## 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 o. 09

- 3789 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A NTH O NY L. V AUG HN, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United S tates District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, T erreH aute D ivisi on. No . 2:09 CR0007

—L arry J . M cK inn ey, Judge

.
A RG UE D J UL Y 8, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 30, 2010

Befo re B AUER, R IPPLE, an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges. P ER C UR I AM . W hi l e i nc ar ce r at ed atthe f ed eralpe ni te nti ar y i n Terr e Haute, I nd i ana, A nthony Vaughn r epeatedl y s tabbe d a pri son guar d w i th an ei ght- i nch shank. H e pl eaded gui l ty to com m i tti ng ag gr avat ed as sa u lt on a fed er al o f fice r, see 18 U

. S. C

. § 111(a), ( b), and the di str i ct c ourtse ntenced h im to 18 0 m onths’ i m pri sonm en t, 45 m onths abov e the to p ofthe gui del i nes r ange. Vaughn’s so l e a rgum ent o n app ea l is that2 N o. 09

- 3789 the s entence i s s ubstanti vel y u nrea sonab l e. W e di sag re e and af fi rm the j ud gm ent. The eve nts that pr eci pit ated V au ghn’s as saul t be gan the m or ni ng of A pri l 23, 2009 , w hen he and tw o other in m at e s w e r e liftin g w eig h ts in t h eir h ou sin g u n it, a pract i ce that ( at l eas t i n that parti cul ar u ni t) was offi ci al l y pr ohibi ted but often t ol er ate d by the guar ds. O ffice r D ou gla s C am d en s aw th e m en ex er c isin g a n d to ld them to put away the w ei ghts because a l i euten an t w as a b o u t t o i n s p e c t t h e u n i t
. T h e me n d i s r e g a r d e d th e i nst ruc tio n a nd wer e st i l l l i ftingwei g ht s when th e l i eutenant arriv ed. Cam den and the l i eutenant w ent i nto th e gua r ds’ o f fi ce i ns i de th e ho us i nguni t, a nd Va ug hn f o l l o wed, a ppar en tl y wi sh i ngto di sc us s the wei g ht

- l i fting i s s ue . Ca mde n t o l d Va ughn he wa s b us y a nd t ha t t hey w ou ld d iscus s the m atter later. A b o u t 1 5 m inu tes later, afterthe l i eutena n t had dep ar ted, Vaughn re turned t o the o f fi ce a nd co nfr onte d C am den w hen he was al one. Acc o r di ngt o Ca mde n, V a ughnp o i nt e d a th i m a nd s a i d, “You bet terwatch how yo u tal k t o m e. ” Vaughn added that he ha d “s tabbe d a co p” bef or e a nd would do so aga i n. Vaughn’s thr eat s e scal ate d, and C am den tw i ce o r de r e d hi m t o l e a v e t he o f fi c e . Va ughn r e s po nd e d by l ung i nga t Camde n w i tha s ha nk

. He mi ss ed i ni ti al l y b ut in the ensu ing stru ggle stabb ed Ca m d en t w ice i n h is l eft sh ou lder and i nfl i cted m ult i ple cuts to hi s f ace. Cam den bro ke f re e a n d fled the o f fi ce, but Vaughn fo l l owed a nd s t a b b e d hi m t wo mo r e t i mes b e f o r e o t he r g ua r ds i nt e r v e ne d. A t s entenci ng Cam den test i fi ed that the a tta ck had di m i ni sh ed hi s phy si ca l s tr en g thb y abo ut4 0%, s ubs ta n-N o. 09

- 3789 3 ti al l y l i m i te d the r an g e o fmot i o n i n hi s l eft sh o ul der, a nd cau sed nu m bn ess in his nec k, h e a d , and shou lder. H i s doct or s a nd p h ysi calther api sts , sa i d C am den, had w ar ned that these i m pai rm ents co u l d be per m anent. C am d en a dded th athe r el i ve s th e i nc i den t i n r ec ur r i ng ni ghtm ar es, h as beco m e ir ri tabl e w i th fam i l y a nd fri ends, and w or ri es about hi s abi l i ty to re turn t o pol i ce work

