## 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. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. R OBERT V AL LA R, T YRAIL C URRY, A M AD O R H ER NAND EZ, an d E L A DI O P ED RO ZA, S R ., 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 . 1:05- CR-472

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judg e.
A RG UE D O CT OB ER 26, 2010

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 14, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . T hr ee d efe nda nt s wer e co nvic te d of co m m itt in g v ar iou s d ru g-r ela te d o f f e n se s; a f ourth pl e d g ui l t y . Th e y r a i s e a v a r i e t y o f a r g ume nt s o n di r ec t appe al, p rim ar i l y c ha l l en g i ngthe i r s en te nc es a nd den i al s o fmot i o ns t o s uppr es s the i r c o nfes si o ns . F o r the f o l l o win gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.2 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 I . B a c kg r o und On Septem ber20 , 20 05, a federa lgr and j ury re turned a fift y-o n e-c ou n t i n d ict m en t a ga in st se ve n te en ind ividu als, i nc lud in g A m ad or H erna nd ez (“H erna nd ez”), E ladio Ped roza, Sr. ( “P ed roza”), R obert V all ar (“Vallar”), and Tyrai lCurry( “Curry ”)
. I t char ged the f our w i th var i ous o ffenses r el ate d to a drug conspi ra cy. J uan Carl os I ni guez, a co- defe nd ant who i s no t a party to thi s a pp eal, di re cted a drug busin ess thatdi str ibuted coca i ne and her oi n to m ult i ple ci ti es in the U ni ted S tat es begi n n ing in the sum m ero f20 04. Ini guez obt ai ned coca i ne fro m an ind i vi du ali n M exi co, J uan Sa nchez, and hero i ne fro m an ind i vi d u al n am ed J esus Ocam po. I ni guez dist ributed w hol esa l e quanti ti es ofthe drugs t o co - co ns pi r at o r s Phi l l i p Ki ng, Go nz al o S an ch ez , a nd Val l ar, a m o ngot he r s, who wer e spr ea d thr o ug ho ut K entucky, Ohio, a nd Chica go. Pedro za ass i ste d I ni guez i n dis tr ibuti ng co cai ne and col l ecting pro ceeds. V a l l a r w a s a r r e s t e d a t h i s h o me o n Ma y 2 6 , 2 0 0 5
. He w ai ved hi s M i r anda r i g ht s an d c o nfes se d t o pa r ti ci pat i ng i n th e drug co nspir acy. H er nand ez w as al so ar re ste d on M ay 26, 20 05. A fterwaiving hi s M i r anda ri ghts, he a l so confe ss ed to var i ous a spects o fthe charg ed cr i m es. Both Val l arand H er nand ez m ove d to supp re ss thei r confessi ons. The di str i ct c ourtdeni ed both m oti ons. C u r r y p l e d g u i l t y t o th e c o n s p i r a c y c h a r g e o n S e p t e mber6, 20 06. On A pri l13 , 20 07, a j ury f ound Pedroza, H er nand ez, and Val l argui l ty on m u ltip l e co unts. H er nand ez and Pe droza separ ate l y fi l ed m oti ons for j ud g men to fa c qu i t t a la nd a n e w t r i a li n the a l t e r na t i ve. The dis tr i ct c ourtdeni ed both m oti ons.N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 3 On Septem ber12 , 20 07, the dist ri ct c ourtse ntenced Val l arto 15 1 m onths ofi m pri sonm ent o n Counts 1 and 35 an d 4 8 m o nths of im p ri so nm en t o n Co unt3 7, t o r un c o ncur r en tly . On Oct o be r 2 8, 2 00 8, the di st r i ctc o ur t se nte nc ed H erna nde z to 3 24 months o n Co unt s 1, 2 3, 4 0, an d 48, 60 m onths on Counts 9 a nd 49 , 24 0 m onths on Cou nt s 3 4 a nd 36 , and 48 m o nths on Cou nt s 4, 2 5, 3 3, a nd 39 , t o r un con cur r en tly . On S ept embe r 2 9, 2 00 9, the d i s t r i c t c o u r t s e n t e n c e d P e d r o z a t o 3 6 0 m o n th s o fi mpri sonm ent o n C ount 1 and 48 m onths on Count 12 , to run co ncurr entl y.
II . A n alysis A . Pedro za’ s Sentence P e d r o z a c h a l l e n g e s h i s s e n t e n c e o n f o u r g r o un ds
. We r e v i e w de n o v o wh e the r the di s t r i c tc ourtco mm i t t e d a pr o c e du r a le r r o r, wh i c h i nc l ud e s de t e r mi ningwh e the r the di str i ct c ourtp ro p er ly consi dered the f acto rs i n 18 U
. S. C. § 3 553( a) and m i ti gat i ng ev i dence, and w hether i t i m proper l y t re ate d the guidel i nes a s m andator y o r ot h er w ise u n d u ly re lied on th em . See G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7); U ni t e d St at e s v. Coopm an , 60 2 F.3d 81 4, 81 7-1 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); U nite d State s v. O m ole, 523 F. 3d 691, 697- 98 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. N ext, we re vi ew f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n whe th erthe s en te nc e i s su bs ta ntively reason able in l ight of the factors in § 355 3 (a ). Coopm an , 60 2 F
. 3d at 819. F irst, w hile Ped roza con ced es th at th e d istri ct cou rt cor re ctl y c al cul ate d his gui del i nes ran ge , he c l ai m s that4 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484

T he f acto rs in § 35 53 (a) inclu d e, am on g oth er th ing s: 1 ( 1) the na t ur e and c i rcu m stanc es ofthe offen s e and the h ist o ry an d ch a ra ct er ist ic s o f th e d efe n d a n t; ( 2) the need f or the s ente nce i m posed

— (A) to refl ect the seriou sness of the offense, to p ro m ote re s pec tf or the l aw, an d t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm en t fo r t h e o ffen se ; (B ) t o a ffor d ad equ ate d eterr en ce to cr im ina l con d u ct; ( C) t o protectthe pub li c from further cri m es of the defe nd a nt; a nd ( D ) to prov id e the defe nd ant with nee ded educational or vocati on al tr aini ng, m edical car e, or other c orrec ti onal t reat m ent in the m osteffect ive m anner; (3 ) th e k in d s o f sen te n ce s a v a ila b le
. . . . 1 8 U .S.C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). th e di st r i ctc o ur t m i sa ppl i ed th e f ac to r s i n § 3 55 3( a) a nd 1 f ai l ed to ad equa te l y c o ns i dermit i g at i ngf ac ts
. Thi s ar g um ent i s v acuous. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtth or ou gh ly a n aly z e d t h e fa c to rs in § 35 53 ( a) a nd c o m m itte d no r ev er sibl e er r o r i n do i ng so . I t di sc us se d the na tu r e an d c i r cumst ances ofthe offense

— i n c l u d i n gth e a mo u n to fd r u g s i n v o l v e d i n the co ns pi r ac y, Pe dr o za ’ s r o l e i n the c o ns pi r ac y, a nd the harm fro m the d rugs he di str ibuted

— Pe d roza’s history an d charac ter i sti cs

— i ncl ud i ng hi s a ge and the f act that a gui del i ne se ntence w oul d l i kel y e nsure th at Pedroz a woul d di e i n pr i so n, th at he ha s a st r o ng f ami l y tha t he l ove s a nd supports , and hi s s i gni fi cant c ri m in al his tory,N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 5 i ncl ud i ng l eadi ng a drug di str ibution r i ng wh i l e i m pri soned on a pre vi ous c onvi cti on

— an d the ne ed f o r the s e n t e n c e i mpos e d t o d e t e r, p r o mo t e r e s p e c tf o r th e l a w, provi de j ust punis hm ent, and prot ect the publ i c fro m furthercr i m es by Pedroz a

