T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * 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 . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t21,2007 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, N o. 06- 1017 v. ( D . C ol or ado) D E O N R O L L E N , al s o know n as D eac on, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D . C . N o. 04- C R - 514- E W N - 1)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e M UR P HY , BA LD OCK , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es.

I . I NT RO DU CT I ON D efe ndant - A ppel l antD eon R ol l en ent er ed an or al gui l typl ea t o ni net een c o u n t s a r i s i n g f

r o m a c o n s p i r a c yt o ma n u fa c tu r e a n d d i s tr i b u t e c r a c k c o c a i n e . At s ent enci ng, R ol l en cha l l enged the drug quant i tycal cul at i on i ncl uded i n the P res entence Invest i gati on R epo rt(“PS R ”) and u sed t o calcul at e his base offense l evel . T he di s tr i ctcourtr ej ect ed R ol l en’ s chal l enge a nd concl uded R ol l en w as-2-

r es pons i bl e for“i n exce s s of el even ki l ogr ams of cr ack” dur i ng j us ta port i on of th e c o n s p i r a c yp e r i o d , a q u a n t i tys i g n i fi c a n t l yh i g h e rth a n th e 1 . 5 k i l o g r a ms n e c e ss a ryto p lac e R o llen a t a b a se o ffe n se lev e l o f th irty -e ig h t. O n a p p e a l, R o llen re n e w s h is o bjec tio n to th e d istric t co u rt’s d ru g q u a n tity c a lc u la tio n . H e a ls o a rg u e s h is s e n te n c e is s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . E x e rc isin g ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ), th is c o u r td e t e r m i n e s th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d ru g q u a n t i ty c a l c u l a t i o n w a s s u p p o r t e d b y a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e . T h is c o u rt a lso c o n c lu d e s R o llen ’s s e n ten c e is s ubs t ant i vel yr eas onabl e. R ol l en’ s s ent ence i s ther efor e affi r m e d.

I I . BA CKGROUND R ol l en, al ong w i th s ever al otheri ndi ct ed i ndi vi dual s , w as i nvol ved i n a d ru g tra ffick in g c o n sp ira c yin C o lo ra d o b e g in n in g in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 3 a n d e n d in g in D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 4 . R o llen e n ter e d a g u iltyp lea to o n e c o u n t o f c o n sp ira c yto di s tr i but e and pos s es s w i th t he i nt entt o di s tr i but e fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of a m i xtur e ors ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof coc ai ne orfi ftygr ams or m or e of a m i xtur e and s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof coc ai ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 846, 841( a) ( 1) , 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ; t hr ee c ount s of pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng a det ect abl e amountof coca i ne bas e, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; s even c ount s of d istrib u tio n a n d in ten t to d istrib u te fiv e g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e b a se , in-3-

vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) ; and s even c ount s of us i ng a c o mmu n i c a t i o n fa c i l i tyt o fa c i l i t a t e th e c o n s p i r a c y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 3 (b ). R o llen a lso p lea d e d g u iltyu n d e r th e c rim in a l fo rfe itu re sta tu te a p p lic a b le to d ru g c ri m e s . See 21 U . S. C . § 853. R ol l en admi t t ed he pur chas ed drugs, coo ked po w der cocaine i nto cr ack co cai ne, sol d d rugs t o o ther i nd i vidual s, an d k n ew that the o thers re so ld the d rug s h e p rov ided . In e x ch an g e fo r R o ll en ’s p le a , th e g o v e rn m e n t a g re e d to re c o m m e n d a 2 1 6 -m o n th p ri s o n s e n te n c e . A tR ol l en’ s change of pl ea he ar i ng, the governm ental l eged that , bas ed on i t s w i r et ap s ur vei l l ance and otheri nves t i gat i on, R ol l en w as “nea rthe t op” of a h i e r a r c h i c a l c o n s p i r a c y . T h e g o v e rn me n ts t a t e d i t s e v i d e n c e wo u l d h a v e s h o wn thatovera per i od of al m os ttw o y ear s , R ol l en pur chas ed pow dercoca i ne fr om s e v e r a l i n d i v i d u a l s , p a r t i c u l a r l yc o - d e fe n d a n tRi c h a r d P o we l l , we n tt o th e h o me of tw o co- defe ndant s , Perr ySyr i e and D err i ck W i l ey , t o cook the pow dercoca i ne i nt o cr ack c ocai ne, and di s tr i but ed cr ack c ocai ne t o Syr i e and W i l eyfor r edi s tr i but i on t o ot hers el l er s . T he governm ents t at ed the w i r et ap evi dence col l ect ed i n the fa l l of 2004 demonstr at ed R ol l en vi s i t ed Syr i e’ s hous e tw o or th re e tim e s p e r w e e k a n d d istrib u ted tw o to th re e o u n c e s o f c ra c k c o c a in e to S yrie and W i l eyon eac h occa s i on. T he governm ental s o i ndi cat ed thatear l yi n the cons pi r acyper i od, dur i ng 2003, w hen Syr i e and W i l eyl i ved ata di ffe r ent r es i dence , R ol l en cooke d betw een four - and- a- hal f and ni ne ounce s of pow der c o c a in e a t th e ir a p a rtm e n t tw o to th re e tim e s p e r w e e k . S yrie a n d W ileyw o u ld-4-

then s el l the cr ack c ocai ne on C ol fax A venue i n D enverei thert o end- us er s or otherr edi s tr i but or s . R ol l en w as us ual l ypai d l i t t l e ornothi ng w hen he pr ovi ded the cr ack t o Syr i e and W i l eybutexpec t ed paym entaft erthe drugs had bee n r es ol d. I n r es pons e t o the governm ent ’ s evi dence , R ol l en as s er t ed the governm ent “had a l otof thi ngs r i ghton the nos e. ” H e di d, how ever , cont end the governm ent w a s m ista k e n in a ss u m in g th a t ev e ryw ire tap p e d c o n v e rsa tio n b e tw e e n h im se lf and Syr i e and W i l eyi nvol ved a di s cus s i on aboutr epaym entforcr ack c ocai ne, s i nce he al s o s ol d m ar ij uana. H e al s o i ndi cat ed thatnoteverytr i p t o the home of Syr i e and W i l eyi nvol ved cooki ng cr ack c ocai ne bec aus e pr obl ems w i th the coca i ne pow ders om et i m es pr event ed the manufactur e of c r ack. T he PSR r el i ed on the governm ent ’ s s ent enci ng s t at ementw hen as s es s i ng R o ll en ’s offe n se c o n d u ct. P rep are d af ter th e c o n clus ion o f c o -de fe n d an t Po w ell ’s tr i a l a tw hi c h Syr i e a nd othe r s i nv ol ve d i n the c on s pi r a c yt e s t i fi e d, the PSR i ndi cat ed Syr i e “r eport ed and t es t i fi ed” he r ece i ved a mi ni m um of thr ee t o fi ve ounces of cr ack c ocai ne fr om R ol l en ea ch w eek be tw een A ugus t2003 and N ovember2003. T he PSR al s o s t at ed that , betw een D ece m ber2003 and M ar ch 2004, R ol l en s uppl i ed tw o t o fourounces of cr ack c ocai ne perw eek t o Syr i e and W i l eyand thats ever al contr ol l ed buy s of cr ack c ocai ne or i gi nat i ng w i th R ol l en w er e made i n M ar ch, A pr i l , and A ugus t2004. A ddi t i onal l y , acc or di ng t o the PSR , fr om A pr i l 2004 t o D ece m ber2004, Syr i e pur chas ed tw o t o fourounces ofI ti s uncl earfr om the PSR w hetherSyr i e pur chas ed tw o t o fourounces of 1 cr ack e ach t i m e R ol l en vi s i t ed hi s hom e dur i ng thi s per i od orw hetherhe p u rc h a se d tw o to fo u r o u n c e s o f c ra c k to tal. G iv e n th e g o v e rn m e n t’s s tate m e n ts a t th e c h a n g e o f

