For c l ar i ty, we wi l l r efert o the Knox defen dant s as “An- 1 thony” and “Arm ean. ” 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A R MEA N K NO X, A NTH O NY K NO X, AND R EG I NAL D D AV IS, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 04- CR-818

—A my J . St . E ve, Judge . A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 18, 2008

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 20, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hief Ju dg e, an d S YKESa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Defendants Regina ld Davi s, Antho n y Kn o x , a n d Ar me a n Kn o x ma d e a d e a l t o b uy 1 f ourt een s em i
- autom ati c handguns f orthe bar gai n pri ce2 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 of2 1/4 o unces o fcr ack coca i ne. A s thei r unfo rtunate l uck w oul d hav e i t, the sel l er w as an und er cove r ag en t. Aft erb einga r r es te d o n v ar i o us dr ug s an d wea po ns charg es, ea ch def endant ple aded g uil ty to conspi ra cy to d ist r ibut e m o r e th an5 0 g r ams o fc r ac k
. On appe al, the defe nd ants ra i se seve ra l chal l enges to the re aso nabl eness ofthei r senten ces, i ncl ud i ng tha t Kim b r ough v. U nited Sta tes , 1 28 S. Ct. 55 8 ( 2007 ) , enti tl es them to re sente nci ng.
I . B a c kg r o und A . Facts O n th r e e se p a r a t e o c c a s i o n s b e t we e n J u n e a n d S e p t e mb er 20 04, Davi s s ol d between one- quarte r and one-h alf o unces of cr ac kc o ca i ne t o a n un der co ve r a g en t wi ththe Bur ea u o fAl co ho l, Tob ac co , a nd F i r ea r m s ( “ATF ”)
. Dur i ng ea c h of th es e m ee tin gs , D a v i s e x p re ss ed an int er es t in p urc ha sing ha nd gu ns from th e agen t. A t t h e th ird m ee ting, Da vi s i nt r o duce d the a g en t to Anth o ny, a nd the tw o defe nd ants nego ti ate d a dealto p ay $200 0 ca sh f or one . 4 5
- c a l ib e r a nd thi r t e e n . 3 8
- c a l ib e r g un s . Ar mean al so met th e ag en t atthi s m ee tingw he n he del i ve r ed th e cra ck f orpurchase
. On S ept embe r 9 , 2 00 4, Da vi s an d A rm ean m etwi ththe ag en t ag ain t o di sc us s th e guns pur ch as e, a nd the a g en t su g ges te d tha t th e defen dan ts pa y f o r the g uns wi th2 1/4 o unc es o f cr ac k i ns te ad o f $2 00 0 ca sh
. Da vis and A rm ean r eadi l y agr ee d to thi s paym ent t er m , since, acco rdi ng to the defe nd ants, thatquanti ty of c ra ck w asN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 3

61 .5 gra m s equ als 2.17 o u nc es. 2 wor tho nl y abo ut$ 10 00 t o $ 14 00
. Davis i ndi ca te d tha t he co ul d ea si l y su ppl y th e r eque st ed 2 1/4 o unc es , t el l i ngthe ag en t t h at “i fy o u w an t t w o a n d a sp lit th at ’s n ot h in g.” Du ring thi s m eet i ng, Davi s ca l l ed A nthony, wh o al so agr eed to the change i n paym ent. On Septem ber 16, 2004, A nthony a nd A rm ean del i ver ed 6 1
. 5 g r a ms o fc r a c kt o th e a g e n ti n e x c h a n g e f o r the

2 f o ur te eng uns . ATF ag en ts a r r es te d Antho ny a nd Arm ea n o n si te i m m edi at el y a fte r the y r ec ei ve d the guns, and Davi s was l ate r ar re ste d i n Decem ber20 04. The g o ve r nm en t o bt aine d a n i nd ict m en t ch ar g i ng Dav i s, Anth o ny, a nd Ar m ea n wi tho ne c ou nto fc o nspi ra cy to posse ss w i th i ntent to dist ribute a n d t o dist ribute m or e tha n 5 0 g r a ms o fc r a c kc o c a i ne , i n v i o l a t i on of 2 1 U .S.C . § 84 6, an d se ve ra l co u n ts of in te n tio n ally di s t r ib ut i ngc r a c kc o c a i ne , i n v i o l a t i o n o f21 U. S
. C. § 84 1( a) ( 1)
. Addi ti o na l l y, the i ndi ct m en t ch ar g ed Antho ny and A rm ean each w i th one count of bei ng fel ons i n posse ssi o n o ffi r ea r m s, i n v i o l at i o n o f1 8 U. S
. C
. § 9 22 ( g ) ( 1)
. The i nd i ctm ent a l so charg ed Davi s w i th co nspir i ng with anothe r i nd i vid u alto poss ess with intent to dist ribute and to dist ribute m or e than fi ve gr am s o fcrac k c oca i ne, but the gov er nm ent l ate r dism i sse d the charg es ag ai nst th ati ndi vi dual
. The de fen dan ts pl ea ded g ui l tywi th o ut pl eaa g r ee m en ts . Ea chde fen dan t pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the conspi ra cy to dist ribute m or e than 50 gr am s o fcr ack coca i ne, an d A nthony a nd A rm ean pl eaded gui l ty to th e fi re ar m s pos ses si on co unts. The go ver nm ent s ubse-4 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 quentl y di sm i sse d al l o fthe dist ribu tio n counts aga i nst the defe nd ants and the othe r conspi ra cy count aga inst Davi s.
B. Sente ncing Pr ocee dings The defe nd ants w er e s entence d between Decem ber20 06 an d M ar c h 20 07 . U n d er th e Se n te n c i n g G u id elin es , D av is qualified as a ca re ero ffender base d on thr ee ofhi s pri or felo n y d ru g c on vic tio n s, seeU. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1. 1( a) , r es ul ting i n a cri m i nal hi sto ry cate gor y of VI and a n offe n se lev el of 3 7, s e ei d. § 4B1. 1( b) ( A ) ( applying an offense l eve l o f3 7f o r o ffe n s e s w i th s t a t u t o r y ma x i mu ms o fl i fe i mp ri sonm ent) ; 21 U
. S. C. § 841(b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( i m posi ng a m ax i m um s en te nc e o fl i fe i m pr i so nm en t f o r dr ug offen ses involving 50 gram s or m ore of cr ack). A fter a thre e- l eve l r educti on f oracc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty, seeU
. S. S. G. § 3 E 1. 1, Davi s’ to talo ffense l eve l was 34, yi el ding an advi sor y guidel i nes sentencing r ange of26 2- 327 m onths. Thi s s entenci ng r ange w as hi gherthan w hat Davi s would have r ecei ved had h e b een sentence d as a non- car eero ffender und erthe drug- offense gui del i ne, § 2 D1. 1; al though Davi s’ cr im in al hi sto rycat ego rywas VI eve n bef or e the appli cati on o f§ 4B1. 1, hi s o ffense l eve l w as hi gherunder § 4B1. 1. Ath i s s e n t en c i n gh e a r i n g, D a v i s a s k e d f o r a b e l o wgu idelines sen ten ce based on th e G uid eli ne s’ 100:1 d ispa ri tyb etwee n s ent en ce s f o r c r ac k