— includ ing tha t Ped roza’s previ ous s entences di d not dete r hi m fro m r eci diva ti ng, hi s l ac ko fr emor se , a nd tha t he h as no r es pec t f o r the l aws o fth e Un i t e d S t a t e s . T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta l s o c o nsi dered thatPed ro za w oul d l i kel y r etur n and re ci diva te i fh e r e c e i v e d a b e l o w- g ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e a nd wa s depo r te d a fte r releas e, s i nc e he ha d b ee n fo und in the U
. S. i l l ega l l y o n thr ee occa si ons. T he d istrict cou rt m ean ingfully con side red the factors i n § 3553(a )
. Pedro za cl ai m s that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not adequatel y c onsi der e ach o fhi s m i ti gat i on a rgum ents. The dis tr i ct c ourtaddress ed the m aj or i ty and str onge st ofPedro za’ s a rgum ents. That the di str i ct c ourtdi d not expli ci tl y di scuss each o fPedro za’ s weakerar gum ents does not const i tute re ver sibl e e rr or u n d er the f acts o f th is c as e. See Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Pa ige, 6 11 F. 3d 397, 39 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0) (“[W ]e r egul ar l y a ffi r m s en te nc es wher e th e dist ri ct j ud ge does not expli ci tl y m entio n each m i ti gati o n a r g um en t r ai se d b y the de fen dan t. Inde ed, s en te nc i ngj udg es musto nl y de m ons tr at e m ea ni ng fulc o nside ration of § 3553 (a) factors.”). Se con d , P edro za cl ai m s that the di str i ct c ourtdi d not ad eq u at ely co n sid er ev er y fa c to r in§ 35 5 3(a ), sp ec ifica lly m enti oni ng that the dist ri ct i nadequ ate ly discuss ed hi s hi sto ryand char acte ri sti cs, wh etherthe sente nce p ro vid ed j u st p u n ish m e n t fo r th e o ffen se an d w ou ld6 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 prom ote respectforthe l aw , and, m or e g ener al l y, wh ether th e se nt en ce was l o ng ertha n n ec es sa r y t o pr o m ote th e goa l s o fse ntenci ng. Thi s a rgum ent i s a l so m er i tl ess . As the di sc us si o n abo ve indi ca te s, Ped r o za ’ s ar g um en t is b elie d by th e re c or d . Th e d ist ric t c ou rtad eq u at ely disc ussed t h e fa cto rs i n § 3 553( a) he r efer ences. Thus, ev en if t h e d ist ric t c ou rtd id n otco n sid er ea c h fac to r in § 3 55 3(a ), th at w o u ld n otco n st itu te rev er sib le e rro r. See, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ann on , 5 1 8 F. 3d 494, 496 (7th Cir. 2008 ) ( “The cour t need not add re ss eve ry § 3553( a) f ac to r i n che ck l i stf as hi o n, e xpl i ci tly ar ti cul at i ngi ts c o nclu sions r ega rdi ng ea ch one. Instea d the co urt m ay si m pl y g i ve a n a dequa te s ta te m en t o fr ea so ns , c o ns i st en t wi th § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , f o r think i ng the s e nt e nc e i ts e l e c t s i s a pp rop riate. ”). T h ird , Pe d ro za arg u es th at th e d is t r ict co u rtu n d u ly re l i ed on the gui de li ne r ange i n sel ecting hi s s entence
. Bu t we se e no i nd i cati on in the re cord t h at the di str i ct cour t t re ate d the guidel i nes a s m andator y o r presum ed th at a w ith in -gu id elin es se n te n c e w a s r ea so n ab le. S ee gen erally U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 53 0 F
. 3d 565, 57 7- 78 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) (discu ssing w he th er th e d istri ct cou rt f ai l ed to pro per l y r ec o g ni ze the a dvi so r y na tu r e o fthe gu id eli nes) ; U nite d State s v. Schm it t, 49 5 F
. 3d 860, 86 5 ( 7th Cir
. 2007 ) ( hol ding that a dist ri ct cour t gave to o m u ch w ei ght t o the guidel in es w here “hi s r em ar ks i nd i cate d th at h e fe lt th at th er e w as a n o u t s i d e c on st ra in t o n h is d isc re tio n th at h e w as n ot fre e t o s et as id e” ); U nited Sta tes v. R o ss , 5 01 F
. 3d 851, 8 53

- 54 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. Ins te ad, the re c or d d em on st ra te s t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtad eq u a t elyN os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 7

ex p lai ne d i ts sen ten cing d ecision in l ight o f th e factors i n § 3 553( a) and Pedroz a’ s char acte ri sti cs. F i na l l y, Pe droza ar g ue s th athi s se nt en ce i s su bs ta nti ve l y unr ea so nabl e. He b el i eves tha t a 36 0- m o nth s en te nc e i s unne ce ss ar i l y l o ngi n l i g hto fhi s ag e, fifty
- se ve n, a n d p o i n t s o u tth a th e wi l ll i k e l y d i e i n pr i s o n . He ar gu es th at a sh or te r se n t e n c e w ou ld su fficie n tly add re ss t h e goa l s o fse ntenci ng. Thi s a rgum ent i s a l so unavai l i ng. W e p re su m e t h at P ed ro za ’s s en te n c e is rea so n ab le because i t f al l s withi n the proper l y c al cul ate d guid el i nes ra n ge . U nited St at e s v. Panaigua- Verdug o , 53 7 F
. 3d 722, 727 (7th C i r. 20 08)
. Pedro za “can r ebut thi s pre sum pti on onl y b y dem onst ra ti ng t h at hi s o r her sente nce i s unre aso n ab le w h en m ea su re d ag ain st th e fa c to rs se t fo rt h in § 3 55 3(a)
. ” U nite d State s v. N it ch , 47 7 F
. 3d 933, 93 7 ( 7th Cir
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( i nt e r na lquo t a t i o n mar k s a nd c i t a t i o n o m i tted)
. Thi s i s no ea sy tas k when the defendant r ecei ves the l owest pos sibl e withi n-guidel i nes s entence , wh i ch Pedroz a di d. W e hav e wri tte n that such a se ntence “w i l lalm ostneve r be unr eas onabl e. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tahz ib , 513 F.3d 692 , 695 (7th C ir . 2 008). Pe d roza’s st ro n ge st arg u m en t is th at h e is likely to d ie in p ris on if hi s s entence i s no t r edu c ed . St il l, we fi nd no abuse of d isc r e t ion u n d er th e c irc u m st an c es of th is c as e. See O m ole, 52 3 F. 3d at 698 ( “This to tal i ty- of

- the- ci rcum sta nces an aly si s r equi r es tha t w e d efert o the s en te nc i ng j ud ge, wh o consi ders each defen dant as an i nd i vi du al and d ecides sente nces on a cas e-by- case , r atherthan w hol esa l e, bas i s. W e r eco gn i ze that the s entencing j ud ge8 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 i s in the bestposi ti on t o apply the § 35 53(a ) fa c tor s t o the ind i vi du aldefendant, and that the j ud ge see s th in gs w e ca nnot s ee , a sse sse s in re al

- ti m e the cr edibi l i ty of wi tne s s e s a nd de fe nd a nt s wh e n we c a nn o t, and de v e l o ps i nsi ghts from the var i ous b i ts and piec es ofi nfo rm ati on that he com es acros s i n the cour se ofa case that nonethel ess ar e no t r efl ecte d i n the re cor d.” )
. A l though “de ath in p rison i s no t to b e o r der ed l i g ht l y, a nd the pr o b ab i l i t y th a t a c o n v i c t wi l l n o t l i v e o u t h i s se nte n c e s h ou ld ce rt ain ly giv e p au se to a se n te n c in g c ou rt,” w e hav e up he ld su ch s e n ten ces on ap p eal w he re th e se nt en cingc o ur t co ns i der ed th e l i k el i ho o d o fa de fen d an t’s dea th i n p rison, bu t con clud ed that other factors w ar ra n te d th e pa rt icu l a r se n te n c e. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wurz ing er, 46 7 F .3 d 64 9, 65 2-5 3 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ); see U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki nc ann on , 567 F.3d 893 , 901 ( 7 th Cir. 2009 )
. T he record d em ons trates that the d istri c t cou rt se riou sly co n sid er ed th at P ed ro za w ou ld likely d ie in pri son i f he r ecei ved a w i thi n-guidel i nes s entence , buti t no ne th el es s i m po se d the s en te nce bas ed o n the se r i o us ne ss o fPe dr o za ’ s cr i m e, h is pas t r ec i di vi sm an d the l i kel i hood thathe woul d conti nue to co m m it cri m es i fr el ea sed fr o m pr i so n, the f ac t th athe di r ec te d the o pe r a t i o n o fa drugdi s t r ib ut i on ri ngwh i l e i n a fe der alpri son, h is l ack ofr em or se f orhi s o ffense, and i ts concl usi on that Pedr oza is a thr eatto so ci etydue to his p ersisten t d istribu tion of d rugs . Th e d istri ct cou rt did notabuse i ts d iscr eti on in sent enci ng Pedro za to 360 m onths.N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 9 B . He rna nde z ’ s Se nt e nc i ngE nha nc e me nt H er nand ez chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s ap pli cati on ofa thr e e - l e v e le nh a nc e men tp ur s ua ntt o U. S
. S
. G. § 3 B1. 1( b) bas ed on i ts c on c lusi on that Hernandez pl aye d a s up er vi sor y o r m anage ri alr ole i n the conspi ra cy. W e r e v iew the d istri ct cou rt’s dec isi on for clear error. U nited Sta tes v . C urb , 626 F.3d 921 , 924 (7th C ir. 2010). W e r eve rs e “ onl y i f, afterr ev iew i ng the enti re ev i dence, [ the cour t] i s l eft w i th the defini te and firm co nvi cti on th at a m i sta ke has be en m ade. ” Id. ( i nt e r na lquo t a t i on m arks an d citations om itted ). Se cti on 3 B1. 1( b) o fthe sente nci ng gu idel i nes pr ovi des a three