p lea h e a rin g , the d istric t co u rt c o n stru e d th e a m o u n ts S yrie p u rc h a se d f

ro m R o llen to b e p e r-v isit am o u n ts. R o llen d o e s n o t co n tes t th is as s um pt i on. -5- cr ack coca i ne fr om R ol l en ; anotherco- defe ndant , A ki nl abi C ol eman, t es t i fi ed he 1 pur chas ed fourounces of cr ack c ocai ne thr ee t i m es perw eek f r om R ol l en betw een J ul y2004 and N ovember2004; W i l eyw as s uppl i ed w i th one ort w o ounces of c ra c k c o c a in e b yR o llen d u rin g th is s a m e p e rio d in 2 0 0 4 . B a se d o n th is info rm ati o n , the P S R co n clud ed ten k il o g ram s o r m o re o f c o ca ine b ase w ere i nvol ved i n R ol l en’ s offe ns es and, t her efor e, R ol l en’ s bas e offens e l evel w as cal cul at ed as thi r ty - ei ght . T he PSR r ecomm ended a t hr ee- poi ntdepartur e for a c c e p ta n c e o f

re s p o n s ib ility, re s u ltin g in a to ta l o ffe n s e le v e l o f th ir ty-fiv e . C om bi ned w i th hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryof C at egoryI V , R ol l en’ s s ent enci ng r ange u n d e r t h e a d v is o ry S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s w a s 2 3 5 to 2 9 3 m o n th s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t. T he pr obat i on offi cerr ecomm ended the courti m pos e a 250- m onth concurr ent pr i s on t erm , as w el l as a s i xty - m onth t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. R o lle n o bje c te d to th e d ru g q u a n tity c a lc u la tio n c o n ta in e d in th e P S R . A l though he di d nott ake i s s ue w i th anyof the verys peci fi c s t at ement s i n the PSR , he as s ert ed hi s conducti nvol ved l es s t han fi ve ki l ogr ams of pow dercoca i ne and, as a r es ul t , pur s uantt o U . S. S. G . § 2D 1. 1, hi s bas e offens e l evel s houl d have b e e n th i r ty.A tthe cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng, t he governm entr epr es ent ed the 4. 5 t o 9 2 o u n ce fig u re a s “p o w d er c o ca ine.” In the c o u rt ’s recit ati o n o f th e g o v ern m en t’ s evi dence , how ever , the courts eems t o tr eatt he 4. 5 ounce qua nt i tyas cr ack coca i ne. B eca us e R ol l en di d notobj ectt o oreven t ake not e of thi s di s cr epanc y e ith e r in th e c o u rt b e lo w o r o n a p p e a l, th is c o u rt a ss u m e s th e g o v e rn m e n t sim p ly m i s s poke atthe cha nge of pl ea he ar i ng and thati ti nt ended t o s ayR ol l en cooke d a n d d istrib u ted 4 .5 to 9 o u n c e s o f c ra c k c o c a in e tw o to th re e tim e s p e r w e e k in 2003. -6- A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, the courtr ej ect ed R ol l en’ s chal l enge. I ts t at ed that, at th e c h an g e o f p lea h ea ri n g , R o ll en h ad n o t objected to the g o v ern m en t’ s cont ent i on t hathe metw i th Syr i e and otheri ndi vi dual s tw o t o thr ee t i m es per w eek i n the fa l l of 2004 and c ooked tw o t o thr ee ounc es of cr ack c ocai ne on ea ch o c c a s io n . A c c o rd in g ly, th e c o u rt s ta te d ,

Ta k i n g t h e mo s tc o n s e r v a t i v e fi g u r e s i n th i s l i mi t e d t i me r ange, t hi s w oul d be atl eas t1 ki l ogr am of cocai ne dur i ng thi s per i od al one. T he G overnm ental s o r epr es ent ed thatdur i ng 2003, the quant i t i es cooked on e ach oc cas i on w er e hi gher , 4. 5 ounces on eac h occa s i on. G i ven the numberof w eeks i n the y earand the fr equenc y

2 o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s v isits to M r. S yrie , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t in exce s s of 11 ki l ogr ams of cr ack w as i nvol ved i n 2003. N o tw ith stan d ing it s elev en -kil o g ram esti m ate, ho w ev er, th e d istri ct co u rt ob served that “1. 5 k i l os of c rack cocaine suffices t o p l ace t he d efen dan tatB ase O ffe ns e Level 38. T her efor e . . . t her e ca n be no ques t i on thatt he defendanthas u n d e r o a th a d m itte d c o n d u c t p la c in g h im w e ll w ith in th is le v e l.” R ol l en hi m s el f then addr es s ed the court . H e admi t t ed he di d notknow how m u ch cra ck co ca ine h e so ld, bu t urg ed the c o u rtthat, d esp it e the g o v ern m en t’ s-7-

char act er i zat i on, he w as nota “maj orki ngpi n. ” I n par t i cul ar , he s t at ed he di d not cook cr ack c ocai ne orgi ve drugs t o Syr i e, a fr i end of tw entyy ear s , everyt i m e he w entt o Syr i e’ s hous e. T he courtr es ponded i thad hea r d t es t i m onyfr om Syr i e at tr i al on the mat t erand r ei t er at ed i tfound R ol l en r es pons i bl e foratl eas tel even ki l ogr ams of coc ai ne bas e. T he courtul t i m at el ys ent ence d R ol l en t o a w i thi nG ui del i nes s ent ence of 264 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm ent . A s partof i t s cons i der at i on of the fa ct ors s etou tat18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) , the co urtcom m ented that R oll en w as a “ce ntr al fi gur e” i n the ca s e and notpart i cul ar l yr emors eful forhi s conduct . T he courtal s o or der ed R ol l en t o s erve a f i ve- y eart erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e upon compl et i on of hi s pr i s on t erm and r equi r ed hi m t o paya s peci al as s es s m entof $1800.

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON A . D rug Q uanti t y U s ed for Sent enci ng P urpose s O n a p p e a l, R o lle n c o n te s ts th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d ru g q u a n tity c a lc u la tio n . H e fi r s tar gues he s houl d onl yhave be en hel d r es pons i bl e fort he 169 gr ams of c ra c k c o c a in e in c lu d e d in th e in d ictm e n t, rath e r th a n th e e lev e n -k ilo g ra m q u a n tity forw hi ch the di s tr i ctcourtdet erm i ned hi m r es pons i bl e. R ol l en nextcont ends t he c o u rt e rre d b yfa ili n g to ru le o n th e d isp u ted p o rtio n s o f th e P S R a ffe c tin g h is s e n te n c e , a s re q u ir e d b yF e d e ra l R u le o f C ri m in a l P ro c e d u re 3 2 (i )( 3 )( B ). Fur therm or e, R ol l en as s ert s ther e w as i ns uffi ci enti ndepende ntcorr obor at i ng-8-

e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e stim a te o f th e d ru g a m o u n ts a ttribu tab le to hi m beca us e co- defe ndantSyr i e’ s t es t i m onyw as i nher ent l yunr el i abl e and in fo rm a n t L o ra W ils o n ’s o u t- o f-c o u rt s ta te m e n ts d id n o t m e n tio n d ru g q u a n titie s . F in a lly , R o llen c h a llen g e s th e m e th o d b yw h ich th e d istric t co u rt a rriv e d a t it s e lev e n -k ilo g ra m c a lcu latio n , arg u in g th e c o u rt im p ro p e rlye x tra p o late d f ro m h is d ru g a c tiv ityd u rin g a fo u r-m o n th p e rio d in 2 0 0 4 to a rriv e a t a to tal d ru g q u a n tity a t tr i b u t a b l e t o h i m d u r i n g th e e n t i r e c o u r s e o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. A ts e n t e n c i n g , th e g o v e r n m e n tb o r e th e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g b y a pr eponder ance of the evi dence t he quant i tyof drugs attr i but abl e t o R ol l en for s e n te n c in g p u rp o s e s . Uni t ed Stat es v. R yan , 2 3 6 F . 3 d 1 2 6 8 , 1 2 7 3 (10 th C ir . 2001) . “W hen the ac tual drugs under l y i ng a drug quant i tydet erm i nat i on ar e not s ei zed, the tr i al courtm ayr el yupon an es t i m at e . . . s o l ong as the i nform at i on reli ed u p o n h as so m e b asis o f su p p o rtin the fa cts o f th e p arti cu lar case an d b ea rs s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. D al t on , 409 F. 3d 1247, 1251 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (q u o tatio n s o m itt e d ). In a d ru g c o n sp ira c yc a se , the d e fe n d a n t is a c c o u n tab le fo r a ll q u a n tit ies w ith w h ich h e w a s d ire c tlyin v o lv e d a n d a ll quant i t i es w hi ch w oul d have be en r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e w i thi n the s cope of t he jo in tly u n d e rt a k e n c ri m in a l e n te rp ri s e . Uni t ed Stat es v. Lauder , 409 F. 3d 1254, 1 2 6 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ing U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1 . 3 cm t. n . 2 ). T hi s courtr evi ew s t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s drug quant i tycal cul at i on forcl ear e rr o r. R yan , 236 F. 3d at1273. R ever s al i s appr opr i at e onl yi f the r ecor d l acks-9-

fac tual s uppor tor“w e ar e l eftw i th a def i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thata mi s t ake has been made. ” Id. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . W hen the di s tr i ctcourtr el i es upon w i tnes s t es t i m onyi n m aki ng i t s drug quant i tycal cul at i on, thi s cour tdefe r s t o t he d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e te rm in a tio n s o f w itn e s s c re d ib ility. Uni t ed Stat es v. B r ow ni ng , 6 1 F . 3 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h e d istric t co u rt’s d ru g q u a n tityd e ter m in a tio n in th is c a se w a s n o t cle a rly err oneous . N othi ng pr ecl uded the governm entfr om pr es ent i ng evi dence of drug quant i t i es i n exce s s of thos e i ncl uded i n the i ndi ctm entfors ent enci ng purpos es a n d n o th in g p re v e n ted th e c o u rt f ro m fin d in g R o llen re sp o n sib le fo r q u a n tit ies in exce s s of the i ndi ct ed amount s beca us e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent ence di d not exce ed the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence of l i fe i m pr i s onm entforw hi ch R ol l en w a s e lig ib le . See Uni t ed Stat es v. W i l s on , 2 4 4 F . 3 d 1 2 0 8 , 1 2 1 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); see al so 21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) ( pr es cr i bi ng s t atut orym axi m um of l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t) . M or eover , the courts at i s fac t or i l yr es ponded t o R ol l en’ s obj ect i ons at s e n te n c in g b ye x p la in in g th e b a s is fo r i ts c a lc u la tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. W i l l i am s, 374 F. 3d 941, 947 n. 9 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . B eca us e 1. 5 ki l ogr ams of cr ack c ocai ne is a ll th a t is re q u ir e d to a rr iv e a t a b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f th ir ty-e ig h t, s ee U. S . S . G. § 2 D 1 . 1 (c)(1), i n o rde r t o affirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s ca lculati o n o f R o ll en ’s advi s oryG ui del i nes s ent enci ng r ange, thi s cour tm us tm er el ybe s at i s fi ed the re c o rd s u p p o rt s a fin d in g th a t 1 .5 k ilo g ra m s is a ttr ib u ta b le to R o lle n . See Uni t edA lth o u g h it i s u n c lea r f ro m th e re c o rd h o w th e d istric t co u rt a rriv e d a t it s 3 cal cul at i on, a r ough es t i m at e bas ed on the governm ent ’ s al l egat i ons and the court ’ s s t at ement s i ndi cat e R ol l en w as pr obabl yr es pons i bl e forfarm or e than the e le v e n k ilo g ra m s o f

c ra c k c o c a in e fo u n d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . T he governm ent ’ s evi dence w as t hat , fr om Sept ember2004 t o D ece m ber 16, 2004, t he per i od w hen R ol l en’ s phone w as w i r et apped, R ol l en cooke d cr ack coca i ne atthe r es i dence of Syr i e and W i l eyt w o t o thr ee t i m es perw eek a nd d istrib u ted tw o to th re e o u n c e s o f c ra c k c o c a in e to S yrie o n e a c h v isit d u rin g th is t i m e per i od. A s s um i ng, cons ervat i vel y , R ol l en di s tr i but ed tw o ounces of cr ack coca i ne tw i ce pe rw eek f orfour t een w eeks , he w oul d have di s tr i but ed a t ot al of fi fty - s i x ounces , orj us tover1. 5 ki l ogr ams of cr ack c ocai ne. A ddi t i onal l y , at R ol l en’ s change of pl ea he ar i ng, t he governm enti ndi cat ed thatdur i ng 2003, R ol l en cooke d 4. 5 t o 9 ounces tw o t o thr ee t i m es perw eek. A s s um i ng agai n, cons ervat i vel y , thatR ol l en cooke d onl y4. 5 ounces t w o t i m es perw eek e ach w eek, he w oul d have be en r es pons i bl e for468 ounces , or13. 3 ki l ogr ams, of cr ack coca i ne i n 2003. -10- Stat es v. H umphr ey , 20 8 F . 3d 11 90 , 12 09 –1 0 (10th C i r. 20 00 ) ( ho l ding harm l ess anyerr ori n di s tr i ctcourt ’ s drug quant i tydet erm i nat i on w her e undi s put ed quant i tyof drugs w as enough t o pl ace defe ndantatthe bas e offens e l evel cal cul at ed bythe di s tr i ctcourt ) . T he tr i al courtadmi t t edl ydi d notcal cul at e the pr eci s e drug quant i tyattr i but abl e t o R ol l en, s t at i ng that“i n exce s s of el even ki l ogr ams of cr ack w as i nvol ved i n 2003” and thatR ol l en w as r es pons i bl e for“at l eas tone ki l ogr am of cocai ne” dur i ng the 2004 w i r et ap per i od. T he r ecor d, h o w ev er, i n d icates the re w as m o re tha n en o u g h ev iden ce fro m w h ich th e c o u rt coul d have c oncl uded R ol l en w as r es pons i bl e foratl eas t1. 5 ki l ogr ams of cr ack c o c a i n e o v e rth e e n t i r e J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 t o D e c e m b e r2 0 0 4 p e r i o d o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. 3 Fur therm or e, the evi dence t he courtr el i ed upon i n cal cul at i ng the drug quant i tyattr i but abl e t o R ol l en bor e s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i ty . T heR ol l en t akes i s s ue w i th t he PSR ’ s s t at ementas t o w hatSyr i e “r eport ed and 4 t es t i fi ed t o” and a s s ert s Syr i e di d nott es t i fyatPow el l ’ s t r i al t o al l t he i nform at i on attr i but ed t o hi m i n the PSR . R ol l en, how ever , di d noti ncl ude S yrie ’s tria l tes tim o n yin th e re c o rd o n a p p e a l. T h is c o u rt is th u s u n a b le to re v iew fo r itse lf

w h e th e r S yrie ’s te stim o n yd id o r d id n o t co n tain th e sta tem e n ts a ttribu ted to h im in th e P S R . In a n ye v e n t, a s e n ten c in g c o u rt is p e rm itt e d to re ly o n o u t- o f-c o u rt s ta te m e n ts s o lo n g a s th o s e s ta te m e n ts b e a r i n d ic ia o f re lia b ility. A s a cons equenc e, the di s tr i ctcourtw as w el l w i thi n i t s di s cr et i on t o cons i der Syr i e’ s uns w orn s t at ement s t o l aw enfor cementas w el l as Syr i e’ s t r i al t es t i m ony w h e n s e n te n c in g R o lle n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Shew m aker , 936 F. 2d 1124, 1129 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). -11- governm entpr ovi ded s peci fi c i nform at i on aboutthe quant i tyof coc ai ne R ol l en c o o k e d o n e a c h v i s i tt o t h e r e s i d e n c e o f S yr i e a n d Wi l e yd u r i n g a tl e a s ttwo d istin c t ti m e p e rio d s a n d a b o u t th e q u a n tit ies R o llen p ro v id e d to o th e r in d iv id u a ls overthe cour s e of the cons pi r acy . T he governm entbas ed i t s as s er t i ons on an in fo rm a n t’s s tate m e n ts re g a rd in g R o llen ’s a c tiv iti e s, S yrie ’s s tate m e n ts p rio r to co- defe ndantPow el l ’ s t r i al , and the tr i al t es t i m onyof Syr i e and othercocons pi r at or s . T he courthad the oppor tuni tyt o as s es s the cr edi bi l i tyand r el i abi l i tyof thatt es t i m onythr oughoutPow el l ’ s tr i al . R ol l en’ s m er e s ugges t i on thatSyr i e’ s t es t i m onyi s i nher ent l yunr el i abl e bec aus e of Syr i e’ s s el f- i nt er es t ed m ot i ve fort es t i fy i ng i s notenough t o overr i de the gene r al rul e r egar di ng the d i s tr i c t c o u r t ’ s r o l e i n e v a l u a t i n g w i tn e s s c r e d i b i l i ty. See Browni ng , 61 F. 3d at 4 7 5 4 . Fi nal l y , the di s tr i ctcourtdi d noti m pr oper l yextr apol at e the amountof c ra c k c o c a in e fo r w h ich R o llen w a s re sp o n sib le. T h e c o u rt w a s e n tit led to es t i m at e drug quant i tyi n anyr el i abl e manneri tchos e, i ncl udi ng comput i ngO n ap p ea l, R o ll en resu rrects a c h all en g e to th e n u m b er o f c ri m inal h ist o ry 5 p o in ts u se d to c a lcu late h is c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ry . R o llen e x p licitly abandone d t hi s obj ect i on t o t he PSR befor e the di s tr i ctcourtand has , t her efor e, w ai ved thi s ar gum enton appea l . R ol l en does nototherw i s e cha l l enge the pr ocedur es the di s tr i ctcourtus ed t o arr i ve ata s ent ence . -12- quant i tybas ed on the fr equenc yand amountof drug m anufa ctur i ng and d is tr ib u tio n o v e r a g iv e n p e ri o d o f tim e . S e e Un itedS ta tes v . P o w e ll , 982 F. 2d 1422, 1435 ( 10th C i r . 1992) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . B as ed on thi s court ’ s r evi ew of the r ecor d, the di s tr i ctcourtappr opr i at el yand cons ervat i vel ybas ed i t s drug quant i tycal cul at i on on the governm ent ’ s l ow es tes t i m at es of both the fr equenc y of R ol l en’ s vi s i t s t o Syr i e and W i l eyand the quant i tyof cr ack c ocai ne cooke d on e a c h v isit d u rin g e a c h o f tw o d istin c t ti m e p e rio d s. T h e re w a s n o e rro r in th is appr oach. B . Sub s t ant i ve R eas onabl enes s ofR ol l en’ s Sent ence H a v in g d e ter m in e d R o llen ’s b a se o ffe n se lev e l w a s p ro p e rlyc a lcu late d , this courtappl i es a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o R ol l en’ s s ent ence . Uni t ed 5 S ta tes v . K ris tl , 4 3 7 F .3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); s ee al s o R i ta v. Uni t ed Stat es , 127 S. C t . 2456, 2463 ( 2007) ( appr ovi ng appel l at e courtappl i cat i on of pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o pr oper l ycal cul at ed w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence s ) . A defe ndantcan r ebuta pr es um pt i vel yr eas onabl e s ent ence onl yby demonstr at i ng the s ent ence i s unr eas onabl e w hen cons i der ed aga i ns tt he other fa c to rs e n u m e ra te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ). K ris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054.A lth o u g h n eith er h av e a n yb ea ri n g o n this co u rt ’s disp o sit ion o f R o ll en ’s 6 c a se , R o llen c o rre c tlyn o tes th e G u id e lin e s’ d isp a rityh a s b e e n c a lled in to q u e stio n . T h e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n h a s re c e n tlyp ro p o se d a n a m e n d m e n t to the S en tenc ing G u idelines w h ich w o u ld m o d ifythe G u idelines ’ cu rren t 10 0 -t o -1 c ra c k -t o -p o w d e r r a tio in s e n te n c in g . See Sent enci ng G ui del i nes forU ni t ed St at es C o u rts, 7 2 F e d . R e g . 2 8 ,5 5 8 , 2 8 ,5 7 1