. Edw ar d W he ele , the F BI a g en t who i nv es ti g at ed th e att ack, authenti cate d ph otograp hs o fthe w eapon, wh i ch d ep ict an eig ht -i nc h m etal shan k. W he ele had i nt err o g at ed Vau g hn, who b l amed the a tt ac kon C am d ena nd neveri nquir ed abo ut hi s r eco ver y. I n hi s al l ocuti on Vaughn as ked the di str i ct c ourtto spa r e hi m fr o m s pen di ngthe r es t o fhi s l i f e in pr i so n. H e no te d tha t he ha d b ee n i n pr i so n s i nc e hi s 21 stb i r th

day a nd r efl ec te d o n h i s effor ts t o b et te r hi m se l fdur i ng hi s 15 yea rs of i ncarc er ati on. H e i s not vi ol en t b y nature, Vaughn i nsi sted, and bef or e the as saul t he had tri ed to kee p a c lean r eco rd be cause he was near l y e l i gibl e t o tr ansferto a lo w er - secur i ty f aci l i ty. H e o nl y pos ses sed the s ha nk, V a ughne xp l a i ne d, t o p r o t e c th i mse l ffr om an o th eri nm at e he di sa r m ed to pre ve nta n a tt ac ko n a diff er ent guar d. Vaughn’s l aw yer add ed to these st atem ents by em phasi zi ng tha t, al thou gh the prese ntence re portr eve al s a si gni fi cant hi sto ry o f d i sci pli nary i nfr acti ons w hi l e i n pri son, m osto ftho se i nci dents had o cc ur r ed m o r e th an te n y ea r s ea r l i era nd the few r ec en t i nfr acti ons w er e no nvi ol ent. The dis tr i ct c ourtcal cul ate d a to talo f f ense lev el o f29 , see U

. S. S. G

. §§ 2A 2.2( a), (b)( 2)(C), (b)( 6), 3A 1.2( c), 3E 1.1( a),4 N o. 09

- 3789

a nd a Ca t e g o r y I I I c r i mi na l h i s t o r y , y i e l di nga g ui del i nes i m pr i so nm en t r an g e o f1 08 t o 1 35 months

. I n e xp lai ning i ts choi ce o f a 1 80- m onth t er m to r un consec uti vel y t o Vaughn’s und i schar ged se ntence, the cour t e m ph as ized t ha t t he s e ns e l e s s na t ur e o f t hi s a t t a c k s ug g e s t e d that Vau g hn ha s a po o r abi l i tyt o c o nt r o l hi s be ha vi o r . The l ack ofse l fco ntrol is a l so evi dent, r eas oned the cour t, f ro m the “co nti nuing nature ” o fthe off ense, r efer ri ng to V a u g h n ’ s d e c i s i o n t o t r a i l C a mde n f r o m t h e o f fi ce a nd att ack a s eco nd ti m e, ev en afterthe offi cerhad tr i ed to esca pe. The j u d ge als o obs er ved thatVaughn’s weapon w as “as nasty ” a s a ny he had seen bef or e a nd co u ld onl y ser ve a vi ol ent pu rpos e. Fi nal l y, the c ourtco ncl ud ed th at a longer sen ten ce w as j us tified for dete rrenc e pu rp os es in ligh t o f th e h ei g h t e n ed n ee d for s ec u rit y w ith in t h e p r i s o n s y s t e m. Vaughn chal l enges o nl y the subst anti ve re aso nabl en e s s o f h is a b ov e-r an ge p ris on se n te n c e. A se n te n c e is r ea so n a b l e i fth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d the gui del i nes r ange and then exe rc i sed appropr i ate di sc r e t i o n i n a pp l y i ngthe f a c t o r s s pe c i fi e d i n 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 55 3(a ). See G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 5 5 2 U. S