- l eve lenhancem ent i f“the defendant w as a m an ager or sup ervisor (b u tn o t an organ izer or lead er) and the cr i m i n alact i vi ty i nvol ved fi ve orm or e par ti cip a nt s or w as oth erw ise exten sive.” U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1.1(b). T h e guidel i nes do not define the te rm s “ m anage r” o r “superv i sor . ” B ut the f ourth appli cati on not e t o § 3 B1. 1( b) p rovide s a l ist off acto rs tha t w e c ons ider w he n d eterm in in g w h et h er a d efe n d an t h ad a m a n ag in g or su p er visor y r ol e: Fact or s the cour t shoul d c onsi der i ncl ud e the e xerci se ofde c i s i o n mak i nga utho r i t y, the n a t ur e o fp a r t i c i pati on in the com m i ssi on o fthe offense, the re crui tm ent o fa c c o mpl i c e s , the c l a i med r i g htt o a l a rg er shar e o fthe frui ts ofthe cr i m e, the degre e o fpart i ci pation in plan nin g or organizin g t h e offen se, th e nat ure and scope ofthe i l l ega lact i vi ty , a n d the degre e o f contr oland author i ty exer ci sed o vero ther s.10 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484

W e note thatthe re i s som e dis cuss ion in o u r cas e l aw re- 2 gard ing w hethercontr ol over another part ic ipant i s requir ed f or an e nh a nc e m e nto r whe the r i ti s m e r e l y on e f a c t orthat co u rt s co n s i d er . SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. G onzal ez -M endoz a , 584 F
. 3 d 7 2 6 , 7 2 9 n . 3 ( 7 th C i r. 20 0 9 ) ( c i t i n g c a s e s )
. B e c a u s e we affirm the dist ri ctcourt’ s concl usi on that H ernandez had control ov er other parti ci pants i n the conspir acy, w e need not add res s the rel ati ve w ei ght ofcontr ol i n thi s cas e. U .S.S.G . § 3B 1.1 (b ), cm t. n .4; se e U nite d State s v. How el l , 52 7 F. 3 d 6 4 6 , 6 4 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( “ W e h a v e n o t e d tha tthe se f acto rs ar e t o be u sed to di stingui sh l eader shi p f ro m m an ag ement, b utha ve f o und tha t th eya r e st i l lr el ev an t in ascerta ining w he th er an ind ivi d ua l ha d a sup ervis ory r o l e a ta l l
. ”)
. “ No o ne o fthe s e f a c t o r s i s c o ns i de r e d a prer equi si te to the e nhancem ent, and, atthe sam e t i m e, th e fa c to rs are n otn ec es sa ril y en tit led to eq u al w eig h t.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 58 0 F
. 3d 6 39 , 649 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks and ci tat i ons om i tte d). W hen exam i ni ng the se factors , “we em phasi ze both re l ati ve re sponsibi l i ty and contr olovero therpart i ci pants. ” How el l , 527 F. 3d at 649. 2 T he district cou rt discu ssed six of th e seven f acto rs l i st ed i n a ppl i ca ti o n n o te f o ur a nd b as ed i ts fi ndi ng th at H erna nde z wor k ed as a mana g ero r s upe r vi so r o n a variet y off actualdeter m i nati ons re l evantto tho se f acto rs , wh i ch i ncl ud ed, am ong ot h erthi ngs, that H er nand ez ( 1) exer ci sed deci si on- m aking autho ri ty; ( 2) to ok part i n pla nning and or gan izin g the o ffense bywor k i nga s I ni g ue z’ s righ t- ha nd man a nd t ak i ng dir ecti ons fro m Ini guez that re quir ed H er nan d ez toN os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 11

