A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has * det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 34. 1( G ) . T he ca s e i s t her efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, orcol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril25,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. B E N N IE J. H E R R IN G II, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 3161 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR - 2 0 0 6 6 - KHV)

(K ansas)



### AMENDE D O RDE R A ND JU DGMENT * B efor e M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es.

B enni e J . H err i ng I I appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s i m pos i t i on of a 32 y ear s e n t e n c e , a r g u i n g t h e s e n t e n c e i s u n r e a s o n a b l e . W e a ffi r m. O n M a y1 8 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. H e rrin g e n ter e d th e C a p ito l F e d e ra l S a v in g s B a n k in O lath e, K an sas. T h ere w ere ten b an k em p loy ee s an d o n e c u stom er p rese n t. M r.- 2-

H e rrin g d ire c ted a ll ele v e n in d iv id u a ls to re m o v e th e ir c lo th in g b u t fo r th e ir under garm ent s . H e r es t r ai ned the bank managerand fi ve otherbank empl oy ees w i t h zi p t i es . H e cha i ned fi ve of the r es tr ai ned empl oy ees t ogetherand s eat ed th e m in th e b a n k w a iti n g a re a . M r. H e rrin g th e n p ro c e e d e d to c o llec t h is lo o t, d u ri n g w h ich tim e the p o li ce arrived . M r. H erring g av e the so le ba n k cu stom er a tw o -w a yra d io a n d d ir e c te d th e in d iv id u a l to ta k e th e ra d io o u ts id e to th e p o lic e . H e obt ai ned the key s t o a mi ni - van bel ongi ng t o one of the empl oy ees and gave t hem t o t he as s i s t antbank manager , Patr i ci a Peus er . M r . H err i ng t ook the fi ve bound i ndi vi dual s and M s . Peus erout s i de and l oaded them i nt o the van, i ns t ruct i ng M s . Peus ert o dr i ve. M r . H err i ng m ade c ont actw i th the pol i ce us i ng the tw o- w ayr adi o and r eques t ed theyperm i tt he vehi cl e t o exi tthe bank pa r ki ng l ot . I n the abs ence of an im m ediat e res po nse from t he p oli ce, M r. H err i ng held the h and gu n to M s. P eu ser’s h ea d an d threa tene d to startsh o o ti n g h o stag es if the p o li ce d id n o t esco rt t hem aw ayfr om t he pr emi s es . A pol i ce a r m or ed per s onnel carr i erarr i ved and pul l ed up t o t he van. M r . H err i ng fi r ed tw o s hot s outof the van. M s . Peus ert ook t he r adi o fr om M r . H err i ng and pl eade d forthe off i cer s t o l etthe van l eave the bank. She t hen bac ked ar ound t he arm or ed vehi cl e, dr ove overa curb and outof th e p a rk in g lo t. M r . H err i ng di r ect ed M s . Peus ert o pr ocee d t o the l ocal ai rpor t . U pon arr i val , M r . H err i ng i ns t ruct ed M s . Peus ert o dr i ve ont o the t arm ac a nd park near- 3-

a sm al l pri vate pl ane thatw as aw ai t i ng t ake-off. H e exit ed the van , bri ng i ng M s. P e u s e r w ith h im . H e a p p ro a c h e d th e p la n e a n d to ld th e o c c u p a n ts to g e t o u t. W hen M s. P euser t oo k a st ep b ack, the p oli ce shot M r. H err i ng several t i m es, br i ngi ng hi s cr i m i nal epi s ode t o a r api d concl us i on. M r . H err i ng pl ed gui l t yt o arm ed bank r obberyi n w hi ch a hos t age w as tak e n in v io latio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 (e ) (C o u n t I), b ra n d ish in g a fire a rm in c o n n e c tio n w ith a c rim e o f v io len c e in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 (c )(1 )(A )(ii) ( C ountI I ) , and att empt ed ai r cr aftpi r acyi n vi ol at i on of 49 U . S. C . § 46502 ( C ount I I I ) . A s cal cul at ed i n hi s pr es ent ence r eport( PSR ) , M r . H err i ng’ s gui del i ne r ange w as 188- 235 m ont hs . B eca us e the att empt ed ai r cr aftpi r acyconvi ct i on carr i ed a s t a tu t o r yma n d a t o r ymi n i mu m o f twe n tyy e a r s , th e g u i d e l i n e mi n i mu m b e c a me 240 m ont hs . T he § 924( c) char ge al s o carr i ed a mandat ory7 y ears ent ence r equi r ed t o run cons ecut i vel yt o anyothers ent ence i m pos ed, w hi ch adde d an addi t i onal m andat or y84 m ont hs . T he governm entw as obl i gat ed underthe pl ea agr eementt o r ecomm end a s ent ence w i thi n the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange a nd t hus r ecomm ended 27 y ear s or324 m onths ats ent enci ng. I ns t ead, the di s tr i ct cour ts ent ence d M r . H err i ng t o a t ot al of 32 y ear s or384 m onths , i m pos i ng a s ent ence of 25 y ear s on C ount s O ne and Thr ee t o be s erved conc ur r ent l yand 7 y e a rs o n C o u n t T w o to b e se rv e d c o n se c u tiv e ly . M r. H e rrin g c o n ten d s h isTenth Circuit Rule 28.2(A)( 1), (2) instruct appellants to attac h to their brief a 1 copyof the transcript containingoral finding s and conc lusions. W e admonish counse l for f ailing to attach a c opyof the transcript of Mr. H erring’ s sentencinghearing, which contained thedistrict court’s sentencingdecision and reasoning . Counsel’s failurewas particularlyegreg ious given that he asserts as grounds for rever sal the alleg ed lac k of rea soning in the district c ourt’s dec ision.

- 4- s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e. 1 “U n d er B ooker , w e ar e r equi r ed t o r evi ew di s tr i ctcourts ent enci ng deci s i ons for‘ r eas onabl enes s . ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. C age , 4 5 1 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 9 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). In Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) , we announce d a tw o- s t ep appr oach t o r evi ew t he pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve c o m p o n e n ts o f

se n ten c e s p o st- B ooker . Fi r s t , i f cha l l enged, w e cons i derw hether t he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l ycal cul at ed the defendant ’ s gui del i nes s ent ence and c o n s id e re d th e fa c to rs s e t fo rt h in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. C havez

- D i az , 4 4 4 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 2 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). If th e d istric t co u rt p ro p e rly cal cul at ed the gui del i nes s ent ence , w e then det erm i ne w hethert he s ent ence im p o sed is r ea so n ab le i n li g h t of the fac tors set fo rth in 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). Kris tl, 437 F. 3d at1054- 55. Sent ence s i m pos ed w i thi n the advi s orygui del i ne ra n g e a re p re s u m e d re a s o n a b le . Id. E v e n wi th o u tt h a tp r e s u mp t i o n , h o we v e r , we ar e notconvi nced M r . H err i ng’ s s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e w hen vi ew ed i n l i ghtof th e s e n te n c in g fa c to rs d e lin e a te d in § 3 3 5 3 (a ). See United S tates v. R uiz Ter r az as , 4 7 7 F . 3 d 1 1 9 6 , 1 2 0 3 -04 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). B eca us e of the mandat or ym i ni m um s ent ence s r equi r ed her e bys t atut e, t he- 5-

r e c o mme n d e d g u i d e l i n e r a n g e b e c a me i rr e l e v a n ta n d th e ma n d a t o rymi n i mu ms beca m e the gui del i nes r ange. U . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 1( b) . T hus , the gui del i nes s e n te n c e w a s p ro p e rl yc a lc u la te d . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054- 55. M or eover , the c o u rt s p e c ific a lly c o n s id e re d th e fa c to rs s e t fo rt h in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See R ec. , vol . I I at 43- 44. T he courtfound the 27 y ears ent ence i nadequa t el yr efl ect ed M r . H err i ng di s char gi ng hi s w eapon, cr eat i ng s ubs t ant i al r i s ks of dea th t o notonl ythe h o s ta g e s b u t a ls o to la w e n fo rc e m e n t a n d th e p u b lic , a n d a b d u c tin g s ix h o s ta g e s . Id. a t 3 9 -4 0 . See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 1 ), ( 2 )( A ), a n d (3 ). T he courtcons i der ed the abduc t i on of hos t ages part i cul ar l yi m por t antand not ed the gui del i ne enha ncementforhos t ages t aken i n the cour s e of a bank ro b b e ry o n ly ac c o u n ts fo r o n e h o s ta g e . See R ec. , vol . I I at39- 40; U .S .S .G . § 2B 3. 1( 4) ( affor di ng fourl evel i ncr eas e forabduct i on of anyone per s on) . A ddi ng a n a d d itio n a l yea r fo r e a c h h o s ta g e , i d. at40, w as a l ogi cal r es ul tgi ven the m a g n itu d e o f

M r. H e rrin g ’s a c tio n s. T h e g u id e lin e s th e m se lv e s s u g g e st a d e p a rt u re w h e re th e o ffe n s e le v e l r e fle c ts o n ly h a rm to o n e v ic tim . See U. S . S . G. § 5 K 2 . 0 , cm t. n . 3 (B )(i i) (no ti n g g u ideline d ep arture m ayb e w arran ted w h ere g u idelines o n lyac co u n t fo r ha rm to o n e p erso n ). T h e d istri ct co u rt appr opr i at el yus ed the gui del i nes as i t s “s t art i ng poi nt . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Te rr e ll , 445 F. 3d 1261, 1264 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Si t t i ng B ear , 436 F. 3d 929, 935 ( 8t h C i r . 2006) ) . I tthen fa s hi oned an appr opr i at e s ent ence by cons i der i ng t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n § 3553( a) . T hi s w as a r eas oned met hod of- 6-

cal cul at i ng M r . H err i ng’ s s ent ence . W e thus fi nd no err ori n the pr ocedur al c o m p o n e n t o f

M r. H e rr in g ’s s e n te n c e . W e sim il arlysee n o p rob lem w ith the s u b stan ti v e c o m p o n en t of M r. H e rrin g ’s s e n ten c e . C o n sid e rin g th e re a so n a b len e ss o f a se n ten c e re q u ire s u s to c o n s id e r t h e w e ig h t th e c o u rt a c c o rd e d th e v a ri o u s fa c to rs . C age , 451 F. 3d at 5 9 5 . M r . H e r r i n g ’ s s e n t e n c e o n l y e x c e e d e d th e m a n d a t o ry m i ni m um byfi ve y ears . G i ven M r. H err i ng ’s act i on s duri ng his cri m es— t aking si x h ost ages, p u tti n g h is g u n to a t lea st o n e h o sta g e ’s h e a d , sh o o tin g a t th e p o lice , atte m p tin g to hij ack a n ai rpl ane— M r . H err i ng’ s s ent ence i s r eas onabl e. T hi s cas e s i m pl ydoes noti nvol ve the extr aor di narydi s cr epanc ybetw een the gui del i nes r ange a nd the a c tu a l s e n te n c e re q u ir e d to d e te rm in e it u n re a s o n a b le . See Cage , 451 F. 3d at594- 95 ( fi ndi ng s i x days ent ence unr eas onabl e w her e bott om of appl i cabl e s ent enci ng ra n g e w o u ld h a v e b e e n fo rt y -s ix m o n th s ). U n d er B ooker , s ent enci ng i s di s cr et i onaryand the di s tr i ctcour tus ed that d iscreti o n to fash ion a se n tenc e tha t w as re aso n ab lytai lored to M r. H erring ’s cr i m es . W e ther efor e AF F I RM . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge.