FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT APRI L2, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 07- 1283 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 06-00497 -CR- JEC- 1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us DEDYE SAKO , a. k. a. A li Sa ck o, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(A pr il 2, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BI RC H and D U BIN A , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:The men told police that Sako fired thre e or four shots at them; but a later examination of the 1 gun reve aled that it containe d nine out of ten rounds of ammunition. 2 D ef en dant- Appe llant D ed ey e Sako a ppe al s hi s 18 -m onth se nte nc e fo r be ing
anil le ga l a lie n inpos se ssi on o f a fi re ar m , 18 U
. S. C. § 92 2( g)
. N o r ev er sib le e rr or ha s b een sh own ; we af

fir m . The instant charge stem

m ed from Sako’ s call to the Atlanta police to report a robbery of his busi ness. When officers arrived, they detained Sako. H e had
s t a t e dth a th e f

e a r e dtw o me n w h o h a de n t e r e dh i s b u s i n e s s w e r e g o i n g t o r o b h i m; so h e pul le d ou t a

gun . T he tw o m enr an , and S ak o c ha se d th em . H e or igi na lly told p olice that he did no t fire the gun at the would-be robbers. Police then interviewed the tw o m en, who stated that th ey entered S ako’ s busi ness to see what he w as se lli ng and tha t he be gan y el lin g a t the m . Whe n S ak o pu lle d ou t a gun , the y f le d; and h e fi re d a t the m . Ar ev ie wof vid eo sur ve ill an ce r ev ea le d th at

S ak o y el le d a t the m enw he n th ey e nte re d th e sto re . Whe n a ga in a ske d by pol ic e if he fired his gun, Sako replied that he had shot at the two m en because he f eare d they were g oi ng to rob hi m . The At la nt a p ol ic e arr es te d S ak o fo r ag gr av at edass au lt
. 1 Bu t this c harg e la te r w as dr oppe d a t the bid din g of the Bure auof

I m m igr at ionofB I CE al re a dy wa s inve sti g atin g Sako in co nn e c tio n with a fr a ud sc he me inv olv ingc ounte rf e it 2 media. Sako, who enter ed the United States using a passport in the name of an alias, pr eviously

had been in de portation proce eding s and wa s denied a sylum. He twice was order ed to depar t the United States voluntarily , but failed to do so. Sako contends that the court made indefinite deter minations about the enhanc ement that ca nnot 3 be subjec ted to appellate revie w. We disagre e. The c ourt deter mined that the fa cts war

rante d an enhanc ement base d on Sako’s d i s ch arg e of the firea rm and that the discha

rg e constituted an ag g ravated assault. Un de r a pla in- e rr or

ana ly sis , w e may

no t c or re c t th e e rr or

un le ss t he re is “ (1 ) e rr or , ( 2) that is 4 pla in , an d ( 3) tha

t a ff e c ts s ub sta

nti a l r ig hts ,” and

“ (4 ) t he e rr or se ri ou sly a ff e c ts the fa ir

ne ss, integ rity , or public re putation of judicial proce eding s.” I d. (citation omitted). 3 Cu sto m s E nf

or ce m en t ( “ BI CE ”) be ca

use BI CE w an te d to pr ose cu te S ak o f or b e i n g an i l l e g a l a l i e n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f af i r e a rm. 2 A t se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt i m pose d af our -l ev el e nhanc em en t, pur suant to U
. S. S. G
. § 2K2. 1( b) (6 ), to Sako’ s ba se of fe nse le ve l ba se d onhis pos se ssi on o f the gun in connection with anoth er f elony offense. Sako contends (1) that application o f this enhancem ent violated th e Sixth Am endm ent because it w as ba se d onf

ac ts n ot a lle ge d inthe ind ic tm en t or a dm itt ed by him ; and ( 2) that the
co urt e rr ed

in ap ply ing the e nhanc em en t be ca use the e vid en ce sho w ed

that he
m er el y dis ch ar ge d aw ea

pon, am isd em ea

nor , ins te ad

of c om m itt ed af el ony aggravated assault. Sako failed to ra ise a constituti onal challenge to his sentence 3 in the dis tr ic t c ourt; so w e re vie whis c la im onl y f or pla in e rr or . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ro d ri g u ez , 3 9 8 F. 3 d1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 (1 1 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ). We re v i ew th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 44

int er pr et at ionof

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s de nov o and i ts f ac tua l de te rm inatio ns fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Pop e, 46 1 F .3d13 31 , 13 33 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Sako has failed to show sentencing error her e. About the constitu tional cl ai m , the dis tr ic t c ourt c om pli ed w ithU nit ed

S ta te s v. Bo oke r, 125 S
. Ct
. 738 (2005), by

treating the Guidelines as advisory
. As such, the district court was pe rm itt ed to ap ply e xtr a- ve rd ic t e nhanc em en ts b as ed on f ac ts n ot a lle ge d inthe in di ct m en t o r ad m it te d b y Sak o. Ro dr ig ue z, 39 8 F .3dat 1 30 1. The di st ric t co ur t al so co rrec tl y ap pl ie d t he en ha nc em en t. Un de r U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)( 6), a

four-level e nhancem ent applies if a defendant possessed a firear m in c onne ct ionw ith“ an oth er f el ony of fe nse , ” w hic h is de fi ne d a s “ an y F ed er al , state , or loc al of fe nse ” puni sha

ble by m or e than ay ear of

im pr iso nm en t

“ regardless of whether a c rim inal charge w as brought , or a conviction o btained.” U. S. S. G. § 2K2.1, com

m ent. n. 14(c). In G eorgia, a person com m its aggravated
as sa ul t -- an d s ha ll be im pr is on edno t l es s t ha n o ne y ear - - whe n h e “ as sa ul ts . . . w ithade ad ly

w ea pon . . . w hic h, w he n us ed of fe nsi ve ly a ga ins t a pe rs on, is lik el y to or actually

does result in serious bodil y injury .” G a. Code.A nn. § 16-5-21(a)(2), (b ). T ha t S ak o di sc harg ed the gunin ana tte m

pt t o sc ar e of

f the m enhe pe rc ei ve d a s r obbe rs is dis put ed
. A t se nte nc ing , S ak o st at ed that he sho t a t theSako also argued that the enhance ment should not apply beca use dischar g e of the gun was not 5 rele vant conduc t to the possession charg e. B ut he dischar g ed the gun while he illega lly possessed it. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a )(1) (re levant conduc t includes “all acts
. . . committed . . . that occur red duringthe commission of the offe nse of c onviction.”). In addition, rea sonablene ss reviewemploy s an abuse -of- discre t ion standard. Ga ll v. United 6 States, 128 S.Ct . 586, 597 (2007). 5 fl oor , not a t the m en . B ut h e pr ev iou sly a dm itt ed to pol ic e that he ha d sh ot at the
m enout of f ear of be ing r obbe d. B as ed

on S ak o’ s c onf

lic tin g st at em en ts a

bout his acts and the police officer s’ decision to charge him with aggravated assault af ter takin g st at em en ts and v ie w ing vid eo sur ve ill an ce , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c le ar ly
er r de te rm ini ng tha t S ak o sh ot at the m en ; and this a ct c onst itu te d th e fe lon y of fen se of a gg rav at edass au lt un de r Geo rg ia law. 5 We n o w tu rn t o Sa k o ’s ar g u m en tth at h i s s en t en ce i s u n re as o n ab l e. We
re vie whis se nte nc e fo r re as ona ble ne ss i n th e lig ht o f the f ac tor s se t ou t i n se ct ion 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a)
. U nit ed S ta te s v. W ini nge ar , 422 F
. 3d 1 241, 124 4- 46 ( 11th Cir. 2005 ). U nder section 355 3(a), a district court should consider, am ong o ther

