FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT JANUARY 24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 06- 12594 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 4 7 8 - CR- T- 3 0 - M SS 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 S H O N C O V E R T A S T A R K 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 orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 24, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: D a s hon C ove r t a S t a r ks appe a l s hi s 360- m onth s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rheTh epre sentenc einv e sti g atio n repo rt (“ PSI ” ) attribute d

3 7 .5 gra ms o f c oc aineba seto S tark s. 1 The district c ourt sustained Starks’s objection to the PSI ’s drug quantity and fo un dS t arks re sp on sib lefo r 1 4. 7 gra

ms o f c oc aineba se , c on sis tent withthejur y . H ow e ver, thedr

ugqu antity attributed to Stark did not affe ct his guidelines calculations beca use, as a career offender c onvicted of an o ff e ns ewi th a

statutor y maximumof l if

e, S tark s’ s o ff

e ns ele ve l w a s set at 37 , p ur su ant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) (A). 2 w a s f ound gui l ty by a j ury of c ons pi r i ng t o pos s e s s , pos s e s s i ng a nd m a nuf a c tur i ng f i ve gr a m s orm or e of

c oc a i ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 846, 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( B) ( i i i ) a n d 8 5 1 , a n d 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 . A f t e rr e v i e w , w e a f

f i r m. I . BA C K G R O U N D FA C TS A j ury f ou nd S t arks gu i l ty on three coun t s of drug-rel at ed offens es . T he j ury a ls o f o u n d th a t S ta rk s ’s o f

f e n s e s in v o lv e d 1 4 .7 g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e . A t s e n te n c in g , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o a ttr ib u te d 1 4 .7 g r a m s o f c o c a in e b a s e to S t a r ks a nd us e d tha tdrug qua nt i ty t o c a l c ul a t e S t a r ks ’ s of f e ns e l e ve l unde rthe S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n es p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(7 ). T h e d i stri ctco u rtal so 1 appl i e d the gui de l i ne s c a r e e rof f e nde rpr ovi s i on, pur s ua ntt o U . S . S . G . § 4B 1. 1, b e c a u s e S ta r k s h a d tw o p r io rf e lo n y c o n v ic tio n s f

o rc o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e s . W ith a to tal o ff

en se lev el o f 3 7 an d a c rim in al h isto ry ca teg o ry o f V I, S tark s’s a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge w a s 360 m onths t o l i f e i m pr i s onm e nt . A f

t e rr e s ol vi ng se vera l obj ec t i on s by S t arks thatar e notre l evantt o thi s app ea l , the di stri ctcourt se nt ence d S t arks t o con curr ent36 0-m on th sent ence s on eac h cou nt . T hi s app ea l f ol l ow e d.3 I I . DI S CUS S I ON C i t i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U . S . 220, 125 S . C t . 738 ( 2005) , S t a r ks a r gue s tha thi s 360- m onth s e nt e nc e i s unr e a s ona bl e be c a us e the S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s u s e d to c a lc u la te h is a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s r a n g e a r e “p r e s u m p tiv e ly unr e a s ona bl e . ” S t a r ks , w ho i s A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n, ba s e s hi s a r gum e nton w ha the ca l l s “ conces si on s” m ade by the S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on i n a 20 04 re po rtent i t l ed F i ft ee n Y ea rs of G ui del i nes S ent enci ng : A n A ss es sm entof H ow W el l the F eder al C r i m i na l J us t i c e S y s t e m i s A c hi e vi ng the G oa l s of S e nt e nc i ng R e f

or m . I n the 2 0 0 4 r e p o r t, th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n e x a m in e d , in te ra lia , d is p a r itie s in s e nt e nc e s a m ong m i nor i ty gr oups . S t a r ks a s s e r t s tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on i de nt i f i e d s e ve r a l gui de l i ne s pr ovi s i ons tha tha d a di s pr opor t i ona t e i m pa c ton A f r ic a n A m e r ic a n o f

f e n d e r s , in c lu d in g th e c a r e e ro f f e n d e rp r o v is io n o f

U .S .S .G . § 4B 1. 1 a nd the 100- t o- 1 c r a c k t o pow de rc oc a i ne r a t i o i n U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1. S t a r ks cont ends thatthe S ent enci ng C om m i ss i on concl ud ed thatthe hars her penal t i es as soci at ed w i th the ca re eroffe nd erand cocai ne ra t i o g ui del i nes provi si on s w er e un j ust i fi ed. T he go vernm entdo es no tdi sput e thatthese concl usi on s a re cont ai ned i n the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on’ s 2004 r e por t , butc ont e nds tha tthe r e por tdoe s not m ake S t arks’ s s ent ence un re as on abl e. B ec ause S t arks ra i se s these ar gu m ent s f or the fi rs tt i m e on app ea l , w e r evi ew4

on l y f or pl ai n err or. U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11t h C i r. 2005) . U nde rpl a i n e rr orr e vi e w , “ [ a ] n appe l l a t e c our tm a y notc orr e c ta n e rr orthe d e f e n d a n t f a ile d to r a is e in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t u n le s s th e r e is : ( 1 ) e rr o r , ( 2 ) th a t is p la in , a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f

f e c ts s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts .” I d . “‘I f a ll th r e e c o n d itio n s a r e m e t, a n appe l l a t e c our tm a y the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e rr or , but onl y 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 j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ott on, 535 U . S . 625, 631, 12 2 S . C t . 17 81 , 17 85 (200 2)). H e r e , S t a r ks f

a i l s t o s how e rr or , l e ta l one pl a i n e rr or . A f t e rB ooke r , the di s tr i c tc our tf

i r s tm us tc orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e a de f e nda nt ’ s a dvi s ory i m pr i s onm e nt r a n g e u n d e rth e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s b e f o r e d e te r m in in g a n ap p r o p r ia te s e n te n c e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1360 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . I n s o doi ng, the di stri ctcourti s notfr ee t o d i sr egar d p rovi si on s of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes because they have been the subj ec tof cr i t i ci sm . F urtherm ore, on ce the advi sory gui de l i ne s r a nge ha s be e n pr ope r l y c a l c ul a t e d, the di s tr i c tc our tm a y notva ry f r om tha tr a nge ba s e d on a br oa d, c a t e gor i c a l r e j e c t i on of

c ongr e s s i ona l s e nt e nc i ng po l i cy re fl ec t ed i n the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes. S ee i d. at13 64 -68 (re vers i ng di stri ct c our t ’ s va r i a nc e f

r om a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s ba s e d on c r i t i c i s m s of 100- t o- 1 c r a c k- t ococa i ne ra t i o). R ather, the di stri ctcourt ’ s var i ance fr om the advi sory gu i del i nesOn appe al, Starks does not argue that his sentenc e is unrea sonable based on i ndividualiz ed, 2 case -spec ific factors in § 3553(a). R ath er, St arks make s a sweeping challeng e to these two provisions of the SentencingGuidelines as “presumptively unrea sonable”based on thepolicy c on c e rn s raise d in

theSe ntenc ingCommis sio ns 20 04 repo rt . 5 ra n g e m u st “ref

lect[ ] th e in d iv id u alized , cas e- sp ec ific fa cto rs in [1 8 U .S .C .] § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .” I d . a t 1 3 6 9 . T h u s , S ta r k s c a n n o t s h o w th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le 2 ba s e d s ol e l y on the ge ne r a l i z e d di s pa r i ty c onc e rns r a i s e d i n the S e nt e nc i ng C o m m is s io n ’s 2 0 0 4 r e p o r t. AF F I RME D.