Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30767 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. GA RR ET T M. R US HI NG , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he M i ddl e D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 08- C R - 95- 1 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * G a rrett M . R u sh i n g plea d ed gu i l ty to p oss ess i on w i th i n ten t t o d i strib u te m et h am ph et am i n e an d u se of a f i rearm du ri n g a dru g t raf f i cki n g cri m e, pu rsuan tt o 21 U . S . C . § 841(a) ( 1) an d 18 U . S . C . § 924 (c) ( 1) (A) . Th e gu i del i n es s e nt e nc i ng r ang e w as 92 t o 115 m o nt hs fo rt he m e t ham phe t am i ne o f fe ns e a nd 60 m on t h s f

or th e firearm off

en se. T h e di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n ed that an u pw ard var i ance f

r om t he gui deli nes r ange w as appr opr i at e a nd i m pos ed c ons ec ut ive se nt enc es of

135 and 72 m ont hs, r es pec t ively. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 9, 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-30767 Document: 00511137259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 09- 30767

2 R ushi n g ch a l l enges t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s r eas ons f ort he s ent enc es as i n s u f f i c i e n t . B e c a u s e h e d i dn o to bj e c to n t h i s b a s i s i n t h e d i s t r i c tc o ur t , we r e v ie w th e is s u e fo rp la in e r r o r . Se e Uni t e d St ate s v. Wh i t e law , 580 F. 3d 256, 258, 261- 62 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) . Ru shi ng c onf use s t he upw ar d var i ance i m pos ed by th e d i stri ct co u rt w i th a n u p w a rdd ep a rtu re u n d er U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 3 . H e a sse rts t hatt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s expl anat i on w as i nsuf f i c i ent bec ause i t di d nots how t hat t he c o ur ta ppli e d the pr o c e dur e r e quir e d b y § 4 A1. 3( a) ( 4) ( B) a nd b e c aus e t he court rel i ed on hi s arr estrec ord i n v iolati on of § 4A 1. 3( a) ( 3) . W e di st i n gu i sh betw een an up w ar d d e pa r t ur ea ll o w e d un de rthegui de l i n es and a non - gu i del i n es s e n te n c e , o rv a r ia n c e , th a t is o u ts id e o f th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e . Uni t edS t at e s v. B ran t ley , 537 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) . T he di st r i c tc our ts t at ed t hati tw as im p o s in ga n u p w a r dv a r ia n c e . A s s u c h , itw a s p e r m it t e dto r e lyo n R u s h in g ’s ar r e s tr e c o r d, s upp o r t e d b y ad dit i o nale vi de nc e o f c r i m i nalc o nduc t(i nc l udi ng R u shi n g' s “ six or s even ” convi ct ion s a s w el las t h e vi ol en tan d d rug-r el ated n ature of

t h e charges un derl yi n g h i s pri or arr ests), i n i m posi n g t h e aboveg u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez- V elasqu ez , 526 F . 3 d 8 0 4 , 807 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S. C t . 625 ( 200 8) . Th e provi si on s of § 4A 1. 3 did not a p p l y, an dthe d i stri ct cou rt d i d n ot err by fai l i n g t o sho w th a t it com p l i ed w i th th o s e p r o v is io n s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. S m i th , 4 4 0 F . 3 d70 4 , 70 6

– 0 8 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). N ex t R u sh i n g con ten d s th a t th e dist ri ct cou rt erre d b y re l yin g o n elem en ts of t h e o ffense t o i m pose t h e above-guidel i n es s en t en ce. Th e app el l an t ’ s bri ef m us tc o nt ai n hi s “ c o nt e nt i o ns a nd the reas o ns f o rt he m , w i t h c i t at i o ns t o t he a u th o r itie s a n dpa rts of th e rec ord on w h i ch [h e] rel i es.” F ED . R. A PP . P. 28( a) ( 9) (A) . Ru shi ng abandons t hi s ar gu m entby fai l i ng t o o f ferany l egal s u p p o r t fo rit. Se ei d. ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. S t alnak er , 571 F . 3d428 , 439 –40 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 9 ).R u s h in ga ls o a s s e r ts th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e a s o n s w e r e n o t fa c tu a lly speci f i c ordetai l ed en ou gh t o al l ow r e v iew by thi s c ou rt . Th e di st ri ctcourt Case: 09-30767 Document: 00511137259 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/09/2010N o. 09- 30767

3 p rov i d eda len gth y e xp l a n a ti on f or th e u p w a rdva ri a n ce th a t i n cl u d ed fa cts pe c i f i cr e as o ns s uc h a s Rus hi ng’ s “ s i x o rs e ve n” pr i o rc o nvi c t i o ns , 2 5 ar rest s, h i st ory of

na rcot i cs di st ribu t i on an d p h ysi calv i ol en ce, a n d the vi ol en ce i n volved i n t he i nst ant of

fens e. I t c i t ed ag gr avat i ng c i r c um st ance s notac c ount ed f orby t he g ui de l i ne s , i nc l udi ng a s e pa r at e r o bb e r y c o m m i t t e d b y Rushi ng o n t he ni ght o f t he i ns t anto f

fe ns e s , hi s po s s e s s i o n o f f i r e ar m s a s a c o nvi c t e d f e l o n, hi s f

l e e i ng to W y o m i n g a ft er th e insta n t of fen ses , an dh i s fa i l u re to p rov i d e off i ci a l s w i th t he s o ur c e o f

m e t ham phe t am i ne he pur c has e d. The di s t r i c tc o ur tr e fe r e nc e d t he se nt enc i ng fac t or s und er§ 3553( a) and ex pl ai ned th a t t he var i ance w as n ecess ary t o prot ectsoc i et y an d d et er f u t u re c ri m es. T h e courtackn ow l edg ed Rushi ng’ s a r gum e ntt hathi s t r o ubl e d b ac kg r o und w as am i t i ga t i ng fac t o rb ut r ej e c t e d i t be c aus e Rushi ng had “ am pl e o ppo r t uni t i e s ” a s a n a dul tt o c hang e b ut fail e d t o dos o . A ccor di n gl y, w e f i nd n o e r r o r , pl ai n o ro t he r w i s e , w i t h t he r e a s o n s p r o v id e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S eeS m ith , 4 4 0 F .3 da t 7 0 8 ; Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mares , 4 0 2 F .3 d5 1 1 , 5 1 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e do not c ons i der R ushi ng’ s r em ai ni ng ar gum ent t hat th e con se c ut ive s e nt e nc e s i m po s e d b y t he di s t r i c t c o ur tw e r e di s pr o po r t i o nat e t o hi s o f fe ns e s a nd u n sup ported by t h e recor d. A l t h ou gh R u shi n g st ates t h at t h i s court shou l d u se t he s e nt e nci n g fac t o r s und e r1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3( a) a s ag ui de i n r e vi e w i ng t he reasona bl en ess of

hi s s en t en ces, he d oes n o texpl ai n w h y t h e sentences w ere ex cess ive u n d er th ose fa ctors, d i sp u te the factors rel i ed on b y t h e dist ri ct cou rt, o rcit e to th e re c o r d . B yfa ilin gt o b r ie f th e is s u e s u ffic ie n tly , h e w a iv e s it. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 2 8 (a )(9)(A); S t alnak er , 571 F. 3d at439–40 . AF F I RMED. Case: 09-30767 Document: 00511137259 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/09/2010