6 thing s, the nature and circum stances of the offense, the history and charac teristics of the defendant, the nee d for adequate deter rence and protection o f the public, pol ic y state m en ts o f the S en te nc ing Co m m iss ion , pr ovi sio n f

or the m ed ic al and ed uc at ion al ne ed s of

the de fe ndant, and the ne ed to av oid unw ar rante d se nte nc ing dis pari tie s. S ee 18 U
. S. C. § 35 53( a) (1 )- (7 ). “ [T ] he party w ho c ha lle nge s th e6

se nte nc e be ar s th e bur de n of e sta bli shi ng that the se nte nc e is unr ea sona ble in the lig ht o f both [ the ] r ec or d and the f ac tor s inse ct ion355 3( a)
. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 88 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). W e co nc lud e that S ak o’ s se nte nc e w as r ea sona ble
. T he se nte nc e w as a t the lo w end of t he Gui de li ne s ra ng e, an d wel l b el ow t he 10 -y ear s ta tu to ry m ax im um . 18 U
. S. C. § 92 4( a) (2 ); T al le y , 431 F
. 3d at 78 8 ( not ing that “ or din ar ily w e w oul d
expe ct ase nte nc e w ith in the G uid el ine s r an ge to be r ea sona ble ”) ; W ini nge ar , 422 F. 3d at 12 46 ( co m

pari ng, a s on e ind ic at ionof r ea sona ble ne ss, the a ct

ua l pr iso n te rm im pose d a ga ins t the statut or y m ax im um ). T houg h no t e xpl ic itl y statin g so , the district court clearly

considered the section 35 53(a) fa ctors in determ ining an ap pr opr ia te se nte nc e. T he c ourt sp ec if ic al ly not ed S ak o’ s in vol ve m en t i n pr ev iou s in ci de nt s wh ere v io le nc e o ccu rred an d h is co nt in ue d v io la ti on of i m m ig rat io n l aw. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso c onsi de re d S ak o’ s di ff ic ult pa st i n hi s ho m e co untry , his
w if e’ s f av or ab le te sti m ony , and h is y oung c hil d. S ee § 35 53( a) (1 ), ( 2) (B ). T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s st at em en t of r ea sons w as suf

fi ci en t. S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ri ta , 127 S. Ct. 2456 , 2468-69 (2007 ) (a lengthyexplanation is not necessarily required
w he n aj udge de ci de s to f oll owthe G uid el ine s inapart ic ular ca se , e spe ci al ly wher e a sentencing j udge has lis tened to the argum ents of the parties, c onsid ered the sup portin g e vid en ce , and w as aw ar e of the spe ci al c ondi tio ns o f theSako’s ar gument that the district court g ave unr easona ble weight to the Guidelines i s without 7 merit; the court c an dete rmine the a ppropriate weig ht to give the Gu i d el i n es after consider ing the se c tio n 3 55 3( a ) fa c tor s. Se e Un ite d Stat e s v. Williams, 45 6 F. 3d 13 53 , 1 36 3 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 6) c e rt . dismiss ed, 127 S.Ct. 3040 (2007), abrog ated in par t on differ ent g rounds by Kimbroug h v. United States, 128 S.Ct . 558 (2007) ( explaining that “[w]e will not s ubstitut e our judgme nt in weig hing the rele vant fa ctors.”) . We also rejec t Sako’s arg ument that the di strict court a pplied a pre sumption of rea sonablene ss to the Guidelines rang e. 7 de fe ndant) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. S co tt, 426 F
. 3d 1 324, 132 9 ( 11th C ir
. 200 5) (explaining that Booker does not require the district court to state on the record that it explicitl y

has considered each section 3553 (a) factor)
. 7 Ba se d onthe f

ac tor s ou tli ne d inse ct ion355 3( a) and o ur r ev ie wof

the
re co rd , w e co nc lud e that S ak o ha s no t c ar ri ed his bur de n of

sho w ing that hi s sentence w as unreasonable. AFFIRMED.