o l ong a s the i nf orm a t i on i s obt a i ne d f

r om i nd ependentsource s or s epar at el y gl eaned from codefendant s, i tm aybe used at se nt enci ng w i tho utvi ol at i ng § 1 B 1. 8”). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr, m uch l es s pl ai nl y e rr , by fa i l i ng t o sua spon t e f i nd a vi ol at i on of § 1 B 1. 8(a) . II . W hen the defendantobj ec t s t o h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s i n the di stri ct c ourt , w e r e vi e w the c ourt ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f orc l e a re rr ora nd i t s appl i c a t i on of the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s t o thos e f a c t s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P hi l l i ps , 413 F . 3d 12 88 , 12 92 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). T he S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i ns truc ttha ttw o poi nt s a r e a dde d t o the d efen d an t ’ s cri m i n al h i st o ry sco re “ i f th e d efen d an tco m m i tt ed th e i n st an to ffen se w hi l e und erany c ri m i nal j ust i ce se nt ence , i ncl ud i ng prob at i on , parol e, [or] supervi se d rel ea se . . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(d). T he C om m ent ary r ei t er at es that

“ [t ] w o p o i n t s are ad d ed i f th e d efen d an tco m m i tt edan y p arto f th e i n st an to ffen se ( i . e . , a ny r e l e va ntc onduc t ) w hi l e unde ra ny c r i m i na l j us t i c e s e nt e nc e , i nc l udi ng prob at i on , parol e, [or] supervi se d rel ea se . . . . ” I d. , com m ent . (n. 4). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e a r l y e rrby f i ndi ng tha tR oge r s c om m i tt e d the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e w hi l e he w a s on pr oba t i on. T he c ourt ’ s f i ndi ng w a s c ons i s t e nt 1The plea agreement ’s factual basis specifie d that Rogers par ticipated in the conspiracy 2 duringthe time fra

me allege d in the i ndictment. The indi ctment s pecif ied that the “time frame”was between J anuar

y 2004 and April 5, 2007. We note that, in his brief, Rogers acknowledg es that he w as “involved”in the conspiracy 3 duringthe time he wa s on probation. 7 w i th R oge r s ’ s gui l ty pl e aand hi s a dm i s s i on t o the f a c tua l ba s i s c ont a i ne d i n the w r i tt e n pl e aa gr e e m e nt , w hi c h R oge r s a l s o s i gne d. N one the l e s s , a s i de f r om 2 R oge r s ’ s ow n a dm i s s i ons , othe re vi de nc e a l s o s upport s R oge r s ’ s i nvol ve m e nt dur i ng tha tt i m e . S pe c i f i c a l l y , the c ourtc r e di t e d J ohn M i kha e l ’ s t e s t i m ony tha the b eg an p ro v i d i n g R o g ers w i th m ari j u an a so m et i m e i n 2 0 0 4 . A cco rd i n g l y, b ecau se R o g e r s c o m m itte d th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e w h ile h e w a s o n p r o b a tio n , th e c o u rt p r o p e r ly added tw o p oi nt s t o R og er s’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory s core . S ee U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(d). 3 II I. A . S a f e ty - V a l ve W e r e vi e w f

orc l e a re rr oradi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f a c tua l de t e rm i na t i ons t o gr a nt s a f e ty - v a lv e r e lie f

. U n ite d S ta te s v . C ru z , 1 0 6 F .3 d 1 5 5 3 , 1 5 5 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h e G u i d el i n es’ “ safety-v al v e” p ro v i si o n p erm i t s th e d i stri ctco u rtt o i m p o se as e n te n c e b e lo w as ta tu to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e if it f in d s th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t m e e ts th e f i v e r e q u i r e me n t s s e tf

o rth i n U . S. S. G . § 5 C1 . 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) - ( 5 ) . Se e a l s o 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) ( 1 ) - ( 5 ) ( s a m e ) . T h e e lig ib ility r e q u ir e m e n t r e le v a n t to th e in s ta n t c a s e is that“ the defendantdo es no thave m ore than [on e] cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt. . . . ”8