exer ci se m anage ri aland sup er vi sor y r esponsibi l i ti es ove r Raym ond Sal i nas a nd Phi l l i p K i ng; ( 3) acted as a soundingbo ard forIni guez by disc ussi ng the o rg ani zati on a nd pl anni ng o fthe drug co nspir acy w ith I ni guez on a s o m ewha t r egul arb as i s; ( 4) e xe r ci se d c o nt r o la nd au th o r i ty o ve r o th er s when he su per vi se d S al inas and K i ng; and ( 5) was e n tr u ste d w i th subst anti alsum s o f m oney . The di str i ct c ourtco ncl u d ed that ther e was “a m pl e ev i den ce ” fr o m t r i ala nd th e s en te nc i nghe ar i ng th at H er nand ez had a m anage ri al or supervi sor y ro l e in the dr ug co nspir acy. H erna ndez cl ai m s th athe pl ay ed a pas si ve r o l e i n the dr ugc o ns pi r ac y, mer ely a ss i st i ngIni g ue z i n ca rr y i ngo ut the c onspi ra cy w i thout any a uthor ity o r contr olo ver an y o ne i nv o l ve d. M o r e specifi ca l l y, he a r g ue s th athe ex er ci se d no s upe r vi so r y a utho r i ty o ve r S al i na s o r Ki ng and that the di str i ct c ou rter re d by co ncl ud i ng o ther w i se. H e cl ai m s that i t was Ini guez, notH er na nd ez, wh o attem pted to supervi se Sal i nas a nd King. W e fi nd no cl earer ro r i n the d istri ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi on th atHer na nde z was a mana g ero r s upe r vi so r o fthe dr ugc o ns pi r ac y, o r i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fac tu alc o nc l usio n s l i ste d above thatsupporte d i ts deci si on t o ap p ly the e nhancem ent. W i th r ega rd to H er n andez’ s co ntro l ove r Sal inas a nd King, the re cor d dem onst ra tes that I ni gu ez s ent Hernandez to Kentucky o n two separ ate occa si ons to ove rs ee the r ecei pt and dist ribu ti on o f drugs in K entucky, despi te the f act that both Sa l i nas an d Ki ngwere th er e. I t al so pe r m i ts the c o nc l usi on that Hernandez h ad autho ri ty ove r Sal i nas when at-12 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 tem pti ng to o pen hidden com partm ents i n a car to re tr iev e d r u g s in K en tu c ky
. See U nited Sta tes v. G o nz a lesM e ndoz a , 5 8 4 F
. 3 d 72 6 , 7 2 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ Vi l l a a dm i tt ed he was i n Chi cag o t o o ve r se e dr ug s an d dr ug proce e ds f o r a Mex i c a n c a r t e l, wh i c h s ug g e s t s h e p l a y ed a co or dinat i ng o r or gani zi ng par t in the cri m i nalact i vi ty. ”)
. H er nand ez cl ai m s t h at I ni guez exer ci sed autho ri ty o ve r S al i na s an d Ki ng, b utthi s d oes no t pr ec l ude the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng tha t Hernandez al so had such au th or ity
. See U .S.S. G. § 3 B1. 1, cm t. n. 4 ( “There can, o f cour se, be m or e than one pe rs on w ho qual i fi es as a lead er or or gan izer ofa cri m inal association o r cons p iracy. ”) ; s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Sa i nz- Pre ci ado , 56 6 F. 3d 708, 71 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( “[ A]s su m i ngtha t [ th e lead ero fthe e nt i re drugo pe r a t i o n] di d in f a c tt e l lS a i nz - Pr e c i a do w ho t o cal lto pi ck u p t he co cai ne, S ai nz- Prec i ado’ s r esu lting sta tus a s a m er e m i dd l em an would not m ake hi m i m m une fro m appli cati on o f§ 3B1. 1. I t is S ai nzPrec i ado’ s re lati ve re sponsibi l i ty and contr olo ver ot h er p ar tic ip an ts th at qu alifie s h im as a m an ag e r . . . .” (i nt erna l qu otation m arks an d citations om itted ))
. F ur th er, Her na nde z do es no t po i ntus t o po r ti o ns o fthe re cor d that n ega te the o therabo ve- m enti oned f actual co nc l us i o ns tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t r ea ch ed, a nd the po r t i o ns o fthe r e c o r d t o wh i c h the g o v e r nme ntdi r e c ts u s s u p p or ts th e d i s t r i c t c ou rt ’s fin d in gs . See U nited Sta tes v. D un k el , 92 7 F
. 2d 955, 95 6 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)
. A ccor dingl y, w e fi nd no c l earer ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on o fa thr ee - l ev ele nhanc em en t f o r Her na nde z’ s r o l e i n the d rug co ns p iracy pu rsu an t to U
. S. S. G
. § 3B 1.1(b).N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 13 C. H ernan dez’ s M ot i on to Su pp r ess his Post- A r r est St a t e me nt H er nand ez ar gues th at h e gave hi s pos t- ar re st sta tem en t in vo lu n ta rily a n d th a t t h e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in rej ecting hi s m oti on t o supp ress. W e r evi ew de nov o the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s det er m i na ti o n tha t H erna nde z’ s co nfes sio n w as vo lu n ta ry , U nited Sta tes v. M o ntg o m ery, 55 5 F. 3d 623, 62 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09), and we re vi ew the dist ri ct co ur t’ s r el ev an t f ac tu alfi ndi ng s f o r c l ea r erro r, g i ving “sp ecial deferen ce to th e d istrict cou rt’s cred ibi li ty d eterm i nati ons, ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l alpa ndo , 58 8 F
. 3d 1124, 1127( 7th Cir. 2009). Du e proce ss re quir es that a cri m i nal convi ction not be b as ed o n a n inv o l unt ar yc o nfes si o n. Se e generally Schneckloth v. B ust a m onte, 412 U
. S. 218, 223-26 (1973 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gi l l aum , 372 F.3d 848 , 856-57 (7th C ir. 2004 ). W e hav e held that “[a] con fession is volun ta r y i f, in the totali ty of circum stan ces, i t is th e prod uc t of a ra ti onali ntel l ect and fr ee w ill and notthe re sul t o f physi calabuse , psych ologi cali nti m i dati on, o r decepti ve interrogation tactics th at ha ve overc o m e the d efend an t’s fre e wil l
. ” Gil l aum , 37 2 F
. 3d at 856 ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks an d c ita tio n s o m itt ed ); se e also Schne ckloth , 41 2 U
. S. at 226. “[ C ]oercive police a c t ivity is a ne cess ary predi cate to the fi nd i ng tha t a co nfe ssi on i s no t ‘ vol untary ’ wi th i n th e me a n i n go fth e D u e P r o c e s s C l a u s e o ft he Fourtee nth A m endm ent. ” Gil l aum , 3 7 2 F
. 3 d a t85 6 ( i n t e rn al q u ot at ion m ar ks an d cit at ion s o m itt ed ); see also M o ntg o m ery, 55 5 F
. 3d at 632. “[ W ] e a nal yze co er ci on fro m th e p er sp ec tiv e o f a re as on a b l e p er so n in t h e p os i-14 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 ti on o fthe suspect. ” U nite d Sta te s v . H uer ta , 23 9 F
. 3d 86 5, 871 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. W e co ns i derthe f o l l o wi ng f ac to r s when ev alua tingc o er ci o n: T h e d e fen d an t’s ag e, ed u c at ion, in te llige n c e le ve l, an d m en tal s ta te ; the l en g tho fthe de fen dan t’ s det en ti on; the nature o fthe i nter ro gat i ons; t h e incl usi on ofadvi ce a b ou t consti tuti onalr i ghts; and the use o f ph ysi calpunishm ent, i ncl ud i ng depri vati on o ff oo d ors leep. N ar cot i cs, al cohol, and f ati gue a l so m ay be consi derat i ons i n a par ti cul arcas e. Id. ; se e also Schne ckloth , 41 2 U.S
. at22 6. The f acts o fthi s ca se re quir e a ffi rm i ng the di str i ct cour t’ s j ud gm ent. A gents cam e t o H er nand ez’ s ho m e a t 6: 30 A M o n M ay 26, 20 05, and ar re st ed h i m . H er nand ez w as i n hi s l ate fi fti es at the t i m e o fhi s a rr est
. H e has diab ete s, l ow bl oo d sugar, an d a hear t co nd i ti on, wh i ch the inter vi ew i ng ag ents knew at the ti m e o fthe ar re st. H e at te nde d s ch o o lthr o ug h th e 8 thg r ade , r ea ds an d s p e a k s S p a n i s h, a n d c a n s p e a kE n g l i s h “ 8 0 p e r c e n t
. ” He al so cl aim s to have sl ow m entalabi l i ty and a di ffi cul ty und erst an ding w hat peo ple te l lhi m , al though he has neverbee n tr eat ed f orm entaldi sabi l i ti es. A gents as ked H ern andez f orhi s m edi cati ons at the t i m e o fhi s a rr est, w hi ch he pr ovi ded , an d t h en to ok hi m to thei r offi ce for qu estioning
. A gen t M aria Lia Fow ler (“A g e n t Fow ler”), f or m er l y know n as A gent Lia P osa da, as ked i fH er nand ez h a d b r e a k f a s t
. He r n a n d ez r e s p o n d e d th a th e h a d n o t
. He as k ed f o r a s o da at7 : 35 AM
. Be f o r e th e i nt er r o g at i o n, A gent Fowle r gave H er nand ez a s oda and hi s m ed icati ons an d p er m i tte d him to use the r est ro om . The di str i ct cour tf o un d tha ta ft e r Ag e ntF o wl e r p l a y e d int e r c e pt edN os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 15 cal l s forH er nand ez, she re ad a S panis h-l an gu age version of M i r anda w ar ni ngs a l oud and H er na n d ez si gned an a dvic e of r ights f or m . H er nand ez tes ti fi ed that he r ecei ved hi s M i r anda w arn ings at t h e end of th e interro gat i on, that he re cei ved w ate r but not a soda, an d th at he di d no t us e t he r es tr o o m . Butthe di st r i ctc o ur t co ncl ud ed otherwis e, cr edi ti ng the ag ents’ te sti m ony. Because H er nand ez has no t dem onstrat ed that the a gents ’ tes ti m ony w as “excee dingl y i m probabl e, ” w e defe r to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m in atio ns and acc ep t i t s f i n d in gs of fac t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i l l on , 15 0 F. 3d 754, 75 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 98)
. The i nter vi ew p ro c eeded i n S pa ni s h a nd l a s t e d two - a nd

- a - ha l fh o ur s , fr o m a pp ro xi m ate l y 8 : 30 A M unti l11 A M
. H er nand ez w as hand cuffe d fo r the du r a t i o n o fthe i nt e r v i e w. T wo a g e nt s tes ti fi ed that H er nand ez did notco m pla i n ofchest pai ns, sh ortne ss of breath, or oth er ph ysical ai lm en ts before orduri ng t h e i nter vi ew . H er nand ez disputes thi s, but, aga i n, the dist ri ct c ourtcr edi ted the ag ents’ te sti m ony, an d H er n an d ez fails to d em on st ra te t h at th eir te st im ony w as “excee d in gl y i m probabl e. ” Id. H er nand ez al so te st i fi ed th athe fel t i l ldur i ngthe int err o g at i o n, b utthe dist ri ct c ourtcr edi ted otherev i dence thatco ntra dict ed He r na nd e z ’ s c l a i m t ha th e e xp e r i e nce d c he s tp a i ns a nd a he a r ta t t a c kdu r i ngthe i nt e r r o g a t i o n. T he a g e nt s ga ve H er nand ez a s nack afterthe i nter vi ew , at11 A M
. Later that day, H er nand ez w as tak en to a hospi tal to as se ss h i s s uit abi l i ty f orco nfinem ent. The di str i ct c ourtr evi ew ed m edi calr eco rds ind ica ting that w hi l e Hernandez w as at the ho spi tal, he s ai d that hi s c h es t pai ns be gan th re e h ours pri orto hi s a rr i valatthe hospi tal, wh i ch w as at approxi m ate l y 1 1: 30 A M
. Consi deri ng the to tal i ty16 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 of the ci rcum sta nces, w e affi rm the dist ri ct cour t’ s d ec isi on t o deny H er nand ez’ s m oti on t o supp re ss hi s co nfe ssi o n; the f ac ts s i m ply do no t su ffi ce t o c o nc l ude tha t th e age nts were co er ci ve orthatH er nand ez’ s pos t-arr est st at em en t w as inv olu n t a r y. C o m pa re Gil l aum , 37 2 F
. 3d at 857 ( fi nd ing th at th e d efend an t’s state m en t s w ere vo lu n ta ry w h en h e w as th irt y-s ev en atth e t im e o f h is ar re st, he w as perso nal l y f am i l i ar w i th the crim i nal j usti ce s yst em , he w as r ead the M i r anda war ni ng s an d i nd i cate d that he understo od them , hi s interview er s, who k ne w he was di ab et i c, offer ed hi m f o o d a nd i nsul i n, wh i ch he r efused, and he was i nter ro gat ed f or l ess than f or ty- fi ve m i nutes, duri ng wh i ch he was not h an d c u ffed ), and U nited Sta tes v. Jon es , 359 F
. 3d 921, 92 3- 34 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( ho l di ngtha tthe de fe nd a nt ’ s c o nfe s s i on w as vo l untarywh er e the i nter vi ew i ng ag ents “i nfo rm ed Jon es a b ou t h is rig h ts a n d d id n otu se p h ys ica l viole n c e[,] J ones was not hand cuffed, and, al th ou gh he never ask ed, h e was notdeni ed beve ra ges , phone ca l l s, o r ac ce ss t o a r es troom , ” wher e “h e was i n a f ami l i ars et ting because he ha d a tte nd ed si m i l ari nter vi ew s a s a uni on re prese ntati ve, ” a nd wh er e J ones p ro fess ed hi s innocence wi thr es pec t to on e ch ar g e an d ul ti m at elye nde d the i nter ro gat i on, ev en tho ugh h i s inter ro gat or s y el l ed at h im and disp layed a w eap on) wi t h Uni t e d S t at e s v . Hul l , 44 1 F
. 2 d 3 0 8 , 3 1 2

- 1 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) ( h o l d i n g th a t a de f en dant’s co nfe ssi on was inv ol untarywh er e he w as m ental l y a nd em oti onal l y handi capped and he e nd ured “a c on tin u ou s s er i e s o f int en siv e in te rro ga tio n s fo r n ea rly tw elve hour s, ” duri ng wh i ch he had no sl eep o r f oo d ex cep t for a cu p of coffee). W e affirm the d istrict cou rt’s denia lo fH er nand ez’ s m oti on t o supp re ss.N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 17 D. Va l l a r ’ s M o t i o n t o Sup pr e s s hi s Po s t - Ar r e s tSt a t e me nt Val l arappeal s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fh i s m oti on to s uppr es s hi s po st
- ar r es t st at ement
. W he n r ev i ewing a d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a lo fa mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , we re vie w d e n ov o w h et h er th e d efe n d an t kn ow in gly , in te lligently, and voluntarily wai ved hi s M i r anda r i g ht s, a nd w e re vie w t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s fa c tu al fin d in gs an d cr ed ib i lity d et er m in at ion s fo r c lea r er ro r. Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Shab az , 579 F.3d 815 , 819-20 (7th C ir. 2009). Val l ara ss er ts three ar g um en ts o n a ppea l
. F i r st, he ar gue s th athe di d no t k no wi ng l y, i nt el l i g en tly, a nd vol untari l y wai ve hi s M i r anda ri ghts. H e poi nts ou t that h e w a s a r r e s t e d a t h i s h o me a t 6 : 3 0 AM by offi cer s with wea pons dr awn, tha t he was ha ndcu ffed f o r abo ut an ho urwhi l e ag en ts s ea r ch ed hi s ho m e, a nd tha t he w as then t ake n to the pol i ce s tat ion a nd f or ced to l i ste n to audio ta pes i m pli catin g him i n the al l ege d conspi ra cy bef or e he re cei ved and w ai ved hi s M i r anda right s an d provi ded the post- ar re st sta tem ent he se eks to suppress . V allar ’ s a rgum ent i s unpers uasi ve. Defendants m ay w aive their M i r anda r i g ht s , b ut o nly i f the wa i v e r i s “ mad e vol untari l y, kno w i ngl y, and i ntel l i ge n tly. ” M oran v. Bur b i ne, 4 7 5 U. S
. 4 1 2 , 4 2 1 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ( qu o t i ng M iranda v. Arizona , 384 U
. S. 436, 444 (196 6 )) . D eterm ining w he th er a w ai verm eet s thi s s tandard r equi re s a two- ste p i nquir y: Fi rs t, the re l i nquishm ent o fth e right m ust hav e been vol untary i n the sense that i t w as th e p roduct ofa fre e a nd del iber ate choi ce r atherthan i nti m i dati on, coe rci on, or decepti on. Se cond, the w ai ve r m ust18 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 ha ve b ee n made wi th a ful la war en es s o fb o ththe nature o fthe ri ght b ei ng a b an d oned and the conse que nces o fthe de ci si o n t o aba ndo n i t. Onl y i fthe totalit y of th e circum stan ces su rroun d ing the i nt err o g at i on r ev ea lb o tha n un co er ce d c ho i ce a nd the re q u isit e le ve l of co m p re h en sio n m ay a c ou rtp ro p er ly concl ud e that the M i r anda r i g ht s h a v e b e e n wa i v e d. Id. ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks and ci tat i ons om i tte d). W hen revi ew i ng the to tal i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces, we consi der “the defe nd ant’ s backg ro und and conduct, the du ra ti on an d c o ndi ti o ns o fthe i nt ervi ew a nd de te nt i o n, the phy si ca la nd ment al c o ndi ti o n o fthe de fen dan t, the att i tud e of the l aw enf or cem ent o ffi ci al s, and w hether l aw enforc em ent o ffi cer s use d coer ci ve techni ques, ei ther psychol ogi calo r physi cal
. ” Shab az , 57 9 F
. 3d at 820. Val l arvo l untari l y, kno w i ngl y, and in tell i gently wai ved hi s M i r anda ri ghts. A gent M i chaelZobak, wh o parti ci pated i n Val l ar ’ s a rr est, te sti fi ed at the supp re ssi on hear i ng tha t Val l arwas handcu ffed w hi l e o ffi cer s s ea rc h ed hi s ho m e; that age nts per m i tte d Vall arto use the re str oo m at hi s h o us e wh i l e the o ffi c e r s we r e p r e s e nt; tha tn o b o dy thre ate ned orsho uted at Val l ar ; thatVal l arwas offer ed a b ev erage and the use o fa re str oo m upon ar ri vi ng at the s tat i on, bo th o fwh ich h e decl i ned; and that Val l ar wa s n o th a nd c uffe d d ur i ngthe i nt er ro g a t i o n e xc e pt w hen ag ents m ove d hi m to differ ent ro om s. A gent Zobak al so tes ti fi ed that he r ead Val l arhi s M i r anda rights an d tha t Va l l a r wa i v e d the m a nd s i g ne d a n a dv i c e o f r i g ht s fo r m wi tho uta nyi nd i c a t i o n tha th e wa s c o nfus e d. The dis tr i ct c ourtcr edi ted A gent Zobak’ s t est i m ony.N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 19 Con si der i ngthe f ac ts Va l l arpo i nt s o ut abo ve a nd A gen t Zo bak’s test im ony , w e con clud e tha t Va ll ar’s wai ve r was vol unt ar y . F ur th er, the di st r i ctc o ur t f o und tha tV a l l a r wa s c a pab l e o fu nd er sta nd i ngh i s r i g ht s , a nd , th u s, th a t h is w aiv er w as kn ow in gly an d int ellig en tly m ade
. Va l l ardo es no t ch al l en g e th i s fi ndi ngo n a ppea l, a nd w e fi nd no i nd i cati on in the re cor d that thi s fi nd i ng was er ro r. Se eCol orado v. Sp r i ng, 4 79 U
. S. 56 4, 574- 75 ( 1987 ) ( affirm ing a di st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ngtha t th e defen dan t knowingl y a nd i ntel l i gentl y wai ved hi s M i r anda ri ghts w here the defe nd an t fa i l ed to al l ege thathe di d not und er sta nd hi s M i r anda ri ghts orthe conse qu en ces of w ai vi ng the m )
. A ccor dingl y, we affirm the dist ri ct co ur t’ s dec i si o n tha t Val l arv o l unt ar il y, kno wi ng l y, a nd i ntel l i gently wai ved hi s M i r anda ri ghts. Se cond, Val l arar gu es that the a gents sho uld have kn ow n th at p lay in g t h e re c or d in gs w as “re as on ab ly like ly to elic it a n inc rim in at in g re sp on se ,” an d , th u s, th at it const i tuted an i m perm i ssibl e inter ro gat i on be cause Va l l a r h a d n o tr e c e i v e d M i r anda war ni ngs b efo r e th e ta p es w er e p lay ed
. SeeRh ode Is land v. Innis , 446 U .S. 29 1, 30 1 (1 98 0); see also E n o ch v. G ram ley, 70 F. 3d 1490 , 15 00 (7th C ir. 1995) (“W e hav e stated that, un d er Innis , the iss u e is w h et h er a re as on ab le ob j ec tiv e o b se rv er w ou ld b elie ve th at th e e n c ou n te r w as rea so n ab ly like ly to elic it a n i n c r i mi n a t i n gr e s p o n s e fr o m th e s u s p e c ta nd th erefore const ituted the fun ctiona l eq uiva lent of int erro gat i on. ” ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks and ci tat i ons om i tte d )). See gen eral l y E a s l ey v . Frey, 43 3 F
. 3d 969, 97 3- 74 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ). Va llar ’s a rg u m en t i s u n av ailin g. M er ely appr i si ngVa l l aro fthe e vi den ce a g ains t hi m b y pl ay i ng ta pes i m pl i ca tinghi m i n the c o ns pi r ac y di d no t co n-20 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 st itu te int er ro ga tio n . See E a sley, 43 3 F
. 3d at 973- 74 ( 7th Ci r. 2 006 ) ( ho l di ngtha t ano ffi ce r ’ s st at ementi nf o r m i ng th e d efe nda nto fthe e vi den ce a g ains t hi m a nd the po ss ibl e co ns eque nc es o fthe c ha r g es the de fen dan t f ac ed di d no t co ns ti tu te i nt er r o g at i o n, “e ve n i f i ts w eight m igh t m ov e a su sp ec t t o s p ea k” ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Su t t on , 77F ed. Appx 89 2, 8 95 ( 7th Ci r. 2 00 3) ( “[ M ] er ely r ec i ting th e evi dence supporting an ar re st i s no t the functi onal eq u iva len t o f an int er ro ga tio n .”); E noch , 70 F. 3d at 1500 ( h old ing that where “the pol i ce i denti f [ i ed] the v i cti m to the s uspect a nd br i efl y s tat [ ed] the e vi dence ag ainst hi m , f o l l o wed b y the s us pec t’ s al l eg edly i nc r imi na ting sta tem ents” di d n ot const i tute i nter ro gat i on be cause “[ b] ri efl y r eci tin g to a suspect i n custo dy the basi s for h old in g hi m , witho ut m or e, cannotbe the functi onal equi va l en t o fi nt er r o g at i o n” )
. Butmor e cr i ti cal t o o ur an aly sis is th e fa c t t h at V a l l a r m ad e n o s ta te m en t in re sp on se to th e t ap es be for e h e re c eiv ed an d w aiv ed h is M i r anda rig h ts
. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe t e rs on , 414 F. 3d 825, 827- 28 ( 7th Cir
. 2005 ) ( w ri ti ng that th e p robl em w i th the defendant’s ar gum en t that hi s co nfe ssi on v i o l a t e d M i r anda , w here ag ents l ai d ou t the ev i dence a g a i ns t hi m, adm i ni s t e r e d M i r anda w ar ni ngs, o btained a waiv er, and sec ured a confess i on, wa s that no ne o f th e d efend an t’s statem en ts p reced ed th e w arn ings). V a l l a r ’ s n e x ta r g u m e n ti s u n p e r s u a s i v e f o r th e s a me r ea so n. Vallar ’ s l astar gum ent i s that the ta cti cs a gents used

— spe ci fi ca l l y, pl ay i ngt ape d c o nv er sati o ns de m o nstr ating tha t he parti ci pated i n the a ll ege d conspi ra cy bef or e r eadi ng Val l arhi s M i r anda ri ghts and rec eiv ing a w ai ver

— is i m p rop er un d er M i s s our iv. Se ibert, 542 U
. S.N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 21 60 0 (2 00 4); see also U nited Sta tes v . Stew a rt, 38 8 F
. 3d 1079 , 1086

- 90 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. In Seibert, the S upr eme Cou rt r ev i ewe d a po l i ce p r o to co ltha t ca l l ed f o r i nt er r o g at i ng a d e fe n d a n ta n d r e c e i v i n ga c o n fe s s i o nb e f o r e g i v i ng M i r anda w ar n in g s , th en info rm in g t h e d efe n d an t o f h is M i r anda r i g ht s, r ec ei vinga wai ve r, a nd i nt er r o g at i ng the de fe nd a nta s e c o nd t i me, a g a i n o b t a i ninga c o nf ession. 5 4 2 U
. S. at 604. In a d ivi d ed de cision, th e C ou rt fou n d th e c on fes sio n ina d m iss ible
. Id. a t6 1 7

- 6 1 8 , 62 2
. We ha v e c o ns t r ue d Sei be rt as ho l di ng“ th atpo st
- war ni ng st at ement s ar e i na dm i ss ibl e i f th ey dupl i ca te pr e- war ni ng s t a t e men t s i nt e nt i o na l l y e l i c i t e d in a n e ff o r tt o e v a de M i ra nd a. ” Pet e rs on , 41 4 F
. 3d at 828. The a g en ts ’ s tr at egy o fpl ay i ngta p ed co nv er sa ti o ns and then r eadi ng Val l arhi s M i randa ri ghts, r ecei vi ng a w ai v e r, a nd b e g i nn i ng t o i nt e r r o g a t e Va l l a r do e s no t vi ol ate Seibert
. The de fen dan t i n S e i b er t w as i nter ro gat ed and m ade i ncri m i nati ng st ate m ents b oth bef or e a nd after w ai vi ng hi s M i r anda righ ts
. Id. at 604. V a lla r w as interroga ted o nl y a fterhe r ecei ved and w ai ved hi s M i r anda rights an d he m ad e no inc r im in ating sta tem en ts before sig n in g h is a d vic e o f righ ts form
. Se ePe te rs on , 41 4 F
. 3d at 827- 28 ( hol ding that a d efendant’ s co nfe ssi on di d not vi ol ate the i nter ro gat i on t echni que prohibi ted by Seibert w h er e a ge n ts p re se n te d th e e vid en c e a ga in st h im bef or e r eadi ng hi m hi s M i r anda ri ghts an d obtai ni ng a w ai verbec ause the defendant did notm ake any prew ar ni ng st ate m ent)
. W e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni al ofVal l ar ’ s m oti on t o supp re ss.22 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 E. V al l ar ’ s M ot i ons f orJ ud gmen t o f A cqu i t t al and f or a New Tr i al V alla r ar gu es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in d en yin g h is m oti on f oracqui tta land a n ew t rialo n the theo rythat the r e w as i nsuffi c i e nte v i de nc e t o fi nd tha th e h a d a conspi ra to ri alr el ati onshi p w i th Ini guez, as o pp ose d to m er el y a buye r- sel l err el ation sh ip. W e r evi ew de nov o a d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d en ial of a m o t ion for a c q u itt al, U nited St at e s v. Fa s s nac ht, 3 32 F
. 3d 440, 4 47( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) , a nd w e r evi ew the distri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa new tr i alf or ab u se of d isc re tio n, U nite d State s v. Kosth , 25 7 F
. 3d 712, 71 8 (7th C ir. 2001). Wh e n e v a l u a t i n ga s u ffi c i e n c y o fth e e v i d e n c e c l a i m, “[w ]e c on sid er th e e vid en c e in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le to th e p ro se c u ti o n, m ak in g a ll rea so n ab le in fer en c es in i ts f av o r, a nd a ffi r m the c onv ic ti o n s o l o nga s an y ra ti onaltr i ero ff act could have f ound the defendant to h av e c om m itt ed th e e ss en tia l elem e n t s of th e c rim e.” U ni t e d St at e s v. P a neras , 22 2 F
. 3d 406, 41 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. M a sten , 1 70 F.3d 790, 79 4 (7th C ir. 1999 ))
. “O n ly if, from this van tage p oint, th e record conta i ns no evi dence fro m wh i ch the j ury coul d have f ound gui l t be yond a re aso nabl e doubt, i s r eve rs alappropri ate
. ” Kosth , 25 7 F
. 3d at 718. “Pr oving tha t no such ev id en c e e x ist s p re se n ts a n ea rly ins u rm ou n ta b le h u rd le to the defendant. ” Fas s nac ht, 3 32 F
. 3d at4 47( quo ting U nite d State s v. Hach , 162 F.3d 937, 942 (7th C ir. 1998)). “T o c o nv i cta defen dan t o fc o ns pi r ac y, the g o ve r nm en t m u st p ro ve th at (1) tw o or m or e p eo p le a gr ee d to co m m it anunl awfula ct, a nd ( 2) the de fenda ntkno wi ng l y a ndN os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 23 i ntenti onal l y j oi ned i n the agr eem ent.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jo hnso n , 5 9 2 F
. 3 d 74 9 , 7 5 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. At t a i ning a co nv i ct i o n fo r c o ns pi r ac y under2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 46 , the re l evantchar ge on a pp eal, r equi res pro vi ng “that the defendant knowing l y a gr eed

— ei theri m pli ci tl y o r ex p licit ly

— w i th so m eone el se to dist ribute dr ugs. ” Id. But w hen the alle ged co conspi ra tor s a re i n a b uyer - sel l er r el atio ns hi p, “ we ha ve c au ti o ne d a g ains t co nfl at i ngthe und er l yi ng buy-s el lag re em ent with the drug- dist ributi on ag r ee m en t th at i s al l eg ed to f o r m th e ba si s o f the ch ar ged co ns pi r ac y . To s uppo r t a co ns pi r ac y c o nv i ct i o n, ther e m ust be suffi ci ent evi dence of an agr ee m en t to com m i t a cr i m e ot he rthan the c r i m e th atc o ns i st s o fthe sal e i tse l f
. ” Id. ( i nt erna lquo ta ti o n mar k s an d c i ta ti o ns o m i tted). Thus , “ to pr o ve a c o ns pi r ac y, the g o ve r nm ent m u st offerev i dence es tabl i shi ng an agr eem ent t o di st r ibut e dr ug s th ati s di st i nc t fr o m e vi den ce ofthe ag re em ent t o com ple te the underl yi ng drug deal s. ” Id. at 755. M er el y pr ovi ding “evi dence thata buyerand sel ler tr ad ed i n l ar ge quanti ti es ofdrugs, used st andardi zed tr an sa ct i o ns , a nd ha d a pr o l o ng ed r el at i o ns hi p, ” witho ut m or e, is in ad eq u at e t o p ro ve a c on sp ira c y. Id. “O th erw ise, the law w ou ld m ake an y ‘w holesale cu stom er of a consp ira c y . . . a co- conspi ra torperse . ’ ” Id. ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col on , 549 F.3d 565 , 569 (7th C ir. 2008)). T h e fo llow in g a re ex am p les of ev id en c e t h at w o u ld d isti ng uish a cons p iracy from a non con sp iratorial buyerse ller re lat ion sh ip : [ S] al es on cr edi t o r consi gnm ent, an a gr ee m en t t o l oo k forothercustom er s, a paym ent o fco m m i ssi on o n sal es, an i nd i cati on that one party advi sed th e o ther24 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 on the co nd uct o fthe othe r’ s busin es s, o r an ag re em en t t o w a r n of fu tu re th re at s t o e ac h oth er ’s b u sine ss s te m m i ngfr o m c o m pet i to r s o r l aw- en f o r ce m en t author i ti es. Id. at 755- 56. I m port antl y, “no t a l lcr edi t s al es can supp or t a n infer ence that ther e was an a gr eem ent t o dist ribute.” Id. a t7 5 6 n . 5
. We ha v e e xp l a i ne d tha ta s up pl i e r wh o e xt e nd s c r e di tt o a n i nd i v i du a lwh o p ur c hases a s m al lquanti ty o fdrugs f orper sonalco nsum pti on d oe s n otcr ea te a c on sp ira c y. Id. B u t “ w h en a c re d it s ale i s co up l ed w i th ce rt ain c h ar acte ri sti cs inherenti n an on go in g w h ole sa le b u ye r-s elle r re lat ion sh ip

— i
. e. , l ar ge qu a nt i t i e s o fdrug s , r e pe a tp ur c ha s e s o r s o me o ther en dur i nga r r an g ement

— th e cr edi t sa l e be co m es s uffi ci en t ev i den ce t o di st i ng ui sha c o ns pi r ac y fr o m a no nc o nsp ira to ria l b u yer- sel l er r el ati onshi p. ” Id. ( i nter nal quotati on m ar ks and ci tat i ons om i tte d). Once “the go ve r nme nth a s o ffe r e d som e di st i ng ui sh i ng ev i den ce , the j ury m ay re l y o n [ the fol l owing] f acto rs . . . to buttr ess ani nfe r e nc e tha tthe r e wa s a n a g r e e men tt o di s t r ib ute drugs”: “ whe the r the t r a ns a c t i o ns i nv o l v e d l ar ge qu a nt i t i e s o fc r a c k
. . . whe the r the p a r t i e s h a d a s t a nd a r di ze d way o fdo i ngb us i ne ss o ve r t i m e . . . whethe r the par ti es ha d a c o nt i nui ngr el at io ns hi p . . . whethe r the se ller h ad a fin an c ial st ak e ina r es ale t o th e b u ye r; a n d
. . . whethe r the pa r ti es ha d a n un der st an di ngtha t th e drugs woul d be r eso l d.” Id. at 758. Val l arar gues that the g ove rnm ent’ s e vi dence es tabl i sh ed a buy er - se l l err el at i o ns hi p b etw ee n Va l l ara nd I ni guez, but not a con sp ira cy. H e cl ai m s that the di str i ctN os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 25

cour t e rr ed by chara cter izi ng two k i l ogr am s a ttr ibuted to hi m as a l ar ge quanti ty. H e a l so ar gues that he ha d no l ong- ter m ag re em ent with I ni guez to d eal drugs. Altho ug h Va l l arkne w I ni g ue z f o r a t l ea stt eny ea r s, he cl ai m s that wir eta p s p re sente d at t ri aldem onst ra ted th at th ey w ere involve d i n dru g d ealing togeth er fora peri od ofl ess than tw o m onths. Val l arco ncedes that ther e was ev i dence attr i althathe purchas ed d rugs fro m I ni guez on cr edi t. But he a tte m p ts t o m i ni m i ze thi s by a r guingtha tIni g ue z t r us t e d V a l l a r du e t o the i r fr i e nd

sh i p, a nd tha t th e govern m en t f ai l ed to pr o ve tha t th e fr i en dsh i p w as of a b us i ne ss na tu r e. Va l l ara l so c o ncedes that the e vi dence m ay i nd i cate thathe a nd Ini guez had a st andardi zed way ofdoi ng business. W e r ej ec t Val l ar ’ s ar g um en t. I t i s undi spu te d tha t he pu r c ha s e d dr ug s o n c r e di t fr o m Ini g ue z . Ou r r e vi ew o f the r eco rd i nd i cate s t hat these pu rchas es occur re d on at l eas t tw o and l i kel y three o ccasi ons. T h is dist i ngui shes th e c on sp ira c y fro m a b u ye r-s elle r re lat ion sh ip
. See id
. at 755-56, 75 8. There i s a l so evi dence i nd i cating tha t Val l ar w ou ld n ot pay I ni guez unti lVal l arr eso l d the drugs
. Despit e Val l ar ’ s a rgum ent th at h i s r el ati onshi p w i th In igu ez ren d er s t h e s ale s o n cr ed it les s m e a n i n gfu l, it is w el l

- set tl ed that re peated sa les o n cr edi t, co up l ed w i th the f act that Val l arand I ni guez had a st an d ar d ized way ofdoi ng business and evid ence that Val l arwould not p ay I nigu ez u nt ilhe resold th e d rugs , perm its the inferen c e t h at V alla r c on sp ire d w ith Inig u ez . Se e, e . g. , id
. at 75 6 n .5; U nite d S ta te s v . Ro ck, 370 F.3d 712 , 715 (7th C ir. 20 04 ). Vie w in g t h e e vid en c e in t h e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le to the ver dict, w e affi rm the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.26 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 F. V al l ar ’ s Sentenci ng Enh ancem ent f orO bstructi on of J usti ce Val l arap p ea l s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on o fa tw ol eve lenhancem ent foro b st ructi on o fj usti ce purs uant to U
. S. S. G. § 3 C1. 1. S ecti on 3 C1. 1 per m i ts c ou rt s t o i ncre ase a defendant’s o ffense l eve li fhe “ w i l l fully obstr ucted or i mpe de d, o r a t te mpt e d t o o b s t r uc to r i mpe de , the a dm in ist ra tio n of j u st ice .” U .S.S.G . § 3C 1.1
. P erj u ry is a w ellset tl ed exam p le of conduct that w ar ra nts a n obs tr uctio n en h an c em en t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Be r m ea-B oone, 56 3 F. 3d 621, 62 6- 27 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)
. A witnes s co m m i ts perj ur y “ i f, whi l e unde r o ath, he ‘ g i ve s f al se t esti m ony concerni ng a m ate ri alm att erwith t h e w i l l ful i ntent to pr o vi de f al se t es ti m o ny, r athe r tha n a s a re su l t o fc o nfusi on, m i sta ke, o r fau lty m em or y. ’ ” Id. at6 27( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. D unn igan , 5 0 7U. S
. 8 7, 9 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) )
. On appe al, “ [ w]e r ev i ew the f actu al fi ndi ng s unde r l y i ngthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe obs tr uct i on e nhancem ent for c learer ro r, and w e r evi ew de nov o w hether th os e fin d in gs ad eq u at ely su p p or t t h e e n h an c em en t.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 580 F.3d 639 , 648 (7th C ir. 2009). T he district cou rt found that Valla r c om m itted perjury w hen he t est i fied t h at he si gned the M i r anda w ai ver bec au se the a g en ts t r i ck ed hi m b y pr es en tingthe wai ve r f o r m a s a pr o per tyr ec ei pt. In l i g hto ft esti m o ny fr o m a g en ts pr es en t w he n Val l ars i g ne d the wai ve r i nd ica tin g t h at h e fre ely an d vo lu n ta rily w ai v e d h is M i r anda rights, the d istri ct cou rt conc lud ed that Va lla r’s tes ti m ony w as f al se and that he knew i t was f al se.N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 27 Val l arrais es tw o chal l enges . Fi rs t, he c i tes U nited Sta tes v. D unn igan , 50 7 U.S . 8 7 ( 1993 ) , to ar gue that the di str i ct cour t e rr ed by faili ng to m ake suffi ci ent fi nd i ngs that Val l arc o m m i tt ed perj ur y . 50 7 U. S
. a t 95 ( “[ I ] fa de fen dan t obj ects to a sente nce en h ancem ent r esul ti ng fro m her tr i alt es tim ony, a dist ri ct c ourtm ust r evi ew the evi dence an d m ak e i nde pen den t fi ndi ng s ne ce ss ar y t o e st ablis h a w i l l ful i m pedim en t to oro bstr ucti on o fj usti ce, o r an att em pt to do the sam e, under the perj ury defini ti on w e h ave set out. W he n d oing so, it i s p referable f or a dist ri ct cour t to add re ss each el em ent of the a lleg ed p erj ury in a se p arate an d c lear find ing. T he district cou rt’s d eterm ination th at en ha nc em en t i s requ ired is suff i ci en t, ho we v e r, i f
. . . the c o ur t mak e s a fi nd i ngo fan o bs truct i o n o f, o r i m pedi m en t to , j us ti ce tha t en com passes al lo fthe f actualpre dica tes f ora fi nd i ng o f p erj u ry .”); s e e al s o U nt i e d St at e s v. Woody, 55 F. 3d 1257, 1 2 7 3 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 5 )
. S e c o n d , h e c l a i ms th a t th e r e i s no evi dence i n the re c ord that w oul d perm i t the co urt to concl ud e that h e wil l f ul l y p r o v i d e d f a l s e t e s t i mo n y . He ass er ts that he subj ecti vel y m ay have fel t tr i cked, and that tes ti fyi ng to thateffect does not const i tute w i l l fulne ss. W e d isagree. First, the d istri ct cou rt ad eq ua tely det erm i ned that Val l arco m m i tted p erj ury at the s up press i on hear i ng. I t e xpli ci tl y found that Val l ar ’ s t est i m ony w as f al se. I t a l so express l y c oncl ud ed that Val l ari ntended to provi de f al se tes ti m ony, st ating tha t Val l ar ’s exp l anati on ofhow “hi s nam e happened to appea r on a M i r anda wai ve r, fr an k l y, i s no t cr edibl e an d no t cr edibl e to the poi nt wh er e Ifi nd thati t m an i fest ed an i ntent by28 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 M r . Va l l art o de ce i ve the c o ur t. ” Fur th er, the t es ti m o ny u n d ou b te d ly c on c er n ed “a m at er ial m at te r” be c au s e it cam e d uri ng a supp re ssi on hearing atwh i ch Val l arar gued that hi s M i r anda w ai verwas not vo lu n tar y, cl ai m i ng tha t it re su lte d from co er c ive ta c tic s. Ber m e a- Boone, 56 3 F. 3d at 627 ( qu oti ng D unn igan , 507U .S. at 9 4); see U nited Sta tes v. C a rrera , 2 59 F
. 3d 818, 8 31

- 32 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( affi r m i ng an obstru ction en h a nc em en t w he re the d istri ct cou rt m er el y c oncl ud ed that tes ti m ony w as f alse , b ut di d not i nd icate i ts fi nd i ngs forea ch el em ent o fperj ury, bec ause c o n c l u d i n gth a tth e t e s t i mo n y w a s “ u n t r u th fu l ” e nc o mpas se d m at er i al i tyw he re the r e was “ no do ubttha t th e d ist ric t c ou rtco n sid er ed [th e s u bj ec t o f t h e fa lse te st im ony] to b e m ateri al ”)
. H ad the di str i ct c ourtbel i eve d Vallar ’ s t est i m ony, i t m ay have supp re sse d his co nfe ssio n . See U
. S. S. G. § 3 C1. 1 cm t. 6 ( “ ‘ M ate ri al ’ evi dence, f ac t, s tatem en t, o r i nf o r m at i o n, a s us ed i n thi s se ct i o n, m ea ns evi dence, f act, sta tem ent, or i nfo rm ati on that, if be l i ev ed, woul d t en d t o i nfl ue nc e o r a ffec t th e i ss ue und erdeter m i nati on. ”); s e e also U ni t e d S t at e s v. Be dol l aZ ava la , 61 1 F
. 3d 3 92, 39 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. S eco nd , i t was not cl earer ro r to c onclude thatVal l arwil l fully t est i fi ed f al se l y . The di st r i ctc o ur t wei g he d Va l l ar ’ s te st i m o ny aga i nst the go ver nm ent a gent s’ a nd co ncl ud ed that V alla r lac ke d cr ed i b ility . W e fin d n o c lea r er ro r inth is c on c lu sio n . See Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Of cky , 237 F. 3d 904, 91 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( affi rm i ng the appli cati on o fan obs tr ucti o n enhan ce m en t “whe r e th e tr i alj udg e wei g he d the te st i m o ny o f th e defen dan t ag ains t th at o f o th ers a nd d et er m in ed th at th e d efe n d an t’s te st im on y la c k e d cr ed ib ility .”); s e eals o U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe digo , 12 F. 3d 618, 62 8- 29N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 29 ( 7th C ir. 1993)
. W e a ffi rm the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a pp l i cati on ofthe obs tr ucti on e nhancem ent.
G . Anders B rief in th e C as e o f T yra il C u rry Cu rr y ple d guil ty to Count One, the conspi ra c y c h ar ge, on Sep te m b er 6, 20 06 . H e a d m itt ed to p ar tic ip at in g in I n i g u e z ’ s d r u ge n t e r p r i s e b y a s s i s t i n gi n th e r e c e i p ta nd d istribu tion of coca ine in K en tu cky. T h e d istri ct cou rt se nt en ce d C urry to 2 10 months o fi m pr i so nm en t, the l owest withi n-guidel i nes s entence , a nd fi ve yea rs o f supervi sed r el eas e. Cur r y ’ s co uns el, a F ede r alPub l i c Def enderi n the CentralDis tr i ct o fI l l in ois , co ncl ud es that Cu rr y’ s ca se i s wi th o u tme r i ta n d s u b mi t s a n A nd ers br i efs ee k i ng perm i ssi on t o w i thdraw
. Se e A nders v. Ca li fornia , 386 U
. S. 739 (1967 ). C u rry d id n ot r e s p on d to co u n se l’s fa c ially ad eq u at e b rie f. See Ci r. R. 51 ( b)
. W e l i m i t o ur r evi ew to th e p ot en tia l issu es co u n se l d i s c u ss es . U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sc huh , 289 F.3d 968 , 973-74 (7th C ir. 2002). Cou ns elfi r stc o ns i der s whethe r Cur r y ha s any no nfri volou s a rgum ents to chal l enge hi s co nvi cti on. S i nce Cu rr y doe s no t s eekto chal l enge hi s guil ty ple a o n appeal, counsel proper l y decl i nes to add re ss an y p l ear e l a t e d i s s ue s i n hi s A nd ers b rie f. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox , 287 F.3d 667, 670-71 (7th C ir. 2002). Coun s e ldo e s c o ns i de r, h o we v e r, wh e the r Cu r r y h as any no n-fri vol ous a rgum ents chal l engi ng hi s s entence
. H e pr oper l y c oncl ud es that Cu rr y has none. Fi rs t, Cu rr y ’ s wi thin- g ui de l i ne , 2 1 0

- mon th s e nt e nc e di d n ot const i t ut e a v i o l a t i o n o fl a w whe r e i tdi d n o te xc e ed30 N os. 07

- 3641 , 08

- 1361 , 08

- 3888 & 09

- 3484 the s t a t ut o r y ma xi mum s e nt e nc e o fl i fe , 2 1 U. S
. C. § 8 4 1 ( b ) (1)( A ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Franz , 88 6 F
. 2d 973, 97 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) , and w h ere no thi ng i n the re cor d i nd i cate s th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t vi o l at ed Curry ’ s equa lpr o te ct i o n, d u e p ro c es s, or oth er co n st itu tio n al rig h ts , s e e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v. M o o re, 543 F.3d 891 , 895-96 (7th C ir. 2008 ) ( disc ussi ng a “cl ass of one” equal p rotec ti on cl ai m ). See 18 U
. S. C. 3742 ( a) ( 1) ( perm i tting defendants to ap peala fi nalse ntence that “w as i m posed i n vi ol ati on o f l a w” )
. Ne xt, the di s t r i c t c o ur t c o mm i t t e d no pro ceduraler ro rs wh en apply i n g th e s entencing guidel i nes to deter m i ne Curry ’ s s entence : I t pr oper l y c al cul ate d the guidel i nes r ange, tr eat ed the gui del i nes a s di scr et i o na r y, c o ns i de r e d the f a c t o r s i n § 3 5 53( a) , s e l e c t e d a se n t e n c e b as ed on ap p ro p ria te fac ts , an d ad eq u at ely ex p lain ed th e s en te n c e itim p os ed
. SeeGa ll, 52 2 U.S
. at51
. Fi nal l y, Cu rr y’ s w i thi n-guidel i ne sente nce i s n ot subst an tiv ely u n re as on ab le. S e eU nited Sta tes v. R ivera , 46 3 F. 3d 598, 60 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( “A se ntence, such as thi s, that falls w ith ina p r o p er ly c alc u lat ed G u id elin es ’ ran ge is en tit led to a re b u tt ab le p re su m p tio n of re as on ab len es s. . . . [ I ] t wi l lb e a r ar e Gui del i ne s sen te nc e th ati s unr ea so nable.” ( intern al qu otation m arks an d citatio ns om itted ))
. W e g ra nt co unsel ’ s r equest.

I I I . Concl usio n Forthe f or ego i ng r eas on s, w e A FFIRM the dist ri ct c o ur t ’ s j ud g men ta nd G RANTC u rr y’ s co unsel ’ s r equest to w ith d ra w an d d ism iss C u rry ’s a p p ea l.

2- 14- 11