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

### S e p t e m b e r21,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH 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. DE NNI S S . HE RU L A, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N os . 05- 1091 & 05- 1109

A ppeal from t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt

for t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado ( D. C. No . 0 2 - CR- 4 8 5 - RB) H . M ich a e l S tein b e rg , E n g lew o o d , C o lo ra d o , fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. J erryN . J ones , A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( W i l l i am J. L eone, U ni t ed St at es A tt o rne y , an d A n d rew A . V o g t, A ssist an t U n it ed S tat es A tt o rne y , o n the b ri efs), D enver , C ol or ado, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. B efor e HART Z , HOLL OW AY and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. O’ BRI EN , C i r cui tJ udge.

D e n n is S . H e ru la p led g u iltyp u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t to se v e n c o u n ts of w i r e fr aud i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado, as w el l as tw o count s of fr aud ( w i r e fr aud and ba nkrupt cyfr aud) and one c ountofR ule 20(a) provides: 1 ( a) C onse nt t o T rans fer. A pr os ecut i on m aybe tr ans ferr ed fr om t he di s tr i ctw her e the i ndi ctm entor i nform at i on i s pendi ng . . . t o the di s tr i ctw her e the defendanti s arr es t ed, hel d, orpr es enti f: (1 ) th e d e fe n d a n t sta tes in w riting a w ish to p lea d g u iltyo r n o lo cont ender e and t o w ai ve tr i al i n the di s tr i ctw her e the i ndi ctm entor i nform at i on i s pendi ng, cons ent s i n w r i t i ng t o the court ’ s di s pos i ng of the ca s e i n t he tr ans fer ee di s tr i ct , and fi l es t he s t at ementi n the tr ans fer ee di s tr i ct ; and ( 2) the U ni t ed St at es att or ney s i n both di s tr i ct s appr ove the tr ans fer i n w r i t i ng. -2- m oneyl aunder i ng ar i s i ng outof a feder al cas e i n the D i s tr i ctof R hode I s l and, w h ich h ad b ee n tr an sfe rred to the D istri ct of C o lorad o . T h e d istri ct co u rt conduct ed a c ons ol i dat ed s ent enci ng and s ent ence d H erul a t o 188 m onths im p riso n m e n t in b o th c a se s, to b e se rv e d c o n c u rre n tly . H e ru la a p p e a ls f ro m h is sen tenc e, arg u ing itis un rea so n ab le un d er Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 (2 0 0 5 ). W e e x e rc is e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 4 2 (a ) a n d 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n d A F F I R M. I . Backg r ound O n A u g u st 25 , 2 0 0 4 , H eru la w as in d ict ed in the D istri ct of C o lorad o fo r, in tera lia , s even c ount s of w i r e fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1343 ( C as e N o. 02- C R - 485) . O n O ct ober22, 2004, char ges i n a s epar at e D i s tr i ctof R hode I s l and i nform at i on w er e tr ans ferr ed t o the D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado forpl ea a nd s ent enci ng pur s uantt o R ul e 20( a) of Feder al R ul es C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. T he R hode I s l and 1-3-

cas e i nvol ved tw o count s of fr aud — w i r e fr aud and ba nkrupt cyfr aud — and one countof m oneyl aunder i ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 1343, 152( 1) and 1956( a) ( 1) ( B ) ( I ) , r es pect i vel y . T he ca s e w as as s i gned t o the s ame di s tr i ctj udge a n d d o c k e ted a s C a se N o . 0 4 -C R -4 4 9 . T h e c a se s w e re n e v e r fo rm a lly c o n s o lid a te d . O n O c to b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , H e ru la p led g u iltyp u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t to th e se v e n c o u n ts o f

w ire f ra u d in th e C o lo ra d o in d ictm e n t. In th e p lea a g re e m e n t, the governm entand H erul a “a gr ee[ d] and s t i pul at e[d] t hatt he gui del i nes c a lcu latio n se t fo rth b e lo w [ is] a p p lica b le in th is c a se , tha t th e p a rties w ill r ecomm end that[the gui del i nes ] be appl i ed as s etfor th bel ow , and thatnei ther partyw i l l s eek a departur e. ” ( 05- 1091 R . V ol . I , D oc. 172 at2. ) T he ca l cul at i on i n the pl ea a gr eements etH erul a’ s t ot al offe ns e l evel at31 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryatI I I , r es ul t i ng i n an es t i m at ed gui del i ne r ange of 135 t o 168 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . T he governm ental s o agr eed t o r ecomm end thatH erul a be “s ent ence d . . . atthe bott om of the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange a s det erm i ned by the C o u rt , ” d ism iss th e re m ainin g C o lorad o co u n ts, an d n o t op p o se H eru la’s r eques tt o be s ent ence d concurr ent l yw i th anys ent ence he r ece i ved i n the R hode Is la n d c a s e . (Id . at2. ) T he pl ea a gr eements peci fi cal l ynot ed, how ever , t hat“the C our tm ayi m pos e anys ent ence , up t o the s t atut orym axi m um , r egar dl es s of any gui del i ne r ange c om put ed, and thatt he C our ti s notbound byanypos i t i on or r ecomm endat i on of the part i es . ” (Id . at 14 . ) See F ED . R. C R IM . P . 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B)T h e 2 0 0 2 ed it ion o f th e S en tenc ing G u idelines w ere u sed at H eru la’s 2 s ent enci ng. I n hi s r epl ybr i ef, H erul a ar gues di ffe r entver s i ons of the gui del i nes s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a p p lie d , i . e. , the 2001 gui del i nes t o the C ol or ado w i r e fr aud c o u n ts a n d th e 2 0 0 0 g u id e lin e s to th e R h o d e Is la n d m o n e yla u n d e ri n g c o u n t. H ow ever , t hi s ar gum entw as notr ai s ed bel ow and w as w ai ved dur i ng or al a rg u m e n t. -4- ( pl ea a gr eementpr ovi s i on r ecomm endi ng “thata part i cul ars ent ence ors ent enci ng ran g e is ap p rop ri ate[ , ] . . . d o es n o t bind the c o u rt ”). O n N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 4 , H e ru la p led g u iltyp u rsu a n t to a p lea a g re e m e n t to al l thr ee c ount s of the R hode I s l and i nform at i on. T he R hode I s l and pl ea agr eementw as s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame as the C ol or ado agr eement . I tcal cul at ed H eru la’s co m b ined total offe n se lev el fo r all co u n ts as 3 1 , b u t his cri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryas onl ya I I . B as ed on the “e s t i m at ed offens e l evel ( s ) ” and the

“ (te n tativ e ) c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ry ,” th e re su lti n g g u id e lin e ra n g e w a s 1 2 1 to 151 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . ( 05- 1109 R . V ol . I , D oc. 3 at20. ) T he pl ea agr eemental s o comm i t t ed the governm entt o r ecomm end a s ent ence of 121 m o n th s a n d n o t to o p p o se a re q u e st b yH e ru la th a t h is s e n ten c e ru n c o n c u rre n tly w i th the s ent ence he r ece i ved i n the C ol or ado ca s e. B oth s ent ence s w er e s ett o be e n t e r e d th e s a m e d a y. A p re se n ten c e in v e stig a tio n re p o rt (P S R ) w a s p re p a re d a d d re ss in g b o th cas es . I tgr ouped H erul a’ s thr ee Rhode I s l and count s w i th the s even Col or ado

2 count s as “mul t i pl e count s ” pur s uantt o A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1 of U SSG §5G 1. 2 and the gr oupi ng rul es i n C hapt er3, Par tD . T hi s r es ul t ed i n a t ot al offe ns e l evel ofT h e fo u r le v e l d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e C o lo ra d o p lea a g re e m e n t es tim a te 3 an d the P S R ca lculati o n w as d u e to th e inc lusion o f a tw o leve l up w ard adj us t m entforH erul a occ upy i ng an aggr avat i ng r ol e pur s uantt o §3B 1. 1( c) and an addi t i onal tw o poi ntupw ar d adj us t m entbas ed on H erul a’ s abus e of a pos i t i on of trus tpur s uantt o §3B 1. 3. B oth of thes e adj us t m ent s w er e bas ed on conduc t ar i s i ng fr om the R hode I s l and moneyl aunder i ng count s . U nfor tunat el y , t he four l evel di ffe r ence betw een the R hode I s l and pl ea a gr eementes t i m at e, w hi ch i nc l ud e d the a gg r a va t i ng r ol e a nd a bu s e of po s i t i on a dj us t ment s , a nd t he PSR d efies sim il ar c o m p arison . S im p lyp u t, the R h o d e Islan d p lea a g ree m en t’ s est i m at e arose fr om the m on eyl aun deri ng cou nt, w hich had an adj ust ed o ffen se lev e l o f 3 4 , the h ig h e st o f

th e th re e c o u n ts. W ith th e a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty a dj us t ment , the c ombi ne d t ot a l offe ns e l e ve l w a s 31 . H oweve r , w he n the PSR gr ouped the R hode I s l and and Col or ado count s , t he fr aud count s had a hi gher offense l evel than the m on eyl aun deri ng cou nt. T hu s, un der the g uidel i nes’ gr oupi ng rul es , the hi gheroffe ns e l evel w as us ed. T hi s hi gheroffe ns e l evel w as la rg e ly d u e to th e a d d itio n a l $ 6 4 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0 in lo s s f ro m th e C o lo ra d o f

ra u d c o u n ts . -5- 35 aft era thr ee poi ntr educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty , compar ed w i th an o ffen sive leve l o f 3 1 u n d er the sep ara te p lea ag ree m en ts. In li g h t of H eru la’s 3 c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f II, th e P S R re c o m m e n d e d a g u id e lin e ra n g e o f 1 8 8 to 2 3 5 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. H e ru la o bjec ted to th e g ro u p in g o f c o u n ts f

ro m b o th cas es , ar gui ng the ca s es w er e notcons ol i dat ed fors ent enci ng purpos es t hus re n d e rin g § 5 G 1 .2 in a p p lica b le. H e a lso a rg u e d a p p lica tio n o f § 5 G 1 .2 w a s u n fa ir b e c a u se n e ith e r p a rtya n ticip a ted it. A ft erl i s t eni ng t o ar gum ent , t he di s tr i ctcourtadopt ed the r ecomm endat i on of the PSR and s ent ence d H erul a t o 188 m onths i m pr i s onm enti n eac h cas e, t o run concurr ent l y . T he di s tr i ctcourts t at ed i t s “s ent ence w oul d be the s ame, i f not g r e a t e r , u n d e ri t s i n d e p e n d e n ta n a l y s i s u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. [ § ] 3 5 5 3 ( a ) . ” ( 0 5 - 1 0 9 1 R. V ol . I I I at29. ) O n February11, 2005, j udgm entw as ent er ed i n both cas es and-6-

He ru l a fi l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i n b o th c a s e s o n F e b ru a ry1 7 . On J u l y6 , 2 0 0 5 , we o rd e re d th e a p p e a ls c o n s o lid a te d o n H e ru la ’s m o tio n . I I . D i s cus s i on H erul a cha l l enges the r eas onabl enes s of hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng the di s tr i ct courterr ed bycomput i ng a cons ol i dat ed s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange a nd the s ent ence i m pos ed w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e i tw as i n exce s s of the r ange cont empl at ed i n t he pl ea a gr eement s . H e al s o ar gues t he advi s or yappl i cat i on of the g u idelines af

ter B o o ke r, in a c ase p rem ised o n g u il typ leas e n tered b efo re B ooker , vi ol at es the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. A . R eas onabl enes s of Sent ence A fter B ooker , “di s tr i ctcourt s ar e s t i l l r equi r ed t o cons i derG ui del i ne r anges , w hi ch ar e det erm i ned thr ough appl i cat i on of the pr eponder ance s t andar d, ju st a s th e yw e re b e fo re . T h e o n lyd iffe re n c e is th a t th e c o u rt h a s la titu d e . . . to departfr om the r es ul t i ng G ui del i ne r anges . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal lanez , 408 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 5 (1 0 th C ir .) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 4 8 6 (2 0 0 5 ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. R es endiz - P at i no , 420 F. 3d 1177, 1184 n. 6 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “ R e l i e v e d o f

th e m a n d a t o r y a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e g u i d e l i n e s b y B ooker , di s tr i ct co u rt s are n o w p erm itted to g ive m o re sw ayin se n tenc ing to the fa ctors e n u m e ra te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” ), cer t . deni ed , 12 6 S . C t . 10 98 (2006 ). T hu s, “notw i ths t andi ng B o o ke r’s i nval i dat i on of the mandat or ynatur e of the s ent enci ng gu i deli nes, ‘d istric t co u rts m u st s til l co n su lt th e G u id e lin e s a n d tak e th e m in to-7-