– 7 3 (M a y2 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) (n o tice o f su b m iss io n to C ongr es s of amendm ent ) . T he G ui del i nes t hemsel ves w i l l notbe modi fi ed how ever , abs entcongr es s i onal act i on t o s t op the modi fi cat i on, unt i l N ovember1, 2 0 0 7 . S e e id . at28, 558. E ven i f the amendm entdoes t ake e ffe ct , t her e i s no g u a ra n te e it w ill a p p ly re tr o a c tiv e ly to p re v io u s ly se n te n c e d d e fe n d a n ts . See Sent enci ng G ui del i nes forU ni t ed St at es C our t s , 72 Fed. R eg. 41, 794, 41, 794 ( J ul y31, 2007) ( not i ce s eeki ng publ i c comm enton r etr oact i vi tyof G ui del i nes a m e n d m e n t) . A d d iti o n a lly , the S u p re m e C o u rt is sc h e d u led to h e a r o ra l ar g u m e n t in O ct ober2007 on a r el at ed, butdi ffe r ent , ques t i on. I n Uni t ed Stat es v. K im b r o u g h , the di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed a be l ow - G ui del i nes s ent ence on a defe ndantconvi ct ed of c r ack c ocai ne offens es bas ed on the court ’ s pol i cy di s agr eementw i th t he G ui del i nes ’ di s par i tyi n s ent enci ng r anges betw een c r ack a n d p o w d e r c o c a in e o ffe n s e s . 1 7 4 F . A p p ’x 7 9 8 , 7 9 9 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), c e rt. gr ant ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 29 3 3 (Ju n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 7 ) (N o . 0 6 -6 3 3 0 ). T h e F o u rth C irc u it h e ld s u c h a b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e p e r s e u n re a s o n a b le . Id . -13- R o llen ’s s o le s u b sta n tiv e c h a llen g e to th e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is 2 6 4 -m o n th s ent ence focus es on t he di s par i tyunderthe advi s or yG ui del i nes betw een c r ack co ca ine a n d p o w d er c o ca ine o ffen ses. T h ere is certainlyn o o b li g ati o n o n the p art o f a d istric t co u rt to tak e in to a c c o u n t th is G u id e lin e s’ d isp a ritya s p a rt o f its § 3553( a) anal y s i s . A s a r es ul t , the natur e of Rol l en’ s offe ns es as cr ack c ocai ne offe ns es cannot m ake hi s s ent ence s ubs t ant i vel y unr eas onabl e. See Uni t ed Stat es 6 v. M cC ul l ough , 4 5 7 F . 3 d 1 1 5 0 , 1 1 7 1

– 7 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).-14-

I V. CO NC L US I ON B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r w h e n c a lcu latin g th e d ru g q u a n tity attr i but abl e t o R ol l en orw hen i m pos i ng R ol l en’ s s ent ence , the s ent ence i m pos ed bythe d i stri ctcou rti s AF F I RM ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge