T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T he di s t r i ctcour tr evoked Fi nney ’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e on a numberof 1 convi ct i ons i n t hr ee di ffe r entcas es forw hi ch he w as s ent ence d t o a t ot al of 180 (c o n tin u e d ...) FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 19, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, N o. 07- 5013 v . (N .D . o f O k la .) J E F F RE Y DE AN F I NNE Y,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . CR- 0 6 - 1 3 4 - HDC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. ** J eff r eyD ean Fi nneyappea l s an or derr evoki ng hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e and s ent enci ng hi m t o 120 m onths i n pr i s on. Fi nneyw as on s upervi s ed r e l e a s e a f

t e rh e s e r v e d t i me fo rc o n v i c t i o n s a s a fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m, among num er ous ot heroffe ns es . Fi nneys t i pul at ed t o the conduc tcons t i tut i ng a 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 m ont hs i n pr i s on and fi ve y ear s s upervi s ed r el eas e on J une 29, 1993. H e bega n hi s t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e on J anuary23, 2006. H e appe al s onl ythe r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e forthe tw o count s of fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a fi r earm , forw hi ch he r ece i ved tw o cons ecut i ve 60- m onth s ent ence s . For r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e on the count s he does notappea l , Fi nneyw as sent enced t o 2 4 m on t hs t o run co ncu rr entl yw i th all othersent ences. T hi s r ange w as bas ed on a G r ade A vi ol at i on beca us e of the al l eged 2 arm ed rob b eries. U S S G § § 7 B 1 . 1 , 7 B 1 . 4 . A t sen tenc ing , crim inal ch arg es w ere s t i l l pendi ng agai ns tFi nneyfort hos e r obber i es , butforpurpos es of the r evoca t i on h ea ri n g , F inn eysti p u lat ed to the all eg ed co n d u ct. D u ri n g sen tenc ing , the c o u rt s t at ed, “I do know t hatt her e i s a ca s e pendi ng, t her e i s an al l egat i on [of a r m ed r obbery ] pendi ng. I ’ m notgoi ng t o deal w i th thatatt hi s t i m e. T hat ’ s s om ethi ng (c o n tin u e d ...) -2- v i o l a t i o n o f

h i s s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , i n c l u d i n g ( 1 ) fa i l u r e t o c o mp l e t e two s ubs t ance abus e tr eatm entpr ogr ams, ( 2) r epea t ed al cohol and drug abus e, ( 3) g a m b lin g , an d (4 ) c o m m iss io n o f th re e a rm e d ro b b e rie s. T h e fa c ts b e h in d th is s t i pul at i on i ndi cat e Fi nneyw as t erm i nat ed fr om tw o tr eatm entpr ogr ams for fa ilu re to a b sta in f

ro m d ru g a n d a lco h o l u se a n d re f u sa l to c o o p e ra te w ith pr ogr am st aff. A ft era r evoca t i on hear i ng w as i ni t i al l yhel d on the s ubs t ance a b u se v io latio n s, F in n e yw a s a rre ste d fo r th re e a rm e d ro b b e rie s o f re sta u ra n ts in T ul s a dur i ng a s pan of thr ee hour s . A l l of thi s t ook pl ace w i thi n a y earof Fi nney ’ s r el eas e fr om pr i s on. Pur s uantt o pol i cys t at ement s i n the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ( “U SSG ”) , t he s ugges t ed s ent enci ng r ange forr evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e for a defendantw i t h Fi nney ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand type of vi ol at i on i s 51–63 m ont hs . T hi s i s the hi ghes tr ange pr ovi ded forbyU SSG § 7B 1. 4. Fi nneyar gues