. 3 8 , 56 ( 2007 ) ; U nite d State s v. P anice, 59 8 F

. 3d 426, 44 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)

. A di st r i ctc o ur t i s f r ee t o im p o se a s en te nc e o ut si de th e g ui del i ne s r an g e so l o nga s th e j udg e ex pl ai ns why th at sen ten c e i s ap p rop riate un d er § 3553(a). See U nited State s v. B artl et t, 567 F.3d 901 , 909 (7th C ir. 2009). The di st r i ctc o ur t co m pl i ed w ith th i s pr o ce dur e. The cour t proper l y cal cul ate d the gui del i nes r ange

— a ca l cul ati on that Vaughn doe s not d isp ute

— and concl ud ed thatN o. 09

- 3789 5 a hi gherpri son sente nce was nece ssa ry to acc ount f or t h e c on sid er at ion s re lev an t u n d er § 35 53 (a). Se eU nited State s v. Sm it h , 5 62 F

. 3d 86 6, 8 72 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)

. The cour t e xplai ned that i ts deci si on res ted o n the need to deterVaughn and other s fro m such s ensel ess at tack s, the e f f or t b y V aughn to pro l ong the a tta ck, and the gr ueso m e qua l i tyo fthe wea po n. V au gh n’s atte m p ts to un d erm ine th ese rea s o ns are u n p er su as ive . First, th e d ist ric t c ou rtap p ro p ria t e ly f ocuse d o n the need to deter Vaughn g i ven th e s en sel ess natur e o fthi s at ta ck. Vaughn ente re d the g uards’ offi ce with a s han k, loo ki ng f ora fi ght. A nd he use d that s ha nk t o s t a b Ca mde n nu mer o us t i mes . Th e c o ur t r easonab l y noted that, i fthi s was how Vaughn behaved w hi l e ho ping f ora tr an sfe r to a l ower- secur i ty f aci l i ty, hi s j ud g men tc o ul d n o tb e t r us t e d. Se eU nited St at e s v. Wa lk er, 447 F. 3d 999, 1008 ( 7th Cir. 2006). The c o ur t al so r ea so nabl y r el i ed on the “ co nt i nui ng nature ” o fthe att ack. Vaughn obj ects to thi s char acte ri zatio n b e cau se th e attac k l asted only secon d s, bu t the cou rt wa s n o tcom m e nt i ngo n t he a t t a c k ’ s du r a t i o n. I ns t e a d, the c ourtwas conce rned with Vaughn’s deci si on t o r en ew the a ssault evena fte r Ca m denha d e sc ape d the offi ce. Fin ally , th e d ist ric t c ou rtap p ro p ria te ly b as ed its d ec isi on o n the “nasty” nature ofthe w eapon. Vaughn ar gues t ha th i s o f f e ns e l e v e l wa s i nc r e a s e d b e c a us e h e u s e d a d an ge ro u s w ea p on , see U. S

. S

. G. § 2 A2. 2(b) ( 2) ( B) , a nd the cou rt fa i l ed to e xpl ai n why tha t i nc r ea se was i ns uffi ci en t to a cc o untf o r the n atu r e o fthe s ha nk

. Butthe6 N o. 09

- 3789 d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d e x p l a i n i t s e l f

. T h e j u d g e p r o p e r l y c o mpared Vaughn’s at tackto “typi cal ” pri son ass aul ts, see § 3 55 3(a )(2) (A ), (6); U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 53 8 F

. 3d 784, 793 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , and re m ar ked that V aughn had used a w eapo n t ha twa s a s g r ue s o me a s a nythe c o ur th ad ev ers ee n. Be ca us e th i s and th e o th ere xpl an at i o ns the dist ri ct c ourtga ve for im posi ng an abov e- gui del i nes sente nce a re al l r eas onabl e, we affi rm the j ud gm ent.

7- 30- 10