- a nd po wder

- co ca i neN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 5

Under the drug

- off en s e gui del i ne appl i c abl e at the t i m e ofthe 3 de f e nd a nt s ’ s e nt e nc i ng h e a r i ng s , a n off e ns e i nv ol vi ng a g iven quantity o f cr ack tr iggered the sam e s ente ncing range as an of f ense i nvo lving 100 t im es t h a t quan ti ty ofpow der cocai ne. S eeU.S. Sentenci ng C om m ’ n, G uideli nes M anual § 2D1.1( c) ( 4) ( 2005) ( app lyi ng equal base of f ense l evels to dru g off ense s i nvol vi ng 5 0 g ra m s ofcrack a nd 5 kg o fpowder c oc ai ne )
. The Sen te nc ing C om m ission h as since a m en d ed the d ru g -offen se g uideli ne to red u ce th is c ra ck /p o w d er d isp a ri ty . S ee U .S.S .G . ap p . C , am en d . 70 6 (Su p p . 20 0 7 ), a v a il a b le a t h tt p :// w w w .u ssc .g o v /2 0 0 7 g u id /a p p c2 0 0 7 .p d f. o ffe ns e s , the ATF a g e nt’ s us e o fs e nt e nc i nge nt r a p-

3 m en t an d m an i pul at i o n, a nd Da vi s’ c o o per at i o n wi ththe gov er nm ent. Davis al so prese nted subst anti alev i dence ofhi s unstabl e chi l dh oo d and his f am i ly’ s hi sto ryo f su b st an ce abuse, as wellas exper t t est i m ony ofDavi s’ m entali l l ness. The dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d D avi s’ ar gum ent b ase d on th e se ve r i tyo fthe c r ac k/ po wder di sp ar i ty, c i tingthe nbi nd i ng ci rcui t pr ecedent precl ud i ng t he co urt f ro m r el y i ngo n that d i spa r i tya s a ba si s f o ri m po singa s en te n c e b elo w th e g u id elin es ran ge . See U nited Sta tes v. M iller, 450 F. 3d 270, 27 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) , a br ogat e d b y Ki m b r ough v. U nited Sta tes , 12 8 S
. Ct. 55 8 ( 2007 )
. The co urt al so rej ecte d D av i s’ cl ai m s o fse ntenci ng ent ra pm ent, se ntenci ngmani pul at i o n, a nd c o o per at i o n wi ththe g o ve r nm en t. T h e c ou rtd id , ho w ev er , give su b st an tia l cre d it to Dav i s’ e vi den ce o fhi s di ffi cul t ch i l dho o d a nd hi story of m en ta l illn es s. C on c lu d in g t h at th es e fa c t o r s m ad e it re aso nabl e t o devi ate fro m the Gu i del i nes, the cour t g ave Davi s a bel ow-gui del i nes s entence o f22 0 m onths.6 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813

A b a se o ffe n se le v e l o f 3 2 r e su l t e d fr o m th e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s 4 cor rec t appli cat ion ofthe drug quantity table of§ 2D1.1 that pre dat ed the Se nt en c i ng Co m m i s s i on’ s 20 07am en dm en tof thatguideli ne. Un der the currentv ers ion of§ 2D1.1, a c rack qu an tity b etw een 5 0 a nd 150 gra m s corre sp on d s to a b ase o ffen se le v el o f on ly 30
. S ee U .S.S .G . § 2 D 1 .1(a )(3), (c)(5 ). A nthony, l i ke Davi s, qualifi ed as a ca re ero ffender unde r § 4 B1. 1, r es ul tingi n a cr i m i na l hi st o r y c at eg o r y o fVI and an offense level o f37
. A ftera thre e- l eve l r educti on un d er § 3E 1.1 for accep tan ce of resp ons ibi li ty, A nt hon y’s t o t a l o ffe ns e l e v e l wa s 3 4 , y i e l di nga n a dv i s o r y gui del i nes s entenci ng r ange of 2 62- 327 m onths. A s in Davi s’ ca se , th i s se nt en ci ng r an g e was hi g he r tha n wha t Antho ny w ou ld h ave rece ived un d er § 2 D 1.1 as a non-ca reer offend er; althou g h A nt hon y’s cri m inal history category w as V I eve n be for e t h e a p p lica tio n of § 4B 1.1 , his offense l eve l was hi gherunder § 4B1. 1. Atth e s e n t e n c i n gh e a r i n g, An th o n y a r g u e d f o r a b e l o wgui del i nes s entence bas ed on the s eve ri ty ofthe Gu i deli ne s’ 100:1 crac k/p ow d er disp arity and the A T F agen t’s use o fse ntenci ng m ani pulat i on. The dist ri ct cour t di d not accept these ar gum ents a nd i m posed a m i ni m um - gui del i nes s entence o f26 2 m onths. A rm ean, unl i ke hi s co - defe nd ants, di d not qual i fy a s a car eero ffender; h i s s entence f orthe drug o ffense w as det er m i ne d b y § 2 D1. 1. Be cau se th e g uns pur ch as e i nvol v e d a qua nt i t y o fc r a c kb e t we e n 5 0 a nd 1 5 0 g r a ms, A rm ean’ s ba se offense l eve l was 32. A ftera tw o- l eve l 4 enha nc ement f o r th e po ss es si o n o f a dan g er o us w eapon,N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 7
seeU
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1( b) ( 1) , and a three- l eve l r educti on for acc ep tan ce of respon sibil ity un d er § 3E 1.1, A rm ean ’s total offen se leve l w as 31. H is cri m inal history category was I V, y i el di ngan advi so r y g ui del i ne s se nt en ci ng r a ng e o f1 51- 188 mon ths
. T he di s t r i c tc o ur ti mpo s e d a gui del i nes s entence o f16 5 m onths.

C. Arg um ents on A pp eal On appeal, al l thr ee defe nd ants ar gue that the di str i ct c ou rt sh ou ld h av e c on sid er ed th e G uidel i nes’ c ra c k/ p ow d e r d isp ar ity as a b as is for red u c in g t h eir senten ces. They c l ai m thatthe Suprem e Cour t’ s deci si on i n K im bro ug h v. U n i t e d Sta tes , 128 S. Ct
. 558, 564 (2007 ), w hich he ld th at th e d ispa rity is ad visory an d th e r e fore w i thi n a di str i ct c ourt ’ s di scr eti on t o consi der, enti tl es them to r ese ntenci ng. Davi s a n d A nthony a l so ar gue that th e di st r i ctc o urt fai l ed to s uffi ci en tl y a ddr es s th ei r s en tenci ng ent ra pm ent a nd m ani pu lat i on cl ai m s. Final l y, Dav i s r ai ses sev er ala ddi ti o na l c ha l l en g es t o the r ea so nabl eness o fhi s s entence , wh i ch w e desc ribe i n gr eat er d e t a i l b e l o w.
II . A n alysis W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s s entenci ng deci si ons f or an ab u se of d isc re tio n . G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 12 8 S
. Ct. 58 6, 59 7 (2 00 7); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cl ant on , 53 8 F. 3d 652, 65 9 (7th C ir. 2008 ). A fter ensu ring tha t the district cou rt com m i tte d no pro ceduraler ro r such as f ai li ng to pr o per l y c al cul at e th e g ui del i ne s r an g e o r cons i derthe8 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813
se nt en ci ngf ac to r s o f1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 55 3( a) , w e exa m i ne the su b st an tiv e re as on ab len es s o f th e s en te n c e. G all , 128 S. Ct. at 59 7; Clan t on , 5 38 F. 3d at 659. I n deter m i ni ng wh ether a guid eli ne s sen ten ce is reasona ble , t h e district cou rt should c onsi der a l l o fthe § 3 553( a) f acto rs and “m ake an i nd i v i du a l i z e d a s s e s s men t b a s e d o n the f a c t s pre sente d.” G all , 12 8 S
. Ct. at59 7.
A . T h e Im p ac t of Kimb r ough and the Cr ack/Pow der

D i spar i ty o n Care erO f f end er s 1. T h e E ffec t of Kimb r ough o n Da v i s ’ a nd

A nthony’ s Sentences Af t e r the d ef en da nt s i n thi s c a s e we r e s e nt e nc e d, th e S upr eme Co ur t he l d i n K im bro ug h v
. U n i t ed S ta tes , 12 8 S
. Ct
. 5 58 , 5 64 ( 20 07 ) , tha t di st r i ctc o ur ts m ayc o nsi der the cr ack/pow der di spari ty em bedded i n the drugo ffe n s e g u i d e l i n e , § 2 D1
. 1 , a s a b a s i s f o r c h o o s i n ga b e l o wgui del i nes s en tence. The Courtexpl ai ned that a di str i ct cou rt m ay gener al l y c onsi der pol i cy disa gr eem ents w ith th e ad visory G u id eli ne s, p rovide d that the cou rt d oe s n otd isr eg ar d st at u te s s u c h as m an d at or y m in im um s a nd m axim u m s. S ee id. at 570- 71. S i nce the Guidel i n e s ’ c r a c k/ p o wd e r d i s p a r i t y d o e s n o tr e s u l tfr o m a c on g r e s s ion al m an d at e, see id. at 571- 72, “i t would not be a n abuse ofdi scr eti on f ora dist ri ct c ourtto co ncl ud e” that the di spari ty “yi el ds a s entence ‘ gr eat erthan n ecessar y’ to achi eve § 3553 ( a) ’ s purpose s . . . . ” Id. at 575. Befo re Kim b r ough , o ur ci rcui t pr ecedent preve nted dist ri ct c ourt s fro m co nsi d eri ng the cr ack/pow derN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 9 dispar i ty as a ba si s f or c h oosi ng a bel ow-gui del i nes se n te n c e. See U nite d S t a t es v. M iller, 45 0 F
. 3d 270, 274- 75 (7t h C ir . 2006). T o correct th e prej ud ici al effects of M iller, w e hav e e stabl i shed re m and procedure s f orcr ack offenders senten ced pri orto K im bro ug h. Offen der s who did notr ai se a chal len ge to the cra ck/pow der di spari ty a ts e nt e nc i nga r e e nt i t l e d t o a l i mi t e d r e man d, allo w in g th e d ist ric t cou rt to in d ica te w h et h er it w o u ld have sel ecte d a di ffer ent s entence had it known ofi ts d iscretion un d er Kim b r ough
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 520 F.3 d 74 6, 74 7-4 9 (7 th C ir. 20 0 8 )
. O ffen d er s w h o d id ch allen ge t h e d isp ar ity atse n te n c in g a re en tit led to a fu ll re m an d an d res en te n c in g. Clan t on , 53 8 F
. 3d at 659. W e ha ve p re vi ousl y g ra nted thes e r em ands onl y t o offenders sente nced und erthe drug -offense gui del i ne, § 2 D 1.1 , as o pp ose d to the c ar eero ffender gui del i ne, § 4 B 1.1
. See id
. at 659-60. A lthou gh career offen d ers are sub j e c tt o a 1 0 0 : 1 c r a c k/ po wde r s e nt e nc i ngdi s pa r i t y, that dispar i ty does not or i gi nate i n the advi sory drugo ffen se g ui del i ne a t i ss ue i n Kim b r ough
. I ns te ad, i t i s th e oper ati on o fm an dator y s tatutes that subj ects car eer of f e nd e r s t o the p o l i c y o fh a r s he r s e nt e nc e s f o r c r ackcoca ine offen ses . C o n gress h as d irected that career offen der s co nv i ct ed o fo ffen se s “desc r ibe d i n” c er ta i n, e n u me r a t e d s t a t u t e s , i n c l u d i n g2 1 U. S
. C
. § 8 4 1 , b e s e ntenc e d “ a to r n e a r the ma xi mum t e r m a utho r i z e d” f or th e o ffen se . 28 U .S.C . § 99 4(h )(1) (B ) . To im p lem en t t h is di r e c t i v e , the c a r e e r o ffe nd e r g ui de l i ne p r e s c r ib e s b ase o ffen se l ev el s th attra ck th e st atut o r y maxi m um s o fthe offense ofco nvi cti on. U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1(b). Fo r convi cti o ns o fdr ugo ffen se s unde r 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41 , the10 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 appli cabl e s tatutor y m axi m um s tre at a g i ven quanti ty of cra ck coca i ne the sam e as 100 ti m es that quanti ty o f p ow d er co c ain e fo r s en te n c in g p u rp os es . See 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 41(b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i )
- ( i i i ) ( i m posing a m axi m um se ntence of l i fe i m pri sonm ent fordrug offenses i nvol vi ng bo th 50 gr am s o f cr ac k a n d 5 kg o fp o w d e r co c ain e). It is th is sta tutor y penal ty prov isi on, i ncor pora ted i nto the Gui deli ne s p urs ua nt to anoth er statu te, 28 U
. S. C
. § 994(h), wher ein the 100: 1 cr ac k/ po wder di spa r i tya ffec ting car eero ffenders l i es. Rel yi ng o n the sta tutor y o ri gi n ofthe cra ck/pow der di spa r i tye m be dded i n § 4 B1. 1, we he l d i n U nited Sta tes v. H a rr is , 53 6 F
. 3d 798, 81 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , that Kim b r ough h a d n o e ffe c to n a c a r e e r o ffe n d e r ’ s s e n t e n c e . We r ea so ne d tha t, al th o ug h a s en te nc i ngdi spa r i tymight o cc urunde r § 4 B1. 1 ba se d o n the ty pe o fc o ca i ne i nvol ved, thatdi spari ty “i s the pro du ct o fa disc re pa ncy cre ate d by s t atute .” Id. a t 81 2- 13
. “ W hi l e th e se nt en ci ng gui del i nes m ay be o nl y a dvis or y fordi str i ct j ud ges , congr ess i onall egi slat i on i s no t. ” Id. at81 3; see also U nited St at e s v. M i l l b r ook, 55 3 F
. 3d 1057, 10 67 ( 7th C i r. 20 09) (“ Kim b r ough ’ s di scussi on o fa dist ri ct c ourt ’ s di scr eti on to t ak e i nt o a cc o untthe c r ac k/ po wder di spa r i tyi s o fno conse quence to a defe nd ant s entenced u n d er§ 4B1. 1 a s a c ar ee r offe n d er .”); Clan t on , 53 8 F
. 3d at 66 0 ( “[ A ] se ntence enter ed und erthe car eero ffender gui del i ne, § 4B. 1. 1, r ai ses no Kim b r ough pro bl em . . . . ” ( quoti ng Ha rr is , 536 F. 3d at 813)). Gi ve n o urho l di ngi n Harris , i t m a y s e em th at D av is an d A nt hon y, both career offen d ers sente nc ed und erN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 11 § 4 B1. 1, ar e no t e nti tled t o res entenci ng i n l i ght o f Kim b r ough
. H owever, thes e defendants ci te U nited S t a tes v. Liddel l , 543 F.3d 87 7 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ), in su p p or t o f th eir ar g u me n t th a t a d i s t r i c t c o u r t ma y r e l y o n t he cr ac k/ po wder d ispa ri tya s a ba si s f o r i m po singa s en tence bel ow the caree r offender gui del i nes r ange. A fter bei ng se ntenced as a car eero ffender, L i dd el l ar gued on appe altha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t sh o ul d h ave c o ns i der ed th e se ve rit y o ft h e c ra c k/ p ow d er d isp ar ity
. Id. at88 0, 88 2. Citing Harris , th e cou r t fi r stno te d tha t Li ddel l ’ s ar g um ent was pro bl em ati c be cause the o nl y c ra ck/pow der di spa r i tytha t affec te d hi s senten ce unde r § 4 B1. 1 was the p ro d u c t o f a st at u te . Id. a t 88 2- 83
. None th el es s, the co ur t th enr ec o g ni ze d whati t ca l l ed th e defend an t’s “m ore nu an ced ” argu m en t of w he th er a district cou rt “can c on sid erthe dispar i ty as a r eas on f ori ssui ng a bel ow-gui del i ne se ntence. ” Id. at88 3. Thi s co nten tion w as u ltim at ely rejec te d be c au se L id d ell d id n otrais e it bel ow, and any e rr orby the dist ri ct c ourti n f ai l i ng to consi der hi s Kim b r ough c h alle n ge w as n otp lain
. Id. at88 3, 88 5; see also U nited Sta tes v. Hearn , 54 9 F
. 3d 680, 68 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08) ( rej ecting the defendant’s “m or e nuanced ar g um en t ba se d o n K im brough ” unde r a pl ain- er r o r s ta ndard ofr evi ew ( quoti ng Liddel l , 543 F.3d at 883 ))
. Liddel l is di ffi cul t to r ec o nc i l e wi th Harris , but i t i s no t necess ar y t o re sol ve the t ensi on be tw een these case s today because Davi s a nd A nthony a re enti tl ed to re sente nci ng f ora re aso n not prese nt i n ei ther case . U nl i ke th e d e fe n d a n t s i n H a rris a nd Liddel l , the defe nd ants i n thi s c a s e p l e a de d gui l t y t o c o ns pi r ac y u nd e r 2 1 U. S
. C. § 84 6 butn o tt o the s ub s t a nt i v e o ffe ns e u nd e r 2 1 U. S
. C.12 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 § 8 41
. SeeHarris , 53 6 F
. 3d at 802 ( convi cti on o fdi stribu tin g c r ac k c oc ain e u n d er § 84 1(a )); Liddel l , 54 3 F
. 3d at 879 ( gui l ty ple a t o posses si on with i ntent to dist ribute und er§ 841( a) )
. Itis tr ue that d rug dis tr ibuti on or posse ss i o n wi th th e i n t e n t t o d i s t r ib u t e wa s th e o b j e c t o ft he Knox a n d D a v i s c o n s p i r a c y, b u tth a ti s o fn o c o nsequence here
. A s m en tio n ed abo ve, the congr ess i onal d irective that ca reer offen d ers be sen t en ced “at or near” th e s ta tu to r y m ax i m um ap p l i e s o n l y t o c e r t ai n, en u m e rated offen ses of conv iction. 28 U
. S. C
. § 994(h). A l though s ubstanti ve dis tributi on o ffenses under § 841 are am ong the l i ste d offenses , co nspir acy offenses under § 8 46 are n ot . Id. § 9 94( h)( 1) ( B). M or eover , the pre ci si on w i th wh i ch § 994( h) i ncl ud es cer tai n drug o ffenses but e xc l ud e s o the r s i nd i c a t e s tha tthe o mi s s i o n o f§ 8 46 w as no o ver si ght. S ecti on 99 4( h) ( 1) ( B) pr o vi des a na r r o w l i sto fdr ug offenses thatr equi re the “at or nearthe m axi m um ” ca re er offender tr eat m ent, i ncl ud i ng di str ibuti on und er§ 841, i m port ati on o fcer tai n contr ol l ed substances und er21 U
. S. C. § 9 52( a), and m anufa cturing and dis tr ibuti ng o n boar d vess el s under 46 U
. S. C. § 7 0503
. The st atute al so o m it s se ve r als i g ni fi ca ntdr ugo ffen se s, i nc l udi ngthe us e o fa c o m m uni ca ti o n f ac i l i tyt o f ac i l i ta te a dr ug offense und er21 U
. S. C. § 8 43(b) and si m ple p oss ess i on unde r 2 1 U. S. C
. § 8 44
. Pe r ha ps th e be ste xa m pl e o fthe sta tute’ s pre ci si on i s the i ncl usi on o fo nl y those i m port ati on offenses i nvol vi ng the m ost harm ful drugs. Sec ti on 99 4( h) i nc l ud es 2 1 U. S
. C. § 9 52 ( a) , whi chpr o hibi ts the i m port ati on of schedule I and I I contr ol l ed su bsta nces an d na r coti c dr ug s unde r s ch edu l es I I I, I V, a nd V, b utN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 13
car efull y e xcl ud es 21 U
. S.C . § 95 2( b) , wh i ch pro hibi ts the i mpo r t a t i o n o fn o nn a r c o t i c s c he du l e I I I, I V, and V substa nces. A l so tel l i ng i s § 99 4( h)’ s incl usi on o fa con sp iracy offense othe r than § 846. The sta tute i ncor pora tes all m ar i ti me dr ug o ffe ns e s “ de s c r ib e d i n . . . c ha pt e r 7 0 5 o f ti tl e 4 6. ” 2 8 U.S
. C. § 9 94( h)( 1) ( B). That chapte r i ncl ud es, amongo th erthi ng s, a pen al ty pr o vi si o n f o r “a tt empts a nd conspi ra ci es” to m anufa cture co ntro l l ed substa n c es on boar d vess el s. 46 U
. S. C. § 70506 ( b)
. IfC ongr ess w anted to i nc l ud e the Co nt r o l l e d S ub s t a nc e s Act ’ s a na l o g o us § 846 c on sp ira c y p ro vis ion , i t k n ew h ow to d o s o. A n d sim p ly r ea di ng§ 84 6 o ffen se s i nt o § 9 94 ( h) woul d unde r m i ne Congre ss’ s i ntent to excl ud e cer tai n drug offenses from the s tatute’ s r each . Since § 8 46 prohibi ts any a tte m pt or c on sp ira c y “ t o co m m it a n y off en se d efin ed in t h is su b c h a p t er ,” in c or p or at in g § 84 6 in to § 99 4(h ) w ou ld i nc l ude thr o ug h the b ac kdo o r a s th e o bj ecto fa c o nspi ra cy substa nti ve d ru g offenses , such a s s i m ple poss ess i o n o fa c o nt r ol l e d s ub s t a nc e i n v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 44, thatCongr ess speci fi cal l y o m i tte d fr om the “at ornearthe m axi m um ” di re cti ve. Bas ed o n the de l ibe r at e m an ne r i n whi ch§ 9 94 ( h) i ncl ud es speci fi c drug offenses but excl ud es othe rs , Cong r e s s di d n o ti nt e nd t o i nc l ud e § 8 4 6 o ffe nses amongthos e r equi r i ngs en te nc es “ ato r ne ar ” th e st at u to ry m ax im u m . B ec au se § 84 6 is n otinc lu d ed in thi s s tatutor y m andate, § 994( h) does not l i m i t a di str i ct cou rt’s discretion u nd er Kim b r ough to co ns ider th e cr ac k/ po wder di spa r i tya ffec tinga c ar ee r o ffen derc o nvi cted under § 84 6.14 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 Tr ue , the c ar ee r o ffen derg ui del i ne i ts el fdr aws no di st i nc ti o n be twe en § 84 1 an d § 8 46 o ffen se s f o r s en te nc i ng pur po se s. U. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 2 cmt. n. 1 ( defi ni ngthe dr ug offenses qual i fyi ng f orcar eer - offender tr eat m en t t o i ncl ud e “the offenses of ai ding and abett i ng, co nspir i ng, and atte m pti ng to co m m i t s uch offenses ”)
. Rely i ng o n i ts “ge nera l gui del i ne pro m ulg ati on autho ri ty und er 28 U
. S. C. § 994( a)
- ( f ) , ” the S entencing Com m i ssi on has g o ne b eyond the s pec i fi c o ffen se s l i st ed i n § 9 94 ( h) a nd i nc l ud e d § 8 4 6 c o ns pi r a c y o ffe ns e s in § 4 B1
. 1
. U. S
. S
. G. § 4 B1. 1 cm t. b kg d
. Court s hav e r epeate dlyr eco gni zed that thi s e xerci se ofthe Com m i ssi on’ s au thor i ty und er § 99 4 w as va lid
. E.g
. , U nited Sta tes v. D a m erville, 27 F. 3d 254, 25 7 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ); Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Me n d o z a - F ig u e r oa , 65 F
. 3d 69 1, 6 93
- 94 ( 8th Ci r. 1 995) ( enb an c)
. I nde ed, the Se n at e R ep or t t o § 9 94 (h ) p ro vid es th at th e s ta tu te is “not necess ar i l y intende d t o be a n exhausti ve l i st of types ofcas es i n w hi ch .
. . t er m s a t o r cl ose to author i zed m axi m a s houl d be s peci fi ed. ” S
. Rep . N o. 98
- 22 5, at 17 6 (1 98 3), as repr inte d in 19 84 U
. S.C.C. A
. N
. 31 82, 33 59 ; s e eal s o M e ndoz a- Figue r oa , 65 F
. 3d at 69 4 ( r el y i ng on legis lat ive h ist or y t o c on c lu d e t h at § 99 4 ( h ) “ is a m p le au th o r i ty to i nc l ude dr ugc o ns pi r ac i es a s qua l i fy i ng offenses ”)
. M or eov er, since the stat u tory penal ti es f or cons p iracy offenses under § 846 and substanti ve offenses und er§ 841 ar e the sa m e, the Com m iss ion had go od r ea so n t o g o b ey o nd the s pec i fi c m an d ate o f§ 9 94 ( h) a nd in c lude conspi ra cy offenses i n the car eero ffender gui delin e. D am ervill e, 27 F .3d at25 7; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 60 F.3d 12 8, 133 (2d Cir. 1995). St i l l, al though the Com m i ssion h ad the a uthor i ty to i nc lud e d r ugc o ns pi r ac y o ffen se s unde r § 8 46 i n theN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 15
ca r e e r o ffe n d e r g u i d e l i n e , n o th i n gi n th e t e x to f§ 9 94 ( h) re q u ire s t h e C om m iss ion to d o s o. See D a m erville, 27 F. 3d at 257 ( “Se ction 9 94( h) provi des the m i ni m um o bl i gat i on of the Com m i ssi on and doe s not prohibi t th e in c l usi on of add iti ona l offen ses th at qu ali fy f or suc h treat m en t.”) ; U nited Sta te s v . P iper, 35 F. 3d 611, 61 8 ( 1stCi r. 19 94) ( ex pl aini ngtha t o nl y tho se o ffen se s li sted i n § 9 94 ( h) com pri se “the i rr educibl e m i ni m um that the Com m i ssi on m us t d o by w ay of a career offend er guid eli ne ”); U nite d State s v. Hei m , 15 F. 3d 83 0, 83 2 ( 9th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( “T he Com m i ssi on’ s deci si on t o go b eyondthe m andate o f § 9 94(h) is
. . . co nsi ste nt with the l egi sl ati ve hi sto ryto § 9 94 (h ).” (em p h as is a d d ed )). So th e C om m iss i o n ’ s d ec isi on t o i nc l ud e c o ns pi r a c y o ffe ns e s i n the c a r e e r o ffe nder g ui del i ne

— an d there bys ubj ec t § 84 6 o ffen der s to the c ra c k/ p ow d er d isp ar ity co n ta in ed in t h e s ta tu to r y m ax imu ms

— re flec ts an ex er c ise of d isc re tio n . See U nited Sta tes v. A llen , 24 F. 3d 1180 , 11 86 ( 10th Cir
. 19 94) ( “Se cti on 99 4(h ) d oe s n ot, by m an d a t i n g e n h an c em en t fo r c er ta in crim es, p reclud e the Com m issi on from enh an cing o t h e rs i fi t i s withi n the Com m i ssi on’ s g ran t o fdi scr eti on t o do so
. ”)
. S uch pol i cy deci si ons m ade by the Co m m i ssi on i n de ve l o pi ng the Gui del i ne s ar e no t bi ndi ngo n s en te n c in g c ou rt s. Se eKi m b r ough , 12 8 S. C t. at 570- 71 ( obs er vi ng th at no co ng r es si o na l ac t pr ev en te d sent en ci ng cour ts f ro m di sag re ei ng w i th the cr ack/pow der di spari ty em b ed d ed in § 2 D 1.1 ); U nited Sta tes v. Sp ears , 129 S. C t. 84 0, 843 (2009 ) (per cu riam ) ( Kim b r ough r eco gni zed “di str i ct cour ts’ autho ri ty to var y from the cra ck coca i ne Guidel i ne s ba se d o n policydisagree m en t w ith th em . . . . ”). Si nce no congr ess i onalst atute r equi re s th at a car eer o ffe nd e r c o nv i c t e d o fa c o ns pi r a c y o ffe ns e und e r 21 U. S
. C.16 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 § 8 4 6 b e s e n t e n c e d “ a to r n e a r ” th e s t a t u t o r y ma x i mu m, sen ten cing cou rts ha ve th e d iscretion un d er Kim br ough to consi der the crack/powd erdi spari ty affecting such ano ffen der ’ s se nt en ce . I t f o l l ow s tha t Dav i s an d A nthony, wh o both plead ed gui l ty to conspi ra cy und er § 8 46 b u t not t o the s ubstanti ve drug o ffense und er§ 841, ar e e n tit l ed to a re m and fo r re sente nci ng i n l i ght o f Kim b r ough
.
2 . T he E f f e c to ft he 2 0 0 7Ame ndme ntRe duc i ng t he G uidel i nes’ Cra ck/Pow der D i spar i ty o n D avi s’

and A nthony’ s Sentences R elated to their Kim b r ough a r g u me n t, Da v i s an d Anthony ar g ue tha t th eya r e en ti tl ed to r es en te nc i ng und erthe C om m i ssi on’ s 2 007 am endm ent t o § 2 D1. 1, whi chr edu ced th e sen ten cing d ispa rity betw een c r ac k

-a nd pow der- coca i ne o ffenses . U
. S. S. G. app. C, am end. 70 6 ( S up p. 2 0 0 7 )
. We c a n e a s i l y di s pe ns e wi th thi s a r g ument. Th e Co mm i s s i o n’ s p o l i c y i s tha ta de fe nd a nta l r e a dy ser vi nga s e nt e nc e ma y n o tb e ne fi tfr o m a g ui de l i ne s amendmentunl es s i t “h a[ s] the e ffec t o fl o wer i ngthe de f e n d a n t ’ s a p p l i c a b l e g u i d e l i ne r a ng e . ” U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B1. 10( a) ( 2) ( B). S i nce Davi s’ and A nthony’ s s entence s we r e de t e r mi ne d b y § 4 B1
. 1 , the 2 0 0 7 a men dm ent t o § 2 D 1. 1 does notl ower thei r appli cabl e guidel i nes ra n ge s. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Fo r m an , 55 3 F
. 3d 585, 58 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( perc ur i am) ( “Am en dm en t 70 6 pr o vi des no b en e f i t t o c ar ee r offe n d er s.” ); Clay, 52 4 F
. 3d at 878- 79 ( “Al th o ug h the r ec en t am en dm en ts t o the s en te nc i ng gui del i nes l owered the offe nse l eve l s a sso ci ate d w i thN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 17
cra ck i n the drug quanti ty tabl e in U
. S. S. G. § 2 D1. 1, they d id n otch an ge th e c ar ee r offe n d er p ro vis ion in § 4 B1. 1 .
. . .”). Fur ther, the Com m i ssi on’ s pol i cy on thi s poi nt i s no t o ne thatwe can sim plyi gnor e, since C o n g r e s s h a s d e c l a r e d th a ta n y s e n t e n c e r e d u ct i o ns ba se d on a g ui del i ne s amendmentmustb e “c o ns i st en t wi tha ppl i cabl e po l i cys ta te m en ts i ss ue d b y the S en te n c in g C om m iss ion .” 18 U .S .C . § 35 82 (c )(2) ; see also U nite d State s v. Law re nce, 53 5 F
. 3d 6 31 , 6 37 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( re cogni zi ng tha t a di stric t cour t’ s a uthor i ty to re du ce s e n t e n c e s u n d e r § 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) i s l i mi t e d b y t he Co mm i ssi on’ s pol i cy sta tem ents ).
3. T h e E ffec t of Kimb r ough a nd t he 2 0 0 7Ame ndme nt

on A r m ean’ s Sentence U nl i ke hi s co - defe nd ants, A rm ean di d not qual i fy as a car eero ffender. S i nce hi s s entence was deter m i ned by § 2 D1. 1, A rm ean s houl d be a n obv i ous c andidate f or resen t e nc ing in l ight of Kim b r ough
. H owever, A rm ean f ai l ed to chal l enge the c ra ck/pow der di spari ty em bedd ed i n § 2 D1
. 1 b o th a th i s s e nt e nci ngh e a r i nga nd i n hi s a ppel l ate br i ef
. The l att ero m i ssi on w ou ld genera l l y m ean th a tA r me a n h a s w a i v e d a n y b e n e fi tfr o m Kim b r ough , si nce “ [a] p ar ty w ai ves any a rgum ent that .
. . i t f ai l s t o devel op on appeal
. ” Lo ca l 15, Int’l B r o t h. o f E lec. Wo rkers, AFL- CIO v. Exe l on Co rp. , 49 5 F
. 3d 779, 78 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( quo t a t i o n a nd c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d) )
. F o r t un a t e l y f or A rm ea n, th e g ov er n m en t h as co n c ed ed th at A rm ea n is entit led to a Taylo rl im ited rem an d i n li gh t of Kim b r ough , ther eby “w ai vi ng waiv er ” o fA rm ean’ s Kim b r ough c l a i m.18 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 S e e, e . g. , U nited St at e s v. Pach e co - D i az , 50 6 F
. 3d 545, 55 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. W e wi l l a cc o r di ng l y g r an t Arm ea n a l i m ite d rem an d atw h ich th e d ist ric t c ou rtsh ou ld in di ca te whethe r i t woul d ha ve se nt en ce d Arm ea n differently had i t know n of i ts d iscretion un d er Ki mb r ough
. Se eTayl or, 52 0 F
. 3d at 748- 49. A l though fai l i ng to br i efhi s Kim b r ough cl ai m , A rm ean has a rgued on a p p ea l tha t he i s e nti tl ed to a sente nce re du cti on under the 20 07 am endm ent t o § 2D1.1
. That m ay be true, but thi s a pp eali s no t the pro per vehi cl e f or A rm ean to rai se th is cla im i n th e fi rst instan ce; r ath er, Arm ea n s ho ul d m o ve f o r a r edu ce d se nt en ce i n the d ist ric t c ou rtu n d e r 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 82 (c )(2) . A rm ea n w ill have the o pp or tuni ty to m ake thi s m oti on a t hi s l i m i ted r e man d, a twh i c h the di st r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d fi r s tde c i de “w he th ert o a ctf av o r ab l y o n [ Arm ea n’ s] mot i o n ( i fhe m ak es o ne , o r o n the j udg e’ s ow n init i at i ve , i f[ Arm ea n] does not) f or re l i ef und er the Com m i ssi on’ s new cr ack re gi m e. ” Taylo r, 520 F. 3d at 748. A fterr eso l vi ng any§ 3582 m oti on, the cour t s houl d in d icate wh etheri t i s incl i ned to re du ce A rm ea n’s se ntence eve n furtheri n l i ght o f Kim b r ough
. Id. at74 9.
B. Sente ncing Argum ents R esol ved

— D avis A lthou gh w e con clud e tha t D a v is and A nt hon y are enti tled to a fullr em and and res entenci ng i n l i ght o f Kim b r ough , we ha ve a l so consi der ed th ei r s en te nc i ng argu m en ts th at are un related to the crac k/p ow d er disp ari ty. B ecause so m e o fthes e a rgum ents ar e m er i tl essN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 19 and w er e full y deve l oped i n th e in i ti alse ntenci ng pro c ee d in gs , w e m ay d isp en se w ith th em in t h is a p p ea l. Begi nning w i th Davi s’ indiv i du alar gum ents, he a sse rt s th a to th e r e r r o r s we r e c o mmi t te d a th i s s e n t e n c i n g . He ar gues that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on by f ai l i ngt o a dequa te l y c o ns i dere vi den ce tha t th e ATF a g en t en gaged i n s en te nc i nge nt r apmenta nd mani pul at i o n. Dav i s als o a ss er ts tha t th e co ur t’ s appl i ca ti o n o fthe c ar ee r offe n d er gu id elin e t o h is c as e w as u n re as on ab le base d on the m in or n atur e o fhi s pri orfel ony convi cti ons and the unre l i abi l i ty ofthe cour t’ s fi nd i ngs o fDavi s’ pri orco nvi cti ons. Final l y, Da vis chal l enges the dist ri ct cour t’ s r efusalto re du ce hi s sente nce base d on hi s co oper ati on with the gov er nm ent.
1. Sente ncing Ent r apm ent and M anipulat i on S en te nc i nge nt r apmento cc ur s “whe n a de fen dan t who l ac ks a p re dispos i ti on t o engag e in m or e s er i ous c ri m es ne ve r th el es s do es s o ‘ as a r es ul t o fu nrel en tingg o ve r nm ent per si ste nce. ’ ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. White, 51 9 F
. 3d 342, 347 ( 7th C i r. 20 08) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. Vea z ey, 49 1 F
. 3d 700, 71 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ))
. The go ver nm ent m ay dispr ove se nt en ci nge nt r apmentby si m pl y s ho wi ngtha t th e defen dan t was i n fact pr edi spo se d t o v i o l at e th e l aw wi th o ut “extr aor dinar y ind ucem ents. ” Id. S en te nc i ngmani pul at i o n i s di st i nc t f ro m e nt r apment and oc curs w hen the go ver nm ent pr ocur es evi dence “th r o ugh o ut r a g e o us c o nd uc ts o l e l y f o r the p ur po s e o f i nc r ea singthe de fen dan t’ s se nt en ce unde r the S en te nc i ng20 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 Gu i del i nes. ” U nited Sta tes v. Wagn er, 46 7 F
. 3d 10 85, 10 90 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 6)
. Because “thi s ci rcui t cl ear l y a nd co nsi stentl y has r efused to r eco gni ze any defense base d on ei ther‘ sente nci ng m ani pulat i on’ o r on a sse rt i ng ‘ outr ageo us go ver nm ent c onduc t,’ ” White, 51 9 F
. 3d at 346, Da v i s ’ man i pu l a t i o n a r g ume nt wo ul d s e e m t o be a no ns t a r t e r . Ho we v e r, Da v i s r a i s e s bo th s e nt e nc i nge nt r a pm en t an d m an i p ula ti o n n o t as de fen se s to c r i m i na l c o ndu ct, but as m i ti gat i ng f acto rs thatthe d istr i ct c ourtm ay c on s i d e r in ch oo sin g a rea so n ab le s en te n c e. See U nited St at e s v. La khan i, 480 F.3d 17 1, 18 6 (3 d C ir. 20 07 ) (ac kn ow ledgi ng t h at the di str i ct c ourtatse ntenci ng “would have been enti tl ed to con sid erthe Governm ent’ s per vasi ve r o l e i n thi s ca se , ” ev entho ug h the j ur y ha d r ej ec te d the d efe n d an t’s en tr ap m en t d efe n se ); cf. U nite d State s v. Hale, 44 8 F
. 3d 97 1, 9 89 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) ( r ej ec tinga s enten cing entr apm ent a rgum ent under § 3 553( a) o n the gr ou n d that the defendant had not shown “e xt ra ordinar y ind ucemen t s ” )
. As s umi ngtha tevi den c e o fs e nt e nc i nge nt r a pm ent a nd m ani pu l ati on co uld be r el evantto a d ist ri ct cour t’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe § 3 553(a ) f acto rs , the evi dence in this case w as no t so strong th at th e d istr ict cou rt ab us ed i ts di sc r et i o n i n r ej ec tingDa vi s’ e nt r apmenta nd m ani pu l ati on a rgum ents. Dav i s ar g ue s th at, b y c ha ng i ngthe pa y m en t te r m o fthe g uns pur ch as e f r o m $ 20 00 ca sh to 2 1 /4 o unc es c o ca i ne , the ATF a g en t en tr appe d Da vi s i nt o a dr ugo ffen se thathe w oul d not o ther w i se have com m i tte d. That change al so am ounts to sente nci ng m ani pu l ati on, sa ys Davi s, bec ause the dr ug o ffense tr i gge re d a har sherse ntenci ng r ange u n d er the car eero ffender gui del i ne, wh i ch w oul d notN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 21 ap p ly to a ca sh p u rc h as e o f gu n s. See U
. S. S. G. § 4 B1. 1( a) ( 2) ( i nd i cating tha t the car eero ffender gui del i ne appli es o nl y wher e “the i ns tant o ffen se o fc o nv i ct i o n i s a fel o ny that i s e i thera cri m e o fvi ol ence o r a contr ol l ed substan ce offense”). W e fi nd thes e a rgum ents to b e w i thout m er i t. A s t o se nt en ci nge nt r apment, Da vi s ha d s o l d c r ac kt o the age nt o n thr ee pri oroc c as i ons, i nd i cating tha t he did not l ack the pr edi sposi ti on t o com m i t anothercrackdeal
. True, the pr i orsa l es in volv ed quanti ti es bel ow the 50

- gr am thr e s ho l d tha t t r i g g e r e d a hi g he r s t a t ut o r y max i mum f or D av is’ in st an t c on vic tio n . See 21 U
. S. C
. § 8 4 1 (b )( 1)(a) (i ii ). ButDa vi s was a t al l t i m es a g r ee ab l e to pa y i ngf o r the guns w i th 2 1/4 ounces of cra ck, tel l i ng hi s c o-d efendants th athe c o uld easi l y s uppl y tha t qua nt i ty . The a g en t did nothave to use “ ex tr aor dinar y ind ucem ents” to c o nv i n c e D a v i s t o e n g a g e i n th i s r e l a t i v e l y h i g h

- v o l u me c ra c k d ea l. White, 519 F .3 d a t 3 47. A nd w hile the 2 1/4 ou n c es so licit ed b y t h e ag en t m ay h av e h ad a slig h tly l ess erval ue than the or i gi nal l y propose d $2000 cas h, such “b ar g ain b as emen t pr i ci ng ” do es no t amoun t to s en t e n c in g e n tr ap m en t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Es t r ada , 25 6 F
. 3d 466, 473-74 (7th Cir. 2001). A s t o sente nci ng m ani pu l ati on, i t i s no t e nough that the a gent’ s pro vi si on o fhandguns and sol i ci tation o f larger cr a c k q ua nt iti es m ay ha ve bee n “m otivated i n p art by the desi re to i ncre ase [ Dav is’] s entence . ” Wagn er, 46 7 F. 3d at 1090
. A l though the ag ent’ s t acti cs had the effect ofi ncre asi ng Davi s’ gui del i nes s entenci ng r ange, i t a l so se rv ed th e le git im at e p u rp os e o fi n ve st iga tin g t h e fu ll22 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 extent ofDavi s’ crim i nal act i vi ty, i ncl ud i ng hi s abi l i ty to d ea l in la rg e q u an tit ies of cr ac k. Seeid
. The gover nm ent’ s co nd uct in t h is case w as not so outr age ous a s t o requ ire lenienc y un d er § 3553(a).

2 . Ap pl i c a t i o n o ft he C a r e e rOf f e nde rGui de l i ne Davi s chal l enges the re aso nabl eness o fthe dist ri ct c ou rt ’s a p p lica tio n of th e c ar ee r offe n d er gu id elin e. In parti cul ar, D avi s co ntends thatse ntenci ng hi m under § 4 B1. 1 i s unre aso nabl e be cause tw o ofthe thr ee pri or drug fel oni es that quali fi ed hi m as a c areero ffender oc c u rre d ata yo u n g a ge , in vo lve d rela tiv ely sm all a mou nt s o fdr ug s , an d r e s ul t e d i n r e l a t i v e l y s ho r tp e r i o ds of i ncarc er ati on. The probl em f or Davi s, how eve r, is that the di str i ct c ourtfull y c onsi dered these f acto rs wh en ex am ining D avis’ “ex ten sive crim inal history.” T he c o u rt si m plydi sco unted the r el ativ e brev i ty ofDavi s’ pri or sente nces ag ain st the f act that “the sente nces that you ha ve s er ve d c er ta i nl y ha ve not be ena de te r r en t to y o ur conduct. ” Ther e was no abuse ofdi scr eti on her e. Dav i s a l s o c ha l l e ng e s the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o nc l usi on that he qual i fi ed as a c areero ffender base d on pri or c onvi cti ons that w er e no t pr ove n bey ond a r eas on ab le do ubt
. He a r g ue s th at d ue pr o ce ss r equi r es tha t se nte nc i nge nha nc ement s be b as ed o n o nl y r el i ab l e f ac ts , a nd th atpr i o r c o nv i cti ons e st ab l i sh ed bya mer e pr epo nderance o f the evi dence ar e unre l i abl e. H owever, r ather than devel opi ng a cog ent d u e p ro cess cl ai m , Davi s’ br i ef blend s his arg u m en t for a reason able d ou bt stan d ard w i th a disc ussi on o fthe Si xth A m endm ent r i ght t o aN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 23 j ur y t r i a l
. W e ha v e r e pe a t e dl y he l d tha tthe S i xth Am e nd

m en t do es no t r equi r e th atpr i o r c o nv i ct i o ns s up p ort i ng a ca r ee r o ffen derc l assifi ca ti o n b e f o und b y a j ur y b ey o nd a re as on ab le d ou b t. Se eCl ant on , 5 38 F.3 d a t 65 4 ( ci ting A lm end a rez-To rres v. U nited Sta tes , 523 U
. S. 224 (1 9 9 8 )) ; U nited S t a t e s v . Sac hsen m a ier, 491 F.3d 680 , 685 (7th C ir. 2007 )
. W e d o not see how D avi s’ ar gum ent, tho ugh couched i n ter m s o fdue proc ess and the re aso nabl eness ofhi s s entence , sur vi ves thi s pre cedent.

3 . C o o pe r a t i o n wi t h t he Go v e r nme nt I n h i s fi na lc ha l l en g e to the r ea so nabl en ess of h i s se nte nce, Davi s a rgues that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on byf ai l i ng t o consi der hi s co oper ati on with th e g ov er n m en t. P rior to p l e ad in g in th is c as e, D av is disc ussed a p lea agr eem ent where, i n exchange f ordi scl osing the d et ails o fthe cri m e a nd se rv i ng as a w i tness , the gov er nm ent w oul d m ove f or a re du ced se n tence base d on Davi s’ “s ubs ta n tialas si sta nce. ” See U. S
. S
. G. § 5 K 1. 1. The dealfel l thr ough, however, bas ed on Davi s’ des i r e to make o th er m i ti g at i o n a r g um en ts a t se nt en ci ng and his f ai l ure to adm i t a l l o fthe details o f t h e offense, parti cul ar l y that it i nvol ved cr ack coca i ne. A s a r esul t, the g ove rnm ent decl i ned to m ake a § 5 K 1.1 m oti on a t Davi s’ se ntenci ng. W e a g r e e wi th Da v i s tha t, a s a g e ne r a l ma t t e r, a di s t r i ct co ur t m ayc o ns i dera de fen dan t’ s coop erat i o n wi ththe g o ve r nm en t as a b as i s f o r a redu ced se nt en ce , e ve n i fthe g o v e r n m en t h as n otm ad e a § 5K 1.1 m ot ion
. Se eU nited24 N os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 Sta tes v. Ferna nd ez, 44 3 F
. 3d 19 , 3 3 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 6) ( r ea so ni ng that a di st ric t courtsho uld co nsi der “ the c onte nti on that a defendant m ade eff or ts t o c oo perat e, ev en i ftho se eff o r ts di d no t y i el d a Go ve r nm en t m o ti o n for a do wnw ar d d ep ar tu r e p u rs u an t t o U .S.S.G . § 5K 1.1 ”); U nited S t a t e s v . D oe, 3 98 F
. 3d 12 54, 1 26 0- 61 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 5) ( co nc l ud i ng that “a defe nd ant’ s ass i sta nce shoul d b e fully consi dered bya dist ri ct c ourtatse nten c i ng ev en i fthat as si st an ce i s no t pr es en te d t o the c o ur t i n the f o r m o f a § 5K 1 .1 m o t i on ”); cf

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Blu e, 45 3 F
. 3d 948, 954 ( 7th C i r. 2006) (r eco gni zing the di str i ct c ourt ’ s “ obl i gati o n t o wei g h the d efend ant’ s co o per at i o n . . . a g ains t th e o th er st atut o r y se nt en ci ng f ac to r s” wher e th e g o ve r nme n th a d ma d e a § 5 K1. 1 m o t i o n )
. Ho we v e r, we disa gr ee that the di str i ct c ourtin t h i s ca se f ai l ed to gi ve suffi ci ent c onsi derat i on t o Davi s’ subst anti al

- as sist ance ar gu m en t. T h e c o u r t sim p ly rej ec te d th at arg u m en t in favo r ofthe gov er nm ent’ s cl ai m that“there were certa in thi ngs that [ Davi s] would not adm i t that were essen tial to [his] coop eration.” Th e cou r t ’s dec isi on to give m ore cre ditto the gov er nm ent’ s v i ew o f t he exte nt o fDavi s’ co o per at i o n was no t anabus e o fdi sc r et i o n.

C. S e nt e nc i ngE nt r a pme nta nd M anipulat i on — Ant ho ny In a dd i ti on t o the Kim b r ough a r g ume nttha twe h a ve add re sse d above , A nthony a dopts Davi s’ ar gum ents th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtfai l e d to ad eq u at ely co n sid er ev id e n c e o fs e n t e n c i n ge n t r a p me n ta n d ma n i p u l a t i o n . As w ith D avi s ’ an alogous clai m s, w e find that A nt hon y’sN os. 06
- 4101 , 06
- 4376 & 07
- 1813 25
sen ten cing en trap m en t and m an ipu lati o n claim s are w ith ou t m er i t. A l ong w i th Davi s, A nthony ne got i ate d th e g u n s p u rc h a s e w ith th e A T F a ge n t a n d rea d ily agr eed to the age nt’ s s ugges tio n that the defendants pay f o r the g uns wi thc r ac ki ns te ad o fc as h. The g o ve rnment did nothave to r eso rtto “e xtraor d inaryi nd ucem ents” th a tw o u l d s u p p o r ta s e n t e nc i n ge n t r a p me n tc l a i m, White, 51 9 F
. 3d at 347, and i ts cond u c t w as not so outr ag e o u s t o s u p p o r ta s e n t e n c i n gma n i p u l a t i o n c l a i m, Wagn er, 46 7 F
. 3d at 1090
.

I I I . Concl usio n Bec au se no c o ng r es si o na l di r ec ti ve pr o hibi te d the d istri ct cou rt fr om cons idering D avis’ and A nt hon y’s sente nci ng ar gu m en t b as ed on th e c ra c k/pow der di spa r i ty affec tingc ar ee r o ffen der s co nv i ct ed o fdr ug consp ira cy offenses under 21 U
. S. C. § 8 46, we V ACATE the s e de fe nd a nt s ’ s e nt e nc e s a nd R EMA ND f o r r es en te nc i ng c o n s i s t e n twi th t hi s o p i n i o n . As f o r Ar me a n ’ s c a s e , we or der a L I MI T ED R EMA ND so thatt h e dist ri ct c ourtm ay f o l l ow th e pr o ce dur e des cr ibe d i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 520 F. 3d 746, 74 8- 49 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , to a dd re ss the e ffect o fbo th the 20 0 7A men dme ntt o § 2 D1
. 1 a nd Kim b r ough o n A rm ean ’s sente nc e. A fter resol ving an y m o tion for a re du ced se ntence und er18 U
. S. C. § 3 582(c )(2) bas ed on th e A m e n d m e n t, th e c ou rtsh ou ld ind ica te w h et h er it is inclined to redu ce A rm ean ’s sente nc e un d er Kim b r ough
.

7- 20- 09