2( . . . cont i nued) 2 t hatw i l l be dea l tw i t h i ndepende nt l yw hen i t ’ s befor e the C our tata pr opert i m e. ” R . V ol . V at6–7. Fi nneyar gues thi s s t at ementi ndi cat es the di s tr i ctcour tdi d not i nt end t o cons i dert he arm ed r obber i es w hen ca l cul at i ng t he s ent ence for r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. H e ar gues thatthe ul t i m at e 120- m onth s ent ence w as t her efor e eve n m or e extr eme becaus e i tdepart ed upw ar d fr om the 8–14 m o n th ra n g e p ro v id e d fo r h is o th e r G ra d e C v io la tio n s . See U SSG §§ 7B 1. 1, 7 B 1 .4 . W e do nott hi nk t he court ’ s s t at ementevi nces an i nt entt o i gnor e the arm ed ro b b e rya lleg a tio n s w h e n c a lcu latin g th e se n ten c e b e fo re it. T h e c o u rt sim p ly s t at ed thatt he mat t erbefor e i tconce rned onl ythe r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed re le a s e , a n d th e n e w ly-file d c ri m in a l c h a rg e s w o u ld b e d e a lt w ith a t a la te r t im e . T hi s does notpr eventt he courtfr om cons i der i ng t he arm ed r obber i es w hen form ul at i ng a s ent ence forr evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e w hen Fi nney s t i pul at ed t o t he al l eged c onductforthatpurpos e. I n fac t , the courtw as ent i t l ed t o cons i der“the natur e of the conduc tl eadi ng t o the r evoca t i on . . . i n m eas ur i ng t he ext entof the br eac h of trus t ” and t o “l eav[ e] the puni s hm entforanynew cr i m i nal conductt o t he courtr es pons i bl e fori m pos i ng the s ent ence forthat o ffe n se .” U S S G . ch .7 , p t. A (3 )(b ), in tro d u c to ryc m t. W h e th e r F in n e y ’s s e n ten c e a c tu a llyd e p a rte d f ro m th e su g g e ste d ra n g e is 3 debat abl e. Fi nney ’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e w as r evoked on mul t i pl e count s , and U SSG § 7B 1. 4 ar guabl ypr ovi des appr opr i at e r anges fori m pr i s onm entbas ed on e a c h i n d i v i d u a l c o u n t . I f we c o n s i d e ri n d i v i d u a l l yt h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s t wo 60- m ont h s ent ence s on eac h of Fi nney ’ s t w o fel on i n pos s es s i on count s , t he d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c e s fe l l w i th i n t h e s u g g e s t e d 5 1

– 6 3 m o n th r a n g e . S i m i l a r l y, i f w e cons i dert he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o tr eatFi nney ’ s t w o count s as s ubj ect t o cons ecut i ve s ent ence s , t he court ’ s t ot al s ent ence of 120 m onths fal l s w i thi n t he r ange c om put ed bydoubl i ng t he per - countr ecomm ended r ange of 51–63 m ont hs to arrive at a rec o m m en d ed ran g e o f 1 0 2

– 1 2 6 m o n ths. T h e d istri ct co u rt nevert hel es s vi ew ed i t s s ent ence as out s i de the pr es cr i bed r ange, and i n anycas e, w e revi ew t he sentence fo r r easona bleness . -3- t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s departur e fr om the U SSG pol i cys t at ementt o i m pos e the 120- m ont h s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e. 3Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 ). 4 -4- D i s cus s i on W e w i l l over tur n a s ent ence i m pos ed as a r es ul tof a vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e onl yi f i ti s “pl ai nl yunr eas onabl e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Kel l ey , 359 F. 3d 1 3 0 2 , 1 3 0 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . R o d rig u e z-Q u in ta n ill a , 442 F .3 d 1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 7

– 5 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (u sin g sa m e sta n d a rd o f re v iew p o stB ooker ) . A s e nt e nc e i mpos e d i n e xc e s s of t he r e c omm e nd a t i on s i n the U SSG 4 pol i cys t at ement s w i l l be uphel d “i f i tcan be det erm i ned fr om t he r ecor d t o have been r eas oned and r eas onabl e. ” R o d rig u e z-Q u in ta n ill a , 442 F. 3d at1258 ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . Tso sie , 3 7 6 F .3 d 1 2 1 0 , 1 2 1 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 )) . C ongr es s has di r ect ed court s t o i m pos e s ent ence s “s uffi ci ent , butnot g re a ter th a n n e c e ss a ry ” to (1 ) re flec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f th e o ffe n se , p ro m o te resp ec t fo r th e law , an d p rov ide ju st pu n ishm en t fo r th e o ffen se; (2) a ffo rd adequa t e det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct ; ( 3) pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur ther cr i m es of the defendant ; and ( 4) pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vo cat i on al t rai ning, m edical care, or ot her corr ect i on al t reatm ent i n the m ost effect i ve manner . 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . A courtm us tcons i dert hes e fa ct or s as w el l as t he U SSG pol i cys t at ement s i n i m pos i ng a s ent ence fol l ow i ng a r evoca t i on o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . Uni t ed Stat es v. C ordova , 4 6 1 F . 3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 8 8 (10 th C ir . 2006) . W e fi nd t he s ent ence t he di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed w as a r eas oned and reas on able appli cat i on of these fact ors and t he p oli cyst at em ents .-5-

T he di s t r i ctcour tats ent enci ng expr es s l yacknow l edged the U SSG pol i cy s t at ement s butconcl uded,

T h is C o u rt h a s c o n sid e re d th e fa c to rs th a t ar e se t fo rth w ith in T i t l e 18 U . S. C . , Sect i on 3553( a) and has el ect ed t o s ent ence the defe ndantt o t he 120 m onth t erm w hi ch i s out s i de the pr es cr i bed gui del i ne r ange. T hi s s ent ence r efl ect s the need for a j ust pu n ishment fo rM r . F i n n e y , h i s u s e o f i l l e g a l d ru g s , h i s u s e o f a l c o h o l , h i s p r o b l e ms w ith g a m b lin g w h il e u n d e r su p e rv isio n , h is p ro p e n sityto c o m m it ser i ou s cr i m es w hil e un der the infl uen ce. F urther, it p rovi des a deterr ent t o seri ou s cr i m i nal cond uct and p rot ect s the p ub l i c against futur e cri m es. T h e C o u rt n o tes th a t M r. F in n e yh a s b e e n g iv e n th e o p p o rtu n ity for t r eatm ent at t w o comm uni ty bas ed cent er s and fai l ed t o compl et e the pr ogr ams s ucce s s ful l y . T hi s s ent ence w i l l pr ovi de t h e d efendantan o p p o rtu n ityto c o m p lete th e 5 0 0 h o u r re sid e n tial d ru g p ro g ra m w h ile i ncar cer at ed. R . V ol . V at8. T he di s t r i ctcour tthus car eful l yanal y zed how the § 3553( a) fac t or s s uppor t ed the s ent ence i m pos ed. T hi s expl anat i on i s a r eas oned app l i cat i on of the § 3 55 3(a) fact ors. M or eover , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent ence w as not“pl ai nl yunr eas onabl e. ” F ir st, the d istri ct co u rtim p o sed the s tatu tori ly -au tho ri ze d m ax im u m o f five y ea rs p e rv i o l a t i o n o f

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e o n a c l a s s A fe l o n yc o n v i c t i o n . 1 8 U. S . C. § 3583( e) ( 3) . Second, as t he courti ndi cat ed atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, the s ent ence r efl ect s t he § 3553( a) fac t or s . Fi nal l y , the pr e- s ent ence r eportpr ovi ded t o t he courtconcl uded a de par tur e fr om the pol i cys t at ementm i ghtbe w arr ant ed beca us e ( 1) Fi nney ’ s or i gi nal s ent ence w as the r es ul tof a dow nw ar d departur e, s ee U S S G § 7 B 1 .4 n .4 , (2 ) F in n e yh a s a lo n g h isto ryo f c o m m itt in g c rim e s w h ile-6-

undert he i nfl uence of al cohol and others ubs t ance s , and ( 3) Fi nneycomm i t t ed t hr ee a r m ed r obber i es w hi l e on s upervi s ed r el eas e eve n aft eran i ni t i al r evoca t i on hear i ng had bee n hel d bas ed on othervi ol at i ons . T he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence w as a thus a per s onal i zed a s s es s m entof Fi nney ’ s par t i cul arhi s t or yand ci r cumst ance s and cl ear l yr efl ect s the l egi s l at i ve pol i cycont ai ned i n the § 3553( a) fa c to rs . In su m , this re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th e d istric t co u rt’s s e n ten c e w a s b o th r eas oned and r eas onabl e, gi ven Fi nney ’ s backgr ound and ci r cumst ance s . T he s ent ence acc ount ed forFi nney ’ s t ot al fai l ur e t o contr ol hi s s ubs t ance abus e and hi s t erm i nat i on fr om t w o t r eatm entpr ogr ams, hi s hi s t or i cal l y - demonstr at ed p ro p e n sityfo r f

u tu re v io len c e if

h e c o n tin u e s to u se d ru g s a n d a lco h o l, an d h is comm i s s i on of thr ee a r m ed r obber i es w hen he kne w hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e w as alread yin d an g er o f re v o ca ti o n . T h ese fa cts d ram ati ca ll yd em o n str ate F inn ey ’s u n w il li n g n ess to co m p lyw ith co n d it ion s o f su p erv ised release an d the d an g ers Fi nneypr es ent s t o t he publ i c w hen he i s fr ee. I n l i ghtof al l of thes e fa ct s , the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent ence w as r eas onabl e. C oncl usi on F o rt h e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s s e n t e n c e i s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge