# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 4- 14 55

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e ,

v.

Ran dy Allen Hent ge s,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Dub uq ue

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 12 , 20 14

Fil ed : J un e 2 2, 2 01 5

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re BYE, COLLOTON, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

COLLOTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Ran dy All en Hen tg es ap pe al s fro m th e 13 2- m on th pr is on se nt en ce im po se d by

th e di st ric t co ur t aft er Hen tg es pl ead ed gu il ty to a t t e mpti ng to m an uf act ur e

m et ha m ph et am in e ne ar a sc ho ol

. Hen tg es arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t err e d in 1

The Hon or ab le Lin da

. R. Rea de

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa

.de te rm in in g th at he was a care er of fen de r un de r th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es , an d th at th e

di st ric t co ur t’s pr on ou nc em en t of an al te rn at iv e se nt en ce is in su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy th e

se nt en ce im

p o s e d

. H e al so as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi m th e rig ht to

al lo cu ti on at s en te nc in g. We affi rm

.

Hen tg es pl ead ed gu il ty to at te m pt t o man uf

act ur e m et ha m

ph et am in e ne ar a

sc ho ol

, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(C)

, 84 6, and 86 0. At sen te nc in g, th e

di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed th at Hen tg es was a care er of fen de r un de r th e se nt en ci ng

gu id el in es , se e USSG § 4B 1.1

, th at he acce pt ed res po ns ib il it y fo r hi s of fen se , se e id

. § 3E1 .1, an d th at th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge was 18 8 to 23 5 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t. The co ur t th en ex pl ai ne d th at ev en if Hen t g e s were no t a care er

of fen de r, in whi ch cas e th e ad v i s o r y s e n t e nc in g ran ge wou ld ha ve be en 92 to 11 5

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t, th e co ur t wou ld ha ve va rie d up ward fro m th e ran ge pu rs ua nt

to 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a), du e to th e se rio us ne ss of Hen tg es ’s cri m in al co nd uc t an d hi s

in co rri gi bi li ty. Und er ei th er ap pr oa ch

, th e co ur t de cl ared

, it wou ld arri ve at th e sa m e

se nt en ce of 18 8 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co ur t th en red uc ed th e se nt en ce to 13 2

m on th s o n o th er g ro un ds no t re le va nt he re.

A f t er co m m en ts fro m co un se l, th e co ur t of fere d Hen tg es an op po rtu ni t y t o

sp eak

. W he n Hen tg es was fin is he d, th e co ur t sa id t h a t i t w a s “ read y to im po se th e

se nt en ce,” an d an no un ced it s jud gm en t th at Hen tg es was se nt en ced to a te rm of 13 2

m on th s’ im

pr is on m en t. Hen tg es ap pe al s.

Hen tg es fir st arg ue s t ha t th e di st ric t cou rt erred in cl as si fy in g hi m as a car eer

of fen de r un de r USSG § 4B 1.1

, be c au se he ha d no t su st ai ne d two qu al ifyin g pr io r

co nv ic ti on s for a cri m e of vi ol en ce o r a con tro ll ed su bs ta nc e of fen se as req ui red by

U S S G § 4B 1.1 (a)( 3)

. He ad m it s on e pr io r qu al ifyin g co nv ic ti on fo r po ss es si o n o f

co cai ne wit h in te nt to de li ve r, bu t di sp ut es th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at hi s

co nv ic ti on s fo r p o s s e ss io n of a pr ecu rs or ch em ic al wit h in te nt to m an uf act ur e a

co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an d fo r at te m pt ed bu rg la ry in th e th ird de gr ee al so qu al ify. The

-2

-go ve rn m en t res po nd s th at bo th o f t h e pr io r co nv ic ti on s qu al ify, bu t th at ev en if

Hen tg es is no t a care er of fen de r, th e di st ric t co ur t’s al te rn at iv e de c i s i o n to va ry

u p w a rd fro m th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es is en ou gh to su st ai n th e jud gm en t. H e n t g e s

co un te rs th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t of fer a su ffi ci en t jus ti fic at io n fo r im po si ng th e

al te rn at iv e se nt en ce.

We fin d it un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s whe th er Hen tg es qu al ifi es as a c a r e e r

of fen de r, be cau se t h e d is tri ct co ur t’s al te rn at iv e de ci si on to va ry up ward fro m th e

ad vi so ry gu id el in e ran ge is su ffi ci en t to jus ti fy th e s en te nc e im po se d. The co ur t

ex pl ai ne d th at ev en if Hen tg es were no t a care er offen de r, th e co ur t wou ld se nt en ce

Hen tg es —b efo re a red uc ti on fo r pr ov id in g su bs ta nt ia l ass is ta nc e—t o a te rm of 18 8

mo n t hs pu rs ua nt to § 35 53 (a), rat he r th an wit hi n th e ad vi so ry ran ge of 9 2 t o 1 1 5

m on th s. In sh or t, th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at Hen tg es is “ at hi gh ris k to reci di va te an d

he is in co rri gi bl e.” S. Tr. 16

. The co ur t cit ed Hen tg es ’s ex te ns iv e cri m in al hi st or y , whi ch res ul te d in 22 cri m in al hi st or y po in ts un de r th e g u i d e l i n e s— m ak in g hi m

“ at y pi cal ” ev en fo r of

fen de rs who are pl aced in th e hi gh es t cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y

un de r th e gu id el in es wit h 13 or m or e po in t s

. Th e c o ur t ob se rv ed th at le ni en t

se nt en ces in pr io r cas es ha d no t ch an ge d Hen tg es ’s be ha vi or , a n d t ha t Hen tg es

pe rfo rm ed “ ex tre m el y p o or ly on co rrec ti on al su pe rv is io n.” “ His pr ob at io n, hi s

pa ro le

, are rev ok ed co ns is te nt ly. And th en , to to p it of f, whe n he do es n’t li ke wha t’s

go in g on , he jus t walk s away. ” The co ur t refe rred to nu m ero us es cap es or ab se nc es

fro m cu st od y in Hen tg es ’s cri m in al hi st or y

. Hen tg es al so co m m it te d th e in st an t dr ug

tra ffi ck in g of

fen se whi le un de r a cri m in al jus ti ce se nt en ce, a fact th at th e co ur t fo un d

was “ an ad di ti on al in di cat io n of th e se rio u s n e s s o f h is cri m in al co nd uc t an d hi s

in co rri gi bi li ty.” S. T r. 10

.

Hen tg es co m

pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d th e va ria n c e o n a mist ak en

fi n d i n g t ha t “ [h ]e ha s be en in vo lv ed wit h dr ug s as a dr ug de al er si nc e ag e 21 .”

Hen tg es was co n v i c t e d o f po ss es si ng co cai ne wit h in te nt to de li ve r at ag e 21

,

po ss es si on of d ru g p arap he rn al ia at ag e 25 , a nd po ss es si on of a pr ecu rs or ch em ic al

-3

-wit h in te nt to m an uf act ur e m et ha m

ph et am in e at ag e 28

. The in st an t of fen se ,

co m m it te d at ag e 31

, was an at te m pt to m an uf

act ur e m et ha m

ph et am in e ne ar a sc ho ol

. W e se e no cl ear erro r or pr ejud ic e ari si ng fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s sh or th an d refe ren ce

to Hen tg es ’s hi st or y wit h il le ga l dr ug s. He di d su st ai n a co nv ic ti on fo r “ dr ug

de al in g” at ag e 21 whe n he po ss es se d co cai ne wit h in te nt to de li ve r, an d t h e n he

co m m it te d two m or e of

fen se s in vo lv in g in te nt to m an uf act ur e m et ha mp h e ta m in e

wit hi n th e ne xt de cad e. Man uf act ur in g of

fen se s co m

m on ly are la be le d “ dr ug

tra ffi ck in g of

fen se s,” e.g

. , USSG § 2L1 .2, co m m en t. (n .(1) (B)( iv )), an d we do no t

th in k th e co ur t’s us e of th e te rm “ dr ug de al in g” to su m m ari ze Hen tg es ’s in vo lv em en t

m an ife st s a m is un de rs ta nd in g of th e cri m in al hi st or y or a reas on to be li ev e t h a t th e

co ur t wou ld ha ve im

po se d a le ss er se nt en ce aft er de sc rib in g each dr ug of fen se m or e

pr eci se ly.

Hen tg es al so ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s rel ia nc e on hi s un us ua ll y la rg e

nu m be r o f c r i mi n al hi st or y po in ts (2 2) as a ba si s fo r an up ward va ria nc e. He

co nt en ds th at da ta fro m th e Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g C o mm is si on sh ow a rat e of

reci di vi sm fo r of

fen de rs wit h m or e th an 20 cri m in al hi st or y po in ts th at is no gr eat er

th an th e rat e fo r so m e of fen de rs in C at eg or y VI wit h fewer po in ts

. Se e U.S.

Sen te nc in g Co m

m ’n, Mea su rin g Rec id iv is m : The Cri m in al His to ry Co m pu ta ti on of

th e Fed eral Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s 7 ( 2 0 04 ). The da ta are no t as co nv in ci ng as

Hen tg es su gg es ts

. Fo r 20 03

, of fen de rs wit h 20 or m or e po in ts reco rd ed a reci di vi sm

rat e o f jus t u nd er 6 0 per cen t, a hi gh er rate th an fo r of fen de rs wit h 1 3, 1 6, 1 7, 1 8, o r

19 po in ts

. Id

. Tha t of fen de rs wit h 14 or 15 po in ts reo ffen de d at a sl ig ht ly hi gh er rat e

du rin g th at y ear do es no t m ak e it u n r e a s o n a b l e fo r th e di st ric t co ur t to co rrel at e a

sc or e ab ov e 20 wit h at y pi cal in co rri gi bi li ty. Our pr eced en t cl earl y s u p po rts th e

di st ric t co ur t’s ap pr oa ch

. E.g.

, Uni te d St at es v. Sa yl es , 75 4 F .3d 56 4, 5 68 (8 th Ci r.

20 14 ); Uni te d S ta te s v. Fo y , 61 7 F .3d 10 29 , 10 36 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

The di st ric t co u r t h as co ns id erab le di sc ret io n in fas hi on in g a se nt en ce un de r § 35 53 (a) ba se d on th e un iq ue ch arac te ris ti cs of each of fen de r. Eve n if Hen tg es ’s

-4

-pr io r fel on y co nv ic ti on s di d n o t sa ti sf y th e de fin it io n of “ co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

o f fen se ” or “ cri m e of vi ol en ce” un de r th e cat eg or ic al an d m od ifi ed cat eg or ic a l

ap pr oa ch es th at m

us t be ap pl ie d, se e ge ne ra ll y Des ca mps v. Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S. Ct

. 22 76 (2 01 3)

, th e co ur t was pe r mitt ed to co ns id er Hen tg es ’s ad m it te d co nd uc t on

th os e oc cas io ns , al on g wit h hi s ov eral l cri m in al hi st or y an d res po ns e to su pe rv is io n,

whe n a pp lying § 3 55 3( a). W e co nc lu de th at th ere was no ab us e o f di sc ret io n.

Hen tg es al so as se rts th at th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi m hi s r ig ht to al lo cu ti on

un de r Fed eral Ru le of Cri m in al Pro ced u r e 3 2 (i) an d th e Due Pro ces s Cl au se of th e

Fi fth Am en dm en t. He co m pl ai ns th at th e di st ric t co ur t an no un ced th e se nt en ce th at

it wou ld im

po se wit ho ut fir st al lo win g Hen tg es to sp eak

. Bec au se Hen tg es fai le d to

o b je ct to th is pr oc ed ur e at se nt en ci ng , we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. Uni te d St at es v

. Hof fma n , 70 7 F.3 d 92 9, 93 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 )

. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t di d an no un ce

it s in te nt io n to im

po se a 13 2- m on th se nt en ce be fo r e g r a n t i ng Hen tg es hi s rig ht of

al lo cu ti on , th e co ur t di d in vi te Hen tg e s t o s p eak be fo re th e co ur t im po se d th e

se nt en ce. Tha t pr oc e d u r e d o e s n ot vi ol at e Ru le 32 (i) or th e Co ns ti tu ti on

. Uni te d

St at es v. Boo se , 40 3 F .3d 10 16 , 10 17 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) (pe r cu ria m ).

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-