FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 18, 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. 06- 10982 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 07 -C R -5 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 S A M B R A D L E Y D O U G L A 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 18, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

S a m B r a d le y D o u g la s p le d g u iltyto p o s s e s s io n o f alis te d c h e m ic a l w ith in te n t to m a n u f

a c tu r e ac o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) . H e ap p e a ls h is 1 5 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e , a r g u in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p r o p e r ly c a l c ul a t e d hi s of

f e ns e l e ve l a nd c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e goryunde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s . F o rth e r e a s o n s s e t f o rth m o r e f

u llyb e lo w , w e a f

f irm . I. O b st ru ct i on of ju st i ce an d acce p tan ce of re sp on si b i l i ty ad ju st m en ts T he di stri ctcourtappl i ed an ob struct i on of j ust i ce enhancem entun der U . S . S . G . § 3C 1. 1 a nd de ni e d D ougl a s ’ s r e que s t e d r e duc t i on f ora c c e pt a nc e of r e s pons i bi l i ty unde rU . S . S . G . § 3E 1. 1 ba s e d on D ougl a s ’ s a tt e m ptt o e s c ape f r om j a i l . D ougl a s a r gue s tha ti tw a s f unda m e nt a l l yunf

a i rf orthe di s tr i c tc ourtt o m a ke s u c h f in d in g s w h e r e h e h a d a c c e p te d th e g o v e rn m e n t’s o f f e rf o ra1 1 0 - m o n th sen t en ce, b u tth ato ffer w as l at er “ ‘ yan k ed ’ fro m th e t ab l e. ” D o u g l as al so chal l enges the di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng thathe di d att em ptt o esc ape. H e f urther a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t in d ic iao f

r e liab ilityto s u p p o rt h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e a lle g e d e s c ap e a tte m p t u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 6 A 1 .3 . F o r a n o b stru ctio n o f ju stice e n h an ce m en t, w e r ev iew th e d istrict co u rt’s f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d th e ap p lic a tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s to th o s e f a c ts de no vo . U ni t ed S t at es v. M as se y, 44 3 F . 3d 81 4, 81 8 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ). W e r evi ew the deni al of an adj ustm entfor a cc ept ance of re spon si bi l i ty f or cl ear e rr or. U ni t ed3

S t a t e s v. M or i a rty , 429 F . 3d 1012, 1022 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W he r e the de f e nda nt f a ils to r a is e as p e c if

ic o b je c tio n b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt, w e r e v ie w f o rp la in e rr o r . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d 1291, 1298 ( 11th C i r . ) , c e rt . de ni e d, 125 S . C t . 2935 ( 2005) . U nde rthi s s t a nda r d of r e vi e w , the r e m us tbe ( 1) a n e rr or , ( 2) thati s pl ai n, and (3) thataf fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. Id. If these three cond i t i on s are m et , w e m ay n o t i ce th e erro r o n l y i f “ th e erro r seri o u sl y affects th e fai rn ess, 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. ( c i t a t i on a nd quot a t i on m arks om i tt ed). In order for an err or t o b e pl ai n, i tm ustbe ob vi ou s or c l ear und er c u rr e n t la w . U n ite d S ta te s v . B a k e r , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 8 9 , 1 2 0 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 8 0 9 ( 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e G u id e lin e s p r o v id e f o ratw o - le v e l in c r e a s e in th e o f f e n s e le v e l [ i]f ( A ) th e d e f

e n d a n t w illf

u llyo 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 dur i ng the c our s e of 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 lyr e la te d o f

f e n s e . . . . U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 1. T he com m ent ary l i st s a tt em pt i ng t o esc ape f rom cust od y bef

ore tr ia l o rs e n te n c in g a s a n e x a m p le o f c o n d u c t w a rr a n tin g th is e n h a n c e m e n t. I d ., c om m e nt . ( n. 4( e ) ) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r a s i e r , 381 F . 3d 1097, 1099- 1100 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( uphol di ng the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s obs truc t i on of j us t i c e e nha nc e m e nt b a s e d o n th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a tte m p te d e s c ap e ) .4

T he G ui del i nes a l so prov i de for atw o-l evel re du ct i on i n the offens e l evel “[ i]f th e d e f e n d a n t c le a r lyd 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 ilityf

o rh is offe nse. ” U . S . S . G . § 3 E 1. 1(a) . If a def endantqu al i fi es for thi s tw o-l evel r e d u c t i o n , h e m a y b e e l i g i b l e f o ra n a d d i t i o n a l o n e - l e v e l r e d u c t i o n . U. S . S . G. § 3 E 1 .1 ( b ) . C o n d u c t r e s u ltin g in a n o b s tru c tio n o f ju s tic e e n h a n c e m e n t “o r d in a r ily i nd i ca t es thatthe defendanthas notac ce pt ed re spon si bi l i ty f or hi s c ri m i nal cond uct . ” I d. , com m ent . (n. 4). T h e d i stri ctco u rti s o b l i g at ed t o cal cu l at e th e G u i d el i n es ran g e co rrect l y, U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f

or d, 407 F . 3d 1174, 1178 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , a nd i s notbound by the pa rt i e s ’ s t i pul a t i on of f a c t s , U . S . S . G . § 6B 1. 4( d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F o rb e s , 8 8 8 F .2 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 4 - 5 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( h o ld in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id notc l e a r l y e rri n de ny i ng de f e nda ntam i nor - r ol e a dj us tm e ntde s pi t e s t i pul a t i on by p ar ti es th at h e s h o u ldre ce iv e a m in o r- ro le re d u ctio n ). A cc o rd in g ly, D o u g las’s ar gu m entthathi s G ui del i ne rang e s ho ul d h ave been al t er ed base d o n h i s a l l eged ag reem en tw i th th e g o v ern m en tfai l s. I n f i ndi ng tha tD ougl a s a tt e m pt e d t o e s c ape , the di s tr i c tc ourtr e l i e d on i nform at i on prov i ded b y the prob at i on offi ce r thatD ou gl as gave a s i gn ed vo l un t ary s ta te m e n t to aD e p u tyU .S . M a r s h a l, w h ic h s ta te d , in p e rtin e n t p a rt, A le x s a id h e h a d th e h o le [ in th e d u c t w o rk ] b ig e n o u g h th a t I c o u ld go i n the r e . I e nt e r e d the r oom butI c oul d notc l i m b up the w a l l t o the5

duc k ( s i c ) . I m i ghtha ve hurtm yf ootw he n I a tt e m pt e d t o c l i m b the w a ll. I c o u ld n o t r e a c h th e to p o f th e w a ll. T h r e e tim e s I a tte m p te d to c l i m b up the w a l l , I gr abbe d the pi pe s a nd c oul d ne ve rl i f tm y s e l f up t o the t op of

the w a l l . . . . I m a de aha m m e routof api e c e of

s t e e l a nd ab a llp o in t p e n . T h e to o ls w e r e k e p t u n d e rm ym a ttr e s s to s ta rt w ith . C e c i l s a i d tha t“ B e ni e , ” hi s gi r l f r i e nd, w oul d pi c k us up. B a s e d o n th is s ta te m e n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s f in d in g th a t D o u g la s a tte m p te d to es cape w as no tcl earl y e rr on eous. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl earl y e rr in d en yin g an ad

ju stm en t fo r a cc ep tan ce o f r es p o n sib il ity o r e n h an cin g D o u g las’s o f f e n s e le v e l f

o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e . B e c aus e D ougl a s a r gue s tha tthe r e w a s a n abs e nc e of s uf f i c i e nti ndi c i aof r e liab ilityto s u p p o rt h is in v o lv e m e n t in th e a lle g e d e s c ap e a tte m p t u n d e r§ 6 A 1 .3 f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , hi s c l a i m i s r e vi e w e d f orpl a i n e rr or . R odr i gue z , 398 F . 3d at12 98 . S ec t i on 6A 1. 3 p erm i t s the di stri ctcourt , w hen res ol vi ng di sput ed f a c tu a l is s u e s a t s e n te n c in g , to “c o n s id e rr e le v a n t in f o rm a tio n w ith o u t r e g a r d to its a dm i s s i bi l i ty unde rthe rul e s of e vi de nc e appl i c abl e a ttr i a l , pr ovi de d tha tthe i nform at i on has s uffi ci enti nd i ci a of r el i abi l i ty t o sup po rti t s probabl e a cc urac y. ” U . S . S . G . § 6A 1. 3( a ) , p. s . O f f e r e d a ga i ns thi m a ttr i a l , ade f e nda nt ’ s pr i or s t a t e m e nti s a dm i s s i bl e non- he a r s a y , F e d. R . E vi d. 801( d) ( 2) , a nd i ti s unc l e a rw hy D ou gl as bel i eves there w as i nsuffi ci enti nd i ci a of r el i abi l i ty. F urtherm ore, D o u g la s m a k e s n o a tte m p t to s h o w h o w th e a lle g e d e rr o rw a s p la in o ra f f e c te d h is subst ant i al ri gh t s. A cc ordi ng l y, D ou gl as cann otes t abl i sh pl ai n err or.6 II . C ri m i n alh i st ory cate go ry T he di stri ctcourtfoun d thatD ou gl as had 1 2 cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s f or a cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory of V . A m on g the po i nt s the di stri ctcourtas si gn ed w er e: ( 1) one poi ntf

oras us pe nde d l i c e ns e c onvi c t i on ar i s i ng f r om aD e c e m be r10, 1994, a rr e s ta tatr a f

f i c s t op f ora n appa r e nthe a dl i ghtvi ol a t i on; ( 2) one poi ntf or conv i ct i on s f

or m ar i j uana po ss es si on and a suspended l i ce nse ari si ng fr om a D e c e m be r11, 1994, a rr e s ta tatr a f f i c s t op due t o a n appa r e nte qui pm e ntvi ol a t i on; ( 3 ) th r e e p o in ts f

o rath e f t b y ta k in g c o n v ic tio n f o rw h ic h D o u g la s w a s in itia lly s e nt e nc e d t o pr oba t i on, buthi s s e nt e nc e l a t e rw a s m odi f i e d tw i c e t o i nc l ude pe r i ods of

c onf i ne m e nti n apr oba t i on de t e nt i on c e nt e rw he n he vi ol a t e d the c ondi t i ons of

hi s pr oba t i on; a nd ( 4) one poi ntbe c aus e D ougl a s c om m i tt e d the i nst antoffe nse l es s than tw o years af t erhe w as re l ea se d from cust od y on the theft b y t a k i n g c o n v i c t i o n . Do u g l a s a r g u e s th a tth e c o n v i c t i o n s a r i s i n g f r o m th e two tra ff i c s t op s i n D ec em ber 199 4 w er e r el at ed ca se s bec ause they w er e c on sol i dat ed f o rtr ia l o rs e n te n c in g a n d , th e r e f o r e , s h o u ld b e a s s ig n e d o n e c r im in a l p o in t to ta l, i nst ea d o f tw o. D ou gl as al so ar gu es thathi s r es tri ct i on ata probat i on ce nt erdo es no tqu al i fyas a s ent ence of i m pri sonm entun der U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 2, com m ent . (n. 2), a nd, the r e f

or e , he e rr one ous l y r e c e i ve d thr e e poi nt s f orhi s the f

tbyt a ki ng“Sentenc e of imprisonment” is def ined as “ a sentence of

incarceration.” U.S.S.G. 1 § 4A1.2(b)( 1). It does not include probation, residency in a halfw ay

house, or c onfinement in a 7 c o n v ic tio n a n d o n e c r im in a l h is to ryp o in t f o rc o m m ittin g th e in s ta n t o f f e n s e w ith in tw o y e a r s of

hi s r e l e a s e f

r om c onf i ne m e nt . A s ar e s ul t , D ougl a s c ont e nds tha the shou l d h ave r ec ei ved a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I V base d o n ei gh tcr i m i nal h i st o ry p o i n t s. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s appl i c a t i on of the G ui de l i ne s t o the f

a c t s de novo. M a s s e y , 443 F . 3d a t818. S e nt e nc e s i n r e l a t e d c a s e s a r e tr e a t e d a s one s e n te n c e u n d e rU .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .1 ( a ) - ( c ) . S e e U .S .S .G . § 4 A 1 .2 ( a ) ( 2 ) . P ri or se nt ence s are no tconsi dere d rel at ed i f they w er e f or offe nses th a t w e r e s e p a r a te d b y a n in te rv e n in g arr e s t ( i.e ., th e d e f e n d a n t is arre st ed for the fi rs toffe nse pri or t o com m i tt i ng the se cond offe nse) . O the rw i s e , pr i ors e nt e nc e s a r e c ons i de r e d r e l a t e d i f the yr e s ul t e d f

r om offe nses that(A ) occ urre d o n the sa m e occ as i on , (B ) w er e partof a s i ngl e c om m on s c he m e orpl a n, or( C ) w e r e c ons ol i da t e d f ortr i a l or s e n te n c in g . I d. , c om m e nt . ( n. 3) . D ougl a s ’ s s e nt e nc e f oras us pe nde d l i c e ns e c onvi c t i on i s not r e l a t e d t o hi s s e nt e nc e s f oras e c ond s us pe nde d l i c e ns e c onvi c t i on a nd am a r i j ua na p o ssessi o n co n v i ct i o n b ecau se D o u g l as w as arrested o n sep arat e d ays fo r th ese offe nses . T here fore , the di stri ctdi d n oterr i n tre at i ng the fi rs tconv i ct i on as u n r e la te d . I n c a l c ul a t i ng ade f

e ndant ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory , apr i or“ s e nt e nc e of i m pri sonm ent ” exce edi ng on e y ear and on e m on th i s a ss i gn ed three cr i m i nal 1community treatment center . U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1, comment. (backg ’d.); United States v. Pielag o, 135 F.3d 703, 712- 13 (11th Cir. 1998). 8 hi st ory poi nt s. U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(a) . C om m i ss i on of the i nst antoffe nse l es s than tw o years af

t erre l ea se fr om i m pri sonm enton a s ent ence coun t ed un der § 4A 1. 1(a) re sul t s i n add i t i on al cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s. U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(e) . W e do n otre ac h th e rem ai n i n g i ssu e o f w h eth er co n fi n em en tt o a p ro b at i o n d et en t i o n cen t er i s a

“ se nt ence of i m pri sonm ent ” f or the pu rposes of § 4 A 1. 1 b ec ause the di stri ctcourt s ta te d th a t, if

it w a s in c o rr e c t a s to th is is s u e , it w o u ld im p o s e th e s a m e s e n te n c e . U n ite d S ta te s v . D e L aT o rr e , 9 4 9 F .2 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( h o ld in g th a t it i s “ un nece ss ary t o res ol ve a di sput e a s t o w hi ch gu i del i ne rang e i s app l i cabl e w hen the l ow ercourtm akes cl ear the sa m e s ent ence w ou l d h ave been i m po se d i rr es pect i ve of the ou t com e of the di sput e. ”) . I n l i ghtof

the f or e goi ng, the di s tr i c tc ourti s a f f i rm e d. AF F I RME D.