U . S . S . G . § 5 C 1. 2(a) (1); se e a l so 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) (1) ( sa m e) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rrbecause R og er s i s i n el i g i b l e fo r safetyval ve re l i ef

i n l i gh tof the fa ctthathe has three cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s. S ee U .S .S .G . § 5 C 1 .2 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) ( 1 ) . B . O bstruct i on of Just i ce Wh e n as e n t e n c i n g e n h a n c e m e n tf o ro b s tru c t i o n o f

j u s t i c e i s i m p o s e d , we r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs f orc l e a re rr ora nd i t s appl i c a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s t o thos e f

a c t s de novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M a s s e y , 443 F . 3d 814, 818 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . S ec t i on 3C 1. 1 o f the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes provi des f or a tw o-l evel s e n te n c e e n h a n c e m e n t: I f ( A ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w illf

u lly o b s tru c te d o rim p e d e d , o ra tte m p te d to obs truc tori m pe de , the a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e w i th r e s pe c tt o the i nve s t i ga t i on, pr os e c ut i on, ors e nt e nc i ng of the i ns t a ntof

f e ns e of c onvi c t i on, a nd ( B ) the obs truc t i ve c onduc tr e l a t e d t o ( i ) the defe nd ant ’ s off

ense of conv i ct i on and any rel evantcond uct ; or (i i ) a c lo s e ly r e la te d o f

f e n s e . . . . U .S .S .G . § 3 C 1 .1 . A ppl i c a t i on N ot e 4 i n the C om m e nt a ry pr ovi de s a“ non- e xhaus t i ve l i s tof e x a m p le s o f

th e typ e s o f

c o n d u c t to w h ic h th is a d ju s tm e n t ap p lie s .” I d ., c o m m e n t. ( n. 4) . S om e e xa m pl e s t o w hi c h the e nha nc e m e ntappl i e s i nc l ude , “ c om m i tt i ng, su b o rn i n g , o r att em p t i n g t o su b o rn p erj u ry” an d “ p ro v i d i n g m at eri al l y fal se9

i nf orm a t i on t o aj udge orm a gi s tr a t e . ” I d. , c om m e nt . ( n. 4( b) , ( f ) ) . “ P e r j ury , f or p u rp o s e s o f

ap p l y i n g [ § 3 C1 . 1 ] , h a s b e e n d e f i n e d b y th e U n i t e d St a t e s Su p r e me C o u rt a s ‘f

a ls e te s tim o n y c o n c e rn in g am a te r ia l m a tte rw ith th e w illf u l in te n t to p r o v id e f a ls e te s tim o n y , r a th e rth a n a s ar e s u lt o f c o n f u s io n , m is ta k e , o rf

au lty m e m ory . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S i ngh, 291 F . 3d 756, 763 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D unni ga n, 507 U . S . 87, 94, 113 S . C t . 1111, 1116, 122 L . E d. 2d 445 ( 1993) ) . “ M a t e r i a l ” e vi de nc e “ m e a ns e vi de nc e , f a c t , s t a t e m e nt , ori nf

orm a t i on that , i f bel i eved, w ou l d t end t o i nfl uence or af fe ctthe i ss ue un der det erm i nat i on . ” U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1, com m ent . (n. 6). T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rri n app l yi ng the ob struct i on of j ust i ce e nha nc e m e nt . J ohn M i kha e l t e s t i f i e d tha the s ol d R oge r s c oc a i ne “ on s om e 14 o c c a s io n s .” R o g e r s in itia lly d e n ie d a n y in v o lv e m e n t w ith c o c a in e a n d th e n , a t h is se nt enci ng hear i ng , adm i tt ed t o o nl y tw o o cc as i on s i n w hi ch John M i kh ae l “f r o n te d h im ” c o c a in e . C r e d itin g J o h n M ik h a e l’s te s tim o n y , a s w a s w ith in its pr ovi nc e t o do s o, the c ourtf ound tha tR oge r s ha d f

a l s e l y de ni e d hi s i nvol ve m e nt w ith th e c o c a in e - p a rt o f th e c o n s p ir a c y . T h u s , b e c au s e th e is s u e o f d ru g q u a n tity w as m at er i al t o R og er s’ s G ui del i nes off ense l evel ca l cul at i on , and b ec ause R og er s prov i ded fal se t es t i m on y c on ce rni ng the m att er , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rr b y ap p l y i n g atwo - l e v e l e n h a n c e m e n tf o ro b s tru c t i o n o f

j u s t i c e . S e e U. S . S . G.10

§ 3C 1. 1 & c om m e nt . ( n. 4( b) , ( f ) ; n. 6) ; S i ngh, 291 F . 3d a t763. C . A c c e p ta n c e o f

R e s p o n s ib ility W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e te rm in a tio n o f a c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility f o rc le a re rr o r . U n ite d S ta te s v . A m e d e o , 3 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . A d e f e n d a n t is e n title d to atw o - le v e l r e d u c tio n in h is o f f e n s e le v e l if

h e “c le a r ly d e m o n s tr a te s a c c e p ta n c e o f r e s p o n s ib ility f

o rh is o f f e n s e .” U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 ( a ) . A de f e nda nta c t s i n am a nne ri nc ons i s t e ntw i th a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty w he n he

“ fa l se l y deni es , or fr i vo l ou sl y c on t es t s, re l evantcond uctthatthe courtdet erm i nes to b e tru e .” I d ., c o m m e n t. ( n .1 ( a ) ) . A lth o u g h th e r e m a y b e e x tr a o r d in a ry c a s e s in w hi ch adj ustm ent s und erbo th § § 3 C 1. 1 (ob struct i on of j ust i ce ) and 3E 1. 1 m ay appl y , “ [ c ] onduc tr e s ul t i ng i n a n e nha nc e m e ntunde r§ 3C 1. 1 ( O bs truc t i ng or Im pedi ng the A dm i ni stra t i on of Just i ce ) ordi nari l y i nd i ca t es thatthe defendanthas nota c c e pt e d r e s pons i bi l i ty f orhi s c r i m i na l c onduc t . ” I d. , c om m e nt . ( n. 4) . “ T he s e nt e nc i ng j udge i s i n auni que pos i t i on t o e va l ua t e ade f e nda nt ’ s a c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty. F or thi s r ea son, the det erm i nat i on of the se nt enci ng j ud ge i s e nt i t l ed t o g re atdefe re nce on revi ew . ” I d. , com m ent . (n. 5). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notc l e a r l y e rri n i t s de ni a l of ar e duc t i on f

or a c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility b e c au s e R o g e r s h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a te d th a t h e is e nt i t l e d t o the r e duc t i on. A s m e nt i one d above , R oge r s obs truc t e d j us t i c e w he n he11

t es t i fi ed fa l se l y a thi s s ent enci ng hear i ng abou thi s i nv ol vem entw i th cocai ne. T hus , R oge r s a c t e d i n am a nne ri nc ons i s t e ntw i th a c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty , a nd no extra ordi naryci rc um st ance s e xi stthatw ou l d j ust i fyappl yi ng adj ustm ent s und er b o th § § 3 C 1 .1 a n d 3 E 1 .1 . S e e U .S .S .G . 3 E 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .1 ( a ) ; n .4 ) . I V.

“ ‘ I n r e vi e w i ng the ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e i m pos e d by the di s tr i c tc ourtf or r e a s onabl e ne s s , w e c ons i de rthe f i na l s e nt e nc e , i n i t s e nt i r e ty , i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s . ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a l nor , 451 F . 3d 744, 750 ( 11th C i r . 2006) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). T h e S u p rem e C o u rtrecen t l y cl ari fi ed th e reaso n ab l en ess s ta n d a r d a s ar e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . G a ll v . U n ite d S ta te s , 5 5 2 U .S . — , 12 8 S . C t . 58 6, 59 4, 16 9 L . E d. 2d 44 5 (20 07 ). T he di stri ctcourtm usti m po se a se nt ence thati s both p roce du ra l l y and subst ant i vel y r ea sonabl e. Id. 12 8 S . C t . at 5 9 7 . W h en rev i ew i n g th e sen t en ce fo r p ro ced u ral reaso n ab l en ess, w e m u st ensure thatthe di stri ctcourtcom m i tt ed no si gn i fi cantprocedural e rr or , s uc h a s f

a i l i ng t o c a l c ul a t e ( ori m pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t i ng) the G u id e lin e s r a n g e , tr e a tin g th e G u id e lin e s a s m a n d a to ry , f a ilin g to c o n s id e rth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s , s e le c tin g as e n te n c e b a s e d o n c le a r ly erroneou s f

ac t s, or fa i l i ng t o adequ at el y e xp l ai n the chosen s e nt e nc e - i nc l udi ng a n e xpl a na t i on f ora ny de vi a t i on f

r om the G ui del i nes r ange. I d . A se nt ence m aybe subst ant i vel y unrea sonabl e bec ause , i nt eral i a, (1) i tdo es12

“ no tac hi eve the pu rposes of se nt enci ng st at ed i n § 35 53 (a )” ; or (2) “ w e are l ef t w i th the de f

i ni t e a nd f

i rm c onvi c t i on tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtc om m i tt e d ac l e a re rr or of j ud gm enti n w ei gh i ng the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors by arr i vi ng ata s ent ence thatl i es ou t si de the ra ng e of r ea sonabl e s ent ence s di ct at ed by the fa ct s of the ca se . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . P u g h , 5 1 5 F .3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 9 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) .

“ G e ne r a l l y , w he n s e nt e nc i ng w i thi n the a dvi s ory G ui de l i ne s r a nge , the di s tr i c tc ourti s notr e qui r e d t o gi ve al e ngthy e xpl a na t i on f ori t s s e nt e nc e i f

the ca se i s typi ca l of tho se cont em pl at ed by the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on . ” U ni t ed S t a t e s v. L i ve s a y , 525 F . 3d 1081, 1090 ( 11th C i r . 2008) . H ow e ve r , the s e nt e nc i ng j ud ge shou l d “ se tforth eno ug h t o sat i sf y the appel l at e c ou rtthathe has c on si dere d the part i es ’ ar gu m ent s and has are as on ed basi s f or exerc i si ng hi s ow n l egal de c i s i onm a ki ng author i ty . ” R i t av. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 551 U . S . — , 127 S . C t . 2456, 2468, 168 L . E d. 2d 203 ( 2007) . A l though w e do notappl y apr e s um pt i on of re as on abl enes s, “ ordi nari l y w e w ou l d exp ec ta s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i nes rang e t o b e r ea sonabl e. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 2005) . T he pa rty c ha l l e ngi ng the r e a s onabl e ne s s of as e nt e nc e “ be a r s the bur de n of e s t abl i s hi ng tha tthe s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s onabl e i n the l i ghtof both [ the ] r e c or d a nd th e f a c to r s in s e c tio n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” I d . T he § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s i nc l ude : ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the13

offe nse and the hi st ory and char ac t er i st i cs of the defendant ; (2) the need t o ref l ec t the s e r i ous ne s s of

the of f e ns e , t o a f

f or d a de qua t e de t e rr e nc e , t o pr om ot e r e s pe c tf or th e la w , to p r o v id e ju s t p u n is h m e n t f o rth e o f f e n s e , to p r o te c t th e p u b lic , a n d to prov i de the defendantw i th n ee ded edu ca t i on al or vo ca t i on al tra i ni ng or m edi ca l c a r e ; ( 3) the ki nds of

s e nt e nc e s a va i l abl e ; ( 4) the a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge ; ( 5) p e rtin e n t S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n p o lic y s ta te m e n ts ; ( 6 ) th e n e e d to a v o id u n w a rr a n te d s e n te n c in g d is p a r itie s ; a n d ( 7 ) th e n e e d to p r o v id e r e s titu tio n to vi ct i m s. 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1)- (7). R og er s has no tdem on stra t ed thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e. T he di stri ct courtcorr ec t l y c al cul at ed R og er s’ s G ui del i nes r ange and w as no tre qu i re d t o g i ve a l en g th y ex p l an at i o n fo r i t s d eci si o n t o i m p o se a G u i d el i n es sen t en ce. S ee L i v esay, 525 F . 3d a t1090. N one the l e s s , the r e c or d r e f l e c t s tha tthe c ourtc ons i de r e d the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors i n d et erm i ni ng an approp ri at e s ent ence . R oge r s ’ s 236- m onth s e nt e nc e i s a tthe m i d- poi ntof the G ui de l i ne s r a nge a nd w e l l b e l o w th e s t a tu t o ry ma x i mu m o f l i f e i mp r i s o n me n t . Se e 2 1 U . S. C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ; T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d 1241, 1246 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c om pa r i ng, a s one i ndi c a t i on of r e a s onabl e ne s s , the ac tual pri son t erm i m po se d agai nstthe st atut ory m axi m um ). T he courtconsi dere d the pa rt i e s ’ a r gum e nt s , a s w e l l a s R oge r s ’ s pe r s ona l s t a t e m e nt , a nd the c ourtha d aWe l ac k jurisdic tio n to review Rog ers ’sc laim c on c erningthedis tric t c ourt ’sde c isi on to 4 deny a do wnwa rd depa rt urebe c a us ethere c ord re fl e c ts tha

t th ec ourt unders too d th at it

had a uthority to impo sethedepa

rt urebut cho seno t to . Se eUnite d State s v . Dudley, 463 F .3 d 122 1, 12 28 (1 1th Cir. 2006) (determining that w e lacke d jurisdiction to review a re quest for a depar ture when nothing in the rec ord indicate d th at th e d istrict court believe d that it did not have authority to depar t downward, and, in fact, the re cord indicated that the court understood it could depar t, but chose not to). 14 re as on ed basi s f

or exerc i si ng i t s ow n l egal deci si on m aki ng autho ri ty. S ee R i t a, 1 2 7 S .C t. a t 2 4 6 8 . A c c o r d in g ly , R o g e r s h a s n o t s h o w n th a t th e c o u rt ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on by i m pos i ng a n unr e a s onabl e s e nt e nc e . S e e G a l l , 128 S . C t . a t594; 4 P ugh, 515 F . 3d a t1191. V. In l i g h to f th e fo reg o i n g , R o g ers’ s sen t en ce i s A FFI R M ED .