acc ountw hen s ent enci ng. ’ ” United S tates v. C lark , 4 1 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 4 , 1 2 4 6 (1 0 th C i r . 2005) ( O ’ B r i en, J . , di s s ent i ng) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed, quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 398 F. 3d 1254, 1257 n. 5 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ) . I n Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , we fa sh io n e d a tw o -ste p a p p ro a c h fo r p o st- B ookerappel l at e r evi ew of s ent ence s im p o sed w ith in the ap p li ca b le gu ideline ra n g e. 43 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 5 (10 th C ir . 2006) . Fi r s t , w e det erm i ne w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tcorr ect l ycal cul at ed the a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e . Id . at 1 0 5 4 -5 5 . If so , the se n ten c e “ is p re su m p tiv e ly r eas onabl e” s ubj ectt o r ebutt al bythe defendant“i n l i ghtof the others ent enci ng fac t or s l ai d outi n § 3553( a) . ” Id . at1055. W e s t i l l r evi ew l egal ques t i ons de novo, fac tual fi ndi ngs forcl earerr or , and gi ve due de fer ence t o the di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s a p p lic a tio n o f th e g u id e lin e s to th e fa c ts . Un itedS ta tes v . Wo lfe , 435 F. 3d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H erul a cha l l enges t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s cal cul at i on of the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra n g e . S p e c ifica lly , h e c h a llen g e s w h e th e r th e C o lo ra d o a n d R h o d e Isla n d c o u n ts c o n stitu te “ m u lti p le c o u n ts” fo r p u rp o se s o f U S S G § 5 G 1 .2 . H is m a in a rg u m e n t is thatthe C ol or ado and Rhode I s l and ca s es w er e neve rcons ol i dat ed and thus the C ol or ado and Rhode I s l and ca s es s houl d have be en tr eat ed s epar at el yfor sent encing p urposes. A p p lica tio n N o te 1 to U S S G § 5 G 1 .2 sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt: T h is s e c tio n a p p lies to m u lti p le c o u n ts o f c o n v ictio n (1 ) c o n tain e d in the s ame i ndi ctm entori nform at i on, or( 2) cont ai ned i n di ffe r ent i ndi ctm ent s ori nform at i ons forw hi ch s ent ence s ar e t o be i m pos ed at-8-

the s ame t i m e ori n a cons ol i dat ed pr ocee di ng. In th is c a se , the d istric t co u rt fo u n d H e ru la’ s C o lo ra d o a n d R h o d e Isla n d c o u n ts m et th e term s o f A p p li ca ti o n N o te 1, an d g rou p ed all co u n ts un d er C h ap ter 3, P art D ’s g ro u p in g ru le s . A p p li ca ti o n N o te 1 to § 5 G 1 . 2 is seldo m ap p li ed an d , u n su rprisi n g ly , there i s a dea r th of ca s e l aw i nt erpr et i ng i t . R el y i ng on t he s econd c l aus e of A ppl i cat i on N ot e 1, H erul a ar gues a cons ol i dat i on or derm us tbe ent er ed bythe d istric t co u rt p rio r to c o u n ts in se p a ra te in d ictm e n ts b e in g tre a ted a s “ m u lti p le count s ” under§5G 1. 2. H ow ever , thi s ar gum entover l ooks the ent i r e cl aus e w hi ch al s o tr eat s count s “cont ai ned i n di ffe r enti ndi ctm ent s ori nform at i ons forw hi ch s ent ence s ar e t o be i m pos ed atthe s ame t i m e” a s “mul t i pl e count s ” forpurpos es of §5G 1. 2. T he pr es ence of the di sj unct i ve “or ” pr ecl udes a r eadi ng of A p p lica tio n N o te 1 th a t w o u ld re q u ire a c o n so lid a ted p ro c e e d in g to q u a lifyc o u n ts in s e p a ra te in d ic tm e n ts o r i n fo rm a tio n s a s “ m u ltip le c o u n ts .” T h is c o n c lu sio n , h o w e v e r, d o e s n o t en d th e a n a ly sis . O u r n e x t q u e stio n is w hetherthe pr ovi s i ons of §5G 1. 2 s houl d even be cons i der ed w hen ca l cul at i ng H erul a’ s offe ns e l evel underC hapt er3, Par tD ’ s gr oupi ng rul es . W e have not p re v io u slya d d re ss e d th is q u e stio n , w h ich re q u ire s o u r e n tryin to th e lab yrin th th a t is th e s e n te n c e g u id e lin e s ’ g ro u p in g ru le s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Her nandez C op lin , 24 F . 3d 31 2, 32 0 (1stC i r. 19 94 ) ( “T he g rouping rul es ar e on e of thoseA s s um i ng the R hode I s l and and Col or ado count s w er e t o be tr eat ed as 4 “ m u lti p le c o u n ts” u n d e r § 5 G 1 .2 , H e ru la c h a llen g e s fo r th e first tim e in h is re p ly b ri ef w h ethe r th e b an k rup tcyfra u d claim w as p rop erlyg rou p ed w ith the w ir e -9- chapt er s i n the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes w her e pr act i cal j udgm ent s , unexpl ai ned pol i cychoi ces , and extr eme com pl exi tyar e s o fus ed thateven the mostexpertof law y ers a n d jud g es c an b e led astray . ”). M erc ifu ll y , o u r st ayn ee d o n lyb e a sh o rt one. B yi t s t erm s , §5G 1. 2 i s notdi r ect l yappl i cabl e t o the i ni t i al cal cul at i on of th e g u id e lin e ra n g e . H o w e v e r, as tw o o f o u r sis ter c irc u its - th e F irst a n d S ix th C ir cu it s - ha v e re co g n ized , § 5 G 1 . 2 d o es n o t m ak e se n se u n less it s d efinit ion s are re a d b a c k in to C h a p te r 3 , P a rt D ’s g ro u p in g a n a lysis . He rn a n d ez C op lin , 24 F. 3d a t 3 1 8 n .6 ; Uni t ed Stat es v. G r iggs , 4 7 F . 3 d 8 2 7 , 8 3 2 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). T h is “q u irk i n the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ” ar i s es beca us e appl i cat i on of §5G 1. 2 i s pr edi cat ed o n first fin d in g th e o ffe n se lev e l u n d e r § 3 D 1 .4 . U S S G § 1 B 1 .1 ; G r iggs , 47 F. 3d at 83 1. B ut t o d et erm i ne the offe nse l evel und er §3D 1. 4, the d i stri ctcou rtm ust k n o w w h ich c o u n ts a re to b e in c lu d e d in its g ro u p in g c a lcu latio n . T o d o th a t, i t m us tfi r s tl ook t o §5G 1. 2 t o det erm i ne w hetherm ul t i pl e count s ar e ati s s ue i n t he cas e. C ons equent l y , “[t ] he onl yl ogi cal r eadi ng of U . S. S. G . §§ 3D 1. 1- 5 and 5G 1. 2 r equi r es t hat§ 3D 1. 4 appl yt o m ul t i pl e count s i n s epar at e i ndi ctm ent s . ” G r iggs , 4 7 F . 3 d at 83 2 . T h u s w e join o u r si ster cir cu it s in h o lding § 5 G 1 . 2 ’s anal y s i s of m ul t i pl e count s m us tbe r ead ba ck i nt o C hapt er3, Par tD ’ s gr oupi ng cal cul at i on. 4fr aud cl ai m s under§3D 1. 2( d) . R el y i ng on A ppl i cat i on N ot e 5 t o §3D 1. 2, he

ar gues the cl ai m s s houl d have be en gr ouped s epar at el yr es ul t i ng i n a l ow er offe ns e l evel . W e not e the t erm s of §3D 1. 2( d) r equi r e gr oupi ng “[w ] hen the offe ns e l evel i s det erm i ned l ar gel yon the bas i s of the t ot al amount of harm or loss.” S u ch is cl ea rl ythe c ase w ith v ariou s typ es o f f rau d claim s, inclu d ing w ir e and bankrupt cyfr aud. T he offens e l evel forboth ar e det erm i ned l ar gel ybythe a m o u n t o f

lo s s . See U S S G § 2 B 1 .1 (c o v e ri n g v a ri o u s k in d s o f f ra u d c la im s ). Fur ther , §3D 1. 2( d) s peci fi cal l yr equi r es offe ns es cover ed by§2B 1. 1 t o be gr ouped under§3D 1. 2( d) . I n anyevent , thi s ar gum entw as notpr es erved i n the o p e n in g b ri e f

a n d w e n e e d n o t c o n s id e r i t h e re . See Stump v. G at es , 211 F. 3d 527, 533 ( 10th C i r . 2000) . M or eover , H erul a w ai ved mostof hi s r epl ybr i ef a t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T he R hode I s l and pl ea a gr eements i m i l ar l ypr ovi ded that“the C our tm ay 5 i m pos e anys ent ence , up t o t he s t atut orym axi m um , r egar dl es s of anygui del i ne -10- H erul a ar gues enfor ci ng a pr ovi s i on of the gui del i nes thatw as u n an ti cipa ted b ythe p arti es m ak es h is sen tenc e u n rea so n ab le un d er B ooker . We s t artbynot i ng thatbeca us e H erul a w as s ent ence d w i thi n a pr oper l ycal cul at ed g u id e lin e ra n g e , h is s e n te n c e is a ffo rd e d a p re s u m p tio n o f re a s o n a b le n e s s . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1055. I n ourvi ew , t he expe ct at i ons of the part i es thata di ffe r ent se n ten c in g c a lcu latio n w o u ld p re v a il are n o t su fficie n t to o v e rc o m e th is pr es um pt i on. T o hol d ot herw i s e w oul d s erve t o r ew ar d m i s i nt erpr et