T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T hi s courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed under the t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### M ay 18, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C 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. V I CT O R M A N CI LLA S,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 3328 ( D. Ct . No . 0 2 - CR- 1 0 1 4 0 - 2 0 - M LB)

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B ef o re T AC HA , C h ie f

C ir c u it J u d g e , H A R T Z , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee- j udge pane l has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al as s i s t ance i n the d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he c a se is th e re f

o re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. I n 2002, D efe ndant - A ppel l antV i ct orM anci l l as w as convi ct ed of va r i ous drug o f f e n se s s tem m in g f

ro m h is ro le in a tw e n ty -se v e n p e rso n c o n sp ira c y . H e n o w a p p e a ls hi s 97- m ont h s ent ence on t he gr ound thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notm eani ngful l ycons i der- 2 -

the s ent enci ng fac t or s s etforth i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) w hen i ti m pos ed thatpart i cul ar s ent ence . W e t ake j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742( a) and A F F I R M. I . BA CKGROUND M r . M anci l l as w as char ged bya s uper s edi ng i ndi ctm entw i th one countof cons pi r acyt o di s tr i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect i bl e amount o f c o c a in e , s ee 21 U . S. C . § 846, one countof di s tr i but i on and ai di ng and abe t t i ng the d istrib u tio n o f

a p p ro x im a tely2 1 8 g ra m s o r m o re o f a su b sta n c e c o n tain in g a d e tec tib le a m o u n t o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e , s ee 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , and ei ghtcount s of us i ng a c o m m u n ic a tio n f

a c ility to f

a c ilita te th e d is tr ib u tio n o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e , s ee 21 U . S. C . § 843( b) . A ft era j urytr i al , M r . M anci l l as w as convi ct ed on al l count s and s ent ence d t o 120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm entbas ed on the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on that21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) m andat ed a t en- y earm i ni m um s ent ence . O n appea l , w e r emanded M r . M anci l l as ’ s cas e forr es ent enci ng beca us e he ha d notbeen c onvi ct ed of di s tr i but i ng at l eas tfi ve ki l ogr ams of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng coca i ne oratl eas t500 gr ams of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne as r equi r ed t o tr i ggerappl i cat i on of the s t atut oryt en- y ear m in im u m . U

ni t ed Stat es v. M

anci l las , 132 Fed. A pp’ x 780 ( 10th C i r . 2005) (un p u b li sh ed ). A tr es ent enci ng on A ugus t15, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tcons i der ed the fi ndi ngs of the Pr es ent ence I nves t i gat i on R eport( “PSR ”) , w hi ch ca l cul at ed the drug quant i t i es a ttribu tab le to M r. M a n c ill a s a s 1 ,5 0 5 .6 g ra m s o f a su b sta n c e c o n tain in g a d e tec tib leU n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ), a d istric t co u rt m u st c o n sid e r: 1 ( 1) the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the off ens e and the hi s t oryand c h a ra c ter istics o f

th e d e f e n d a n t; (2 ) th e n e e d f

o r th e se n ten c e im p o se d [ ] to re f lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se , to p ro m o te r e sp e c t f o r th e law , an d to p ro v id e ju st p u n ish m e n t f o r th e o f f e n se ; [ ] to a f

f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to cr i m i nal conduct ; [] t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of the defe ndant ; and [] t o pr ovi de the def endantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vo cat i on al trai ning, m edical care, or ot her corr ect i on al treatm ent i n the m ost eff ect i ve manner ; ( 3) the ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e . . . [and] ( 6) the nee d t o avoi d unw arr ant ed s ent ence di s par i t i es among defendant s w i th s i m i l ar re c o rd s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u ilty o f

s im ila r c o n d u c t . . . .

- 3 - amount of coc ai ne and 218. 8 gr ams of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect i bl e amountof m ethamphet ami ne. B eca us e more than one drug w as i nvol ved i n the cr i m e, the s ubs t ance s w er e conve r t ed t o thei rm ar i j uana e qui val ent , w hi ch the PSR cal cul at ed as 7 3 8 .7 2 k ilo g ra m s . T h is re s u lte d in a b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

3 0 , s ee U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual ( “U . S. S. G . ” or“G ui del i nes ”) § 2D 1. 1( c) ( 5) , w hi ch co u p led w ith M r. M an cil las’s crim inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f I p rod u ce d an ad v isory s e n te n c in g g u id e lin e ra n g e o f 9 7

– 1 2 1 m o n th s . M r . M anci l l as obj ect ed t o the PSR ’ s cal cul at i on of the drug quant i t i es bas ed on fa ct th at th e juryh ad attri b u ted o n ly5 0 0 g ram s o f c o ca ine to h im . A cc o rdin g to M r. M anci l l as , hi s bas e off

ens e l evel s houl d be 28, w i th a r es ul t i ng advi s orys ent enci ng r ange o f 7 8

– 9 7 m o n th s. M r. M a n c ill a s a lso f iled a se n ten c in g m e m o ra n d u m , arg u in g th a t a num berof fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) w arr ant ed a s ent ence atthe bott om of 1 th is ra n g e . A ts ent enci ng, the D i s tr i ctC our ts us t ai ned M r . M anci l l as ’ s obj ect i on as t o the- 4 -

as s es s m entof the coc ai ne quant i tybuts ent ence d hi m t o 97 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent

— t he t op of the appl i cabl e advi s oryr ange. E xpl ai ni ng the s ent ence , the D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed, “N ow , I ’ ve cons i der ed y ourcas e notonl yi n l i ghtof the s o- cal l ed advi s orygui del i nes , but in lig h t o f

th e sta tu to ryf

a c to rs. M r. H e p p e rly[ d e f e n se c o u n se l] c o v e re d th o se in h is s ubm i s s i ons on y ourbehal f. ” The cour tthen expl ai ned thatco- cons pi r at or s w ho pl eade d g u i l ty r e c e i v e d l e s s e rs e n t e n c e s b a s e d o n c r e d i tf o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i ty, s ee U . S. S. G . § 3E 1. 1, butthatbeca us e M r . M anci l l as w as convi ct ed bya j uryhe w as not e n tit led to su c h c re d it. T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t: T h e C o u rtd eterm ines that the p rese n tenc e re p o rtas c o rrected to ref lect M r. H epper l y ’ s obj ect i on [r el at i ng t o the coc ai ne quant i ty ] i s acc ur at e and o rd e rs th o s e f

in d in g s to b e in c o rp o ra te d in to th e f o llo w in g s e n te n c e . Pur s uantt o t he Sent enci ng R eform A ctof 1984 i ti s the j udgm entof the C our tthatthe D efe ndant , V i ct orM anci l l as , i s comm i t t ed t o the cus t odyof th e B u re a u o f

P ri s o n s to b e im p ri s o n e d f o r a te rm o f

9 7 m o n th s . . . . M r . M anci l l as t i m el yappea l s hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not m eaningfu l l ycon si der the § 35 53 (a) fact ors. I I . DI S CU S S I ON “W e r evi ew s ent ence s i m pos ed bythe di s tr i ctcourtforr eas onabl enes s . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G alar

z a- P ayan , 4 4 1 F . 3 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 7 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) . I n u n d e r t a k i n g th i s r e v i e w, w e cons i derw hetherthe di s tr i ctcourtcorr ect l yappl i ed the G ui del i nes , and w hethert he u ltim a te s e n te n c e is re a s o n a b le in lig h t o f th e f a c to rs p re s e n t in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). See U n itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1053–54 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . A s ent ence i m pos ed w i thi n the pr oper l y - cal cul at ed G ui del i nes r ange i s “‘ ent i t l ed t o a r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on- 5 -

of r eas onabl enes s . ’ ” G alar z a- P ayan , 441 F. 3d at889 ( quot i ng Kris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 5 4 ). Iti s w i tho ut quest i on , ho w ever, “t hat[] i n ad dit i on t o g uidi ng ou r r easona bleness r evi ew on appea l , the s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) m us tbe cons i der ed bythe di s tr i ctcourti t s el f w hen i m pos i ng a s ent ence . ” Sanchez - Juar ez , — F. 3d — , 2006 W L 1165967 at*4 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W hi l e the di s tr i ctcourtneed not “r eci t e anym agi c w or ds t o s how us thati tful fi l l ed i t s r es pons i bi l i tyt o be mi ndful of the fac t or s thatC ongr es s has i ns truct ed i tt o cons i der , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. C ontr er as - M ar t i nez , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), w e re c e n tlye m p h a siz e d th a t th e c o u rt m u st s tate r eas ons fori m pos i ng a part i cul ars ent ence w hen the def endantm akes an ar gum entbas ed on § 3553( a) and thatar gum enti s not“cl ear l yw i thoutm er i t . ” Sanchez - Juar ez , — F. 3d at —; s ee al

s o U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , — F . 3 d — , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 at *4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (ho lding that a d istri ct co u rtn ee d n o t r esp o n d to “ru n -of -th e-m il l con tention s”). I n th i s c a s e , h o w e v e r , M r . M a n c i l l a s d o e s n o ti d e n t i f y a n y f a c t s th a tm i g h tj u s t i f

y a lo w e r s e n te n c e in lig h t o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

a c to rs th a t th e D is tr ic t C o u rtd id n o t c o n s id e r. R ather , he s i m pl ym akes the conc l us oryas s ert i on that“the di s tr i ctcourts houl d have m ade som e fi nd i ng that ei ther exp res sl ycon si dered at l eastsom e of the factor s, or atl east s how ed a meani ngful cons i der at i on of the fa ct or s i n gener al . ” W i thouts peci fi c r efe r ence t o f a c t s , h o we v e r , we c a n n o tc o n c l u d e wh e th e rth e Di s tr i c tCo u r te rr e d . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we A F F I R M.- 6 - I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we AFF I RM . ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T,

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge