# 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- 17 44

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
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.
Ray Charl es Co nwa y

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: Feb ru ary 29 , 20 16 Fil ed : M arch 15 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Ray Co nwa y pl ead ed gu il ty to th ree co un ts of di st rib ut io n of co cai ne ba se wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of a pl ay gr ou nd
, in vi ol at io n o f 2 1 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ),84 1( b) (1 )(C)
, an d 86 0( a). The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Co nwa y t o 18 8 m on th s’ 1
im pr is on m en t, th e bo tt om of th e ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran ge s e t fo rth in th e U.S.
Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l (Gu id el in es ). Co nwa y ap pe a l s , a r gu in g th at th e

se nt en ce i m

po se d i s s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le . W e aff irm.

On th ree oc cas io ns f

r om Mar ch to Apr il 20 14
, a co nf id en ti al in fo rm an t (CI)

pu rch as ed sm al l q ua nt it ie s o f co cai ne ba se (cra ck co cai ne ) fro m Co nwa y un de r th e di rect io n of la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers

. The sa l e s y ie ld ed a to ta l of 1.3 6 gr am s of

crac k co cai ne an d oc cu rred in Co nwa y ’s ap art m en t, lo cat ed wit hi n 1,0 00 feet of th ree lo cal pl ay gr ou nd s. Dur in g on e of th e co nt ro ll ed pu rch as es , th e CI o bs erv ed a la rg e ba g co nt ai ni ng in di vi du al ly wrap pe d pa ck ag es of cr ac k co ca in e. Fo ll owi ng hi s arre st , C on way ad m it te d to se ll in g crac k co cai ne to th ree or fo ur in di vi du al s an d t o b e i n g

“ m or e o f a m ari

juan a d eal er.”

Co nwa y ’s pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR ) cal cu l a t e d a ba se of fen se le ve l o f 14 an d a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of V. The PSR reco m m en de d th at th e

care er-o ffen de r en ha nc em en t un de r Gui de li ne s § 4B 1.1 be ap pl ie d be cau se Co nwa y
pr ev io us ly had be en co nv ic te d of at le as t two fel on y co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e o ffen se s. Sp eci fic al ly, th e PSR id en ti fie d th ree qu a l ifyin g co nv ic ti on s: on Mar ch 25
, 20 04
, Co nwa y was co nv ic te d of un la wfu l de l i v e r y of le ss th an on e gr am of a su bs ta nc e

co nt ai ni ng co cai ne , in vi ol at io n o f Il li no is law; on May 19, 2 01 1, he was co nv ic te d
of po ss es si on of 24 .3 gr am s of m ari juan a wit h in te nt to de li ve r, in vi ol at io n of Io wa la w; an d on Nov e mber 26 , 2 01 1, he was co nv ic te d of po ss es si on of 15 .3 ou nc es of

m ari juan a wit h in te nt to de li ve r, in vi ol at i o n o f Io wa la w. The care er-o ffen de r

en ha nc em en t ra is ed Co nwa y ’s of fen se le ve l t o 3 4 a nd hi s cr im in al hi st or y cat eg or y
to VI. The PSR reco m

m en de d a 3- le ve l red uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y ,
res ul ti ng in a to ta l of

fen se l e v e l o f 3 1, a cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y of VI, an d an

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

.
-2

-ad vi so ry se nt e nc in g ran ge of 18 8 to 23 5 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e PSR’s se nt en ci ng reco m m en da ti on s an d im

po se d th e ab ov e-d es cri be d

se nt en ce.

At sen te nc in g, Con way req ue st ed a do wnwar d de pa rtu re an d a va ria nc e fro m th e bo tt om of th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. In de nyin g bo th req ue st s, th e di st ric t co ur t st at ed
th at it ha d co ns id ered th e fact or s li st ed in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). In pa rti cu la r, th e co ur t

c o n s i d ered Co nwa y ’s ed uc at io na l, su bs ta nc e ab us e, m en ta l he al th
, an d m ed ic a l

pr ob le m s, as well as hi s hi st or y of res is ta nc e to dr ug tre at m en t, no nc om pl ia nc e wit h

st at e su pe rv is io n, an d rep eat ed dr ug of fen se s d e s p it e th e st at e co ur ts ’ le ni en cy

. In weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, t he co ur t s ta te d,

W he n I lo ok at al l th e fact or s, no t jus t on e, bu t al l th e fact or s

. . . , I fin d

no ba si s fo r a va ria nc e. At fir st bl us h, wit h an in crea se in of fen se le ve l fro m 1 4 to 34 fo r a care er of fen de r, pl us go in g up 1 cri m in al hi st or y cat eg or y , it se em s th at

. . . th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es co ul d be ou t of lin e, bu t t he y ’re no t.

The co ur t no te d th at th e dr ug qu an ti ty se t fo rth in th e PSR di d no t co ns id er Co nwa y ’s
ad m it te d m ari

juan a sa l e s, th at Co nwa y was a reci di vi st de sp it e ha vi ng rece iv ed
le ni en t se nt en ces s e v e r al ti m es , an d th at hi s cri m in al hi st or y in cl ud ed pr io r

co nv ic ti on s fo r dr ug of

fen se s as w e l l as fo r do m es ti c-ab us e as sa ul t an d ch il d

en da ng erm en t. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at a 18 8- m on th se nt en ce was “ su ffi ci en t, bu t

no t g reat er t ha n n eces sa ry to ach ie ve th e g oa ls of s en te nc in g.”

W e rev ie w th e s u b st an ti ve reas on ab le ne ss of a di st ric t co ur t’s se nt en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en
ba nc ). “ A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it (1 ) ‘fail s to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ’; (2 ) ‘giv es si gn ifi can t weig ht to

an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ’; or (3 ) ‘con si de rs on ly th e ap pr op ria te fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a c l e a r erro r of jud gm en t.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d

-3

-St at es v. Kan e, 55 2 F.3 d 74 8, 75 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9 ) )

. O u r r e vi ew is “ na rro w an d

de fere nt ia l,” an d “ it wil l be th e un us ua l cas e whe n we rev e r s e a d i st ric t co ur t

se nt en ce— whe th er wit hi n, ab ov e, or be lo w th e ap pl ic ab le Gui de li ne s ran ge —as

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le .” Id

. at 46 4 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gard el li ni
, 54 5 F.3 d
10 89
, 10 90 (D.C. Ci r. 20 08 )). “ If th e de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce is with in th e Gui de li ne s

ran ge , th en we ‘m ay , bu t [are ] no t req ui red to , ap pl y a pr es um pt i o n of

reas on ab le ne ss .’ ” Id

. at 46 1 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 38
, 51 (2 00 7) ). Co nwa y co nc ed es th at th e di st ric t co ur t weig he d al l of th e rel ev an t fa ct or s.

Co nwa y arg ue s th at we sh ou ld no t ap pl y a pr es um pt io n of reas on ab le ne ss to his w ith in- G ui de li ne s se nt en ce be cau se the ca re er -o ff en de r en ha

nc em en t de ri ve s fr om

a C o n g r e s s i o na l m an da te , se e 28 U.S.C. § 99 4( h)
, rat he r th an fro m th e Sen te nc in g Co m m is si on ’s em

pi ric al res earc h. As C on way co nc ed es , ho wev er, we reject ed a si m il ar ar gu m en t i n Un it ed Sta te s v . Col em an , 63 5 F.3d 38 0, 3 82 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) , a de ci si on th at we are bo un d by, no twi th st an di ng Co nwa y ’s arg um en t th at Co le m an di d

no t ad dr es s se em in gl y co nt rary la ng ua ge in Kim br ou gh v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S. 85
, 10 9- 10 (2 00 7)

. Thu s, we pr es um e th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e di st ric t co ur t is

reas on ab le , and th e b ur de n fa ll s o n C on way to reb ut th at pre su m

pt io n.

Co nwa y arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. In pa rti cu la r, Co nwa y co nt en ds th at hi s sen te nc e is

gr eat er t h a n n e c e s sa ry to m eet th e se nt en ci ng go al s li st ed in § 35 53 (a). He cl ai m s th at hi s se nt en ce is gr eat er th an ne ces sa ry to refl ect th e se rio us ne ss of hi s of fen se , th at th e care er-o ffen de r en ha nc em en t in crease s his se nte nc e m or e th an is reas on ab le gi ve n th e rel at iv el y sm al l dr ug qu an ti ti es in vo l v e d in hi s pr io r co nv ic ti on s, an d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t gi ve d u e co ns id erat io n to hi s hi st or y of su bs ta nc e ab us e an d

ot he r m it ig at in g fact or s. As se t fo rth ab ov e, h o w ev er, th e di st ric t co ur t to ok in to

acco un t al l of th e rel ev an t fact or s an d ex erci se d it s di sc ret io n to gi ve m or e weig ht to

so m e fact or s th an to ot he rs

. See Uni te d Stat es v. Farm er, 647 F.3 d 11 75
, 11 79 (8 th

-4

-C i r

. 20 11 ) (“ Si m pl y be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t weig he d rel ev an t fact or s

. . . m o r e he av il y th an [th e de fen da nt ] wou ld pr efer do es no t m ean th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n.” ). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t co m m it a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t in weig hi ng th e se n t e n c i n g f

act or s, an d Co nwa y ha s fai le d to reb ut th e pr es um pt io n th at hi s

se nt en ce was reas on ab le

.

The sen te nc e is affi rm ed

.

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

-5

-