FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 16, 2006 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. 05- 16403 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 1 3 8 - CR- CG 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 K E L O N E L E V E S E H O L M E S , 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 o rth e So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( Ju n e 16, 2006) B efo re T JO F L A T , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

K el on e L eves e H ol m es appeal s hi s 57-m on th sent ence for bei ng a c on vi ct ed fe l on i n p osse ss i on of a f i re arm , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 1). H e argues on appeal thatthe se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ctcourton re m and w as unr e a s onabl e i n l i ghtof U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), and 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3 (a) . Itl i gh tof B oo ker, w e r evi ew a f i nal se nt ence un der the advi soryG ui del i nes for r ea sonabl enes s. U ni t ed S t at es v. C raw ford, 40 7 F . 3d 11 74 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 2005) . W e do notr e vi e w e a c h i ndi vi dua l de c i s i on m a de dur i ng the s e nt e nc i ng proces s, ho w ever . U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ear, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 45 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . Th i s r e a s o n ab l e n e s s i n q u i ry i s g u i d e d b y th e f a c t o r s s e tf

o rth a t1 8 U . S. C. § 3553( a ) . W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1246; B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t766. W e ha ve r e j e c t e d the pr opos i t i on tha ts e nt e nc e s a tthe l ow - e nd of the a dvi s ory G ui de l i ne r a n g e a r e p e rs e r e a s o n ab le , th o u g h w e h a v e s ta te d th a t “o r d in a r ily w e w o u ld e xpe c tas e nt e nc e w i thi n the G ui de l i ne s r a nge t o be r e a s onabl e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T a lle y , 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . U nd erB oo ker, “ the S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o tri al by j ury i s vi ol at ed w here un der am andat ory gui del i nes s ys t em a s ent ence i s i ncre as ed because of an e nha nc e m e ntba s e d on f a c t s f ound by the j udge tha tw e r e ne i the ra dm i tt e d by the de f e nda ntnorf

ound by the j ury . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291,3

1 2 9 8 ( 1 1 th Ci r . ) c e rt . d e n i e d , 1 2 5 S. Ct . 2 9 3 5 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . Sp e c i f i c a l l y , th e Su p r e me C ou rthel d thatthe m andat ory nature of the F eder al S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r e n d e r e d th e m in c o m p a tib le w ith th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t’s g u a r a n te e to th e r ig h t to aj ury tr i a l . B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t749- 52. H ow e ve r , i ta l s o s t a t e d tha t“ [ i ] f the G ui del i nes a s c urre nt l y w ri tt en coul d b e r ea d as m er el y a dv i soryprov i si on s that r e c o m m e n d e d , r a th e rth a n r e q u ir e d , th e s e le c tio n o f p a rtic u la rs e n te n c e s in r e s p o n s e to d if

f e r in g s e ts o f

f a c ts , th e iru s e w o u ld n o t im p lic a te th e S ix th A m e ndm e nt . ” I d. a t750. In a s ec on d and se para t e m aj ori ty opi ni on i n B oo ker, the C ou rtconcl ud ed tha t , t o be s tpr e s e rve C ongr e s s ’ i nt e nti n e na c t i ng the S e nt e nc i ng R e f orm A c tof 1 9 8 4 , th e ap p r o p r i a t e r e me d y w a s t o “ e x c i s e ” tw o s p e c i f i c s e c t i o n s - 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(b)(1) (r equi ri ng a s ent ence w i thi n the G ui del i ne ra ng e, abse nta departure) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 3742( e ) ( e s t abl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w on appe a l , i nc l udi ng de novo r e vi e w of

de pa rtur e s f

r om the appl i c abl e G ui de l i ne r a nge ) - the r e by e f f e c t i ve l y r e nde r i ng the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a dvi s ory . I d. a t764. T h e r e f o r e , in lig h t o f

B o o k e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m u s t f ir s t a c c u r a te ly c a lc u la te the G ui de l i ne r a nge , a nd the n i t“ m a y i m pos e am or e s e ve r e orm or e l e ni e nt s e n te n c e ” a f

te rc o n s id e r in g th e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s . C r a w f

o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 9 . T he f a c t or s i nc l ude the a va i l abl e s e nt e nc e s , the appl i c abl e G ui de l i ne r a nge , the4

na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , a nd the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e t o r e f

l e c tthe seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d p ro v i d e j u st pu ni shm entfor the offens e. 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . W e have cl ar i fi ed thatthe di stri ct courti s notob l i gat ed t o speci fi ca l l y a dd re ss and anal yz e on the re cord every § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c to r , r a th e r , as ta te m e n t th a t th e c o u rt c o n s id e r e d th e f a c to r s is s uf f i c i e nti n pos t - B ooke rs e nt e nc e s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ott , 426 F . 3d 1324, 1329 (11th C i r. 20 05 ). A tH ol m es ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourthear d m i t i gat i ng fa ct ors a s t o hi s f

a m i l y a nd pe r s ona l s i tua t i on. T he c ourts t a t e d tha ti tr e a c he d the 57 -m on th sent ence af

t erca l cul at i ng the G ui del i ne ra ng e and appl yi ng i ti n an a dvi s ory m a nne r . I ts pe c i f i e d i tha d c ons i de r e d the a dvi s ory na tur e of the G ui del i nes a s w el l as the se nt enci ng fa ct ors s etforth i n § 35 53 (a ), and d et erm i ned th ata sen t en ce atth e l o w -en d o f th e ran g e w as m o stap p ro p ri at e i n l i g h to f th o se c ons i de r a t i ons . T he s e nt e nc e f e l l w e l l be l ow the s t a tut orym a xi m um t e rm of 120 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ; W in in g e a r , 4 2 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 6 . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtc ons i de r e d the § 3553( a ) f a c t or s a nd c onduc t e d a pr ope rr e a s onabl e ne s s i nqui ry . S e e W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1246; B ooke r , 125 S .C t. a t 7 6 6 ; S c o tt, 4 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 9 ; 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . H ol m es ’ s c l ai m thatthe di stri ctcourtshou l d h ave ordere d h i s f eder al5

s e nt e nc e run, a tl e a s ti n pa rt , c onc urr e ntw i th hi s s t a t e s e nt e nc e i s s i m i l a r l y w i thout m er i t , gi ven thatthe 57 -m on th sent ence on i t s ow n i s notun re as on abl e. S ee W i ni nge a r , 422 F . 3d a t1246; B ooke r , 125 S . C t . a t766; S c ott , 426 F . 3d a t1329; 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) . F i na l l y , H ol m e s doe s notc l a i m tha tthe r e w a s e rr ori n the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s G ui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i ons , a nd none i s appa r e nt . S e e C r a w f or d, 407 F .3 d a t 1 1 7 9 . B a s e d u p o n th e f

o r e g o in g , w e a f

f irm H o lm e s ’s s e n te n c e . AF F I RME D.