# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 5- 36 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ 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.

Bri an Ch ris to ph er Yo un g

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 Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 6 Fil ed : J un e 1 6, 2 01 6 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and MURPHY, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Bri an Ch ris to ph er You n g a p p e al s th e 77 -m on th se nt en ce im po se d by th e d i s tri ct co ur t aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of co ns pi racy to di st rib u t e a n d

1

The Hon or ab le Bri an C. W im es , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.po ss es s with in te nt to di st rib ut e 1 00 ki lo gr am s o r m or e o f m ari juan a in vi ol at io n of
21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(B) , a nd 84 6. At s en te nc in g, Yo un g a rg ue d fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re un de r Uni te d St at es Se nte nc ing G uid el ines (U.S.S.G.) § 5K2 .23
, whi ch wou ld ha ve cred it ed ag a i n s t hi s fed eral se nt en ce th e 24 -m on th di sc ha rg ed

se nt en ce he pr ev io us ly se rv ed in st at e cu st od y fo r rel at ed co nd uc t. The di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to gr an t th e req ue st ed de pa rtu re, an d You ng arg ue s th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n a nd im

po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le sen te nc e. W e aff irm.

You ng fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er hi s req ue st fo r cred it

un de r § 5K2 .23

. Thi s as se rti on is be li ed by th e reco rd

. You ng ’s at to rn ey fil ed a

se nt en ci ng m em or an du m ou tl in in g hi s arg um en t fo r a de pa rtu re un de r § 5K2 .23
, an d th e di st ric t cou rt st at ed th at it ha d co ns id ered th at arg um en t. You ng ’s at to rn ey al so di sc us se d th e m ot io n at le ng th du rin g th e s e n t e n c i ng he ari ng

. The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d t h e req ue st , st at in g th at it un de rs to od “ [c]ou ns el ’s arg um en t as to [Yo un g’s] co nd uc t an d th e st at e,” bu t th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at a 77 -m on th se nt en ce

was “ su ffi ci en t bu t no t gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry .” At th e en d of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , You ng ’s co un se l rev is it ed th e is su e, co nf irming fo r th e reco rd th at th e di st ric t cou rt ha d d en ie d Yo un g’s requ es t for cr ed it for ti m e se rv ed in st at e cu st od y . The d is tri ct

co ur t ack no wled ge d t h a t i t h ad “ reject ed th e arg um en t.” In li gh t of th is reco rd , we

co nc lu de th at th e co ur t ga ve du e co ns id erat io n to You ng ’s arg um en t fo r a § 5K2 .23 do wnwar d d ep art ur e.

You ng ne xt co nt en ds th at he was en t i t le d to cred it un de r § 5K2 .23 fo r hi s di sc ha rg ed te rm in st at e pr is on be cau se he w o ul d ha ve qu al ifi ed fo r cred it un de r U.S.S.G. § 5G1 .3 ha d th e te rm be en un di sc ha rg ed

. Thu s, he arg ue s, th e di st ric t co ur t

a b u se d it s di sc ret io n by de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a de pa rtu re. “ W e ha ve rep eat e d l y he ld th at whe n a di st ric t co ur t is aware of i t s di sc ret io n to de pa rt do wnwar d [u nd er th e Gui de li ne s ] an d el ect s no t to ex erci se th is di sc ret io n, th en th at de ci si on is

un rev ie wab le .” Uni te d S t at es v. W at so n, 48 0 F.3 d 11 75 , 1 17 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. W an na , 74 4 F.3 d 58 4, 58 9 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 5 S. Ct

. 12 5

-2

-(2 01 4)

. The di st ric t co ur t reco gn i z e d i t s au th or it y to de pa rt un de r § 5K2 .23 in th is

cas e b u t de cl in ed to ex erci se th at au th or it y

. Tha t de ci si on is un rev ie wab le

. See Uni te d St at es v. W oo ds
, 59 6 F.3 d 44 5, 44 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ [W] e ha ve no au th or it y
to rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of

. . . a do wnwar d de pa rtu re [wh en a de fen da nt ] do e s no t arg ue th at th e co ur t ha d an un co ns ti tu ti on al m ot iv e in de nyin g hi s req ue st

an d [wh en ] th e co ur t reco gn iz ed th at it ha d th e au th or it y t o de pa rt do wnwar d.” (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . And ers on , 57 0 F .3d 10 25 , 10 34 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) )).

Mo reo ve r, th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t im po se a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le

se nt en ce. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Col em an , 55 6 F.3d 85 1, 85 3 (8t h Cir. 2 00 9) (no ti ng th at al l se nt en ces are rev ie wed “u nd er a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd ”) (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 41 (2 00 7) ). You ng ’s 77 -m on th se nt en ce

was at th e bo tt om of th e pr op erl y cal cu la te d Gui de li ne s ran ge , an d th e co ur t ex pl ai ne d in de ta il why th e § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s wei g h e d i n f a v or of th at se nt en ce. Afte r di sc us si ng th e na tu re an d ci rcu m st an ces of th e cri m e; You ng ’s cri m in al hi st or y , in cl ud in g th e fact th at he co m m it te d h i s fed eral of

fen se whi le se rv in g a te rm of

pr ob at io n fro m hi s st at e co nv ic ti on ; th e ne ed fo r ge ne ral an d sp eci fic de te rren ce; an d th e ne ed to pr om ot e res pe ct fo r th e la w, th e co ur t ul ti m at el y de te r mi n e d th at a 77

-

m on th se nt en ce was ap pr op ria te

. The co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in m ak in g th at de te rm in at io n b as ed on th es e fac to rs

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

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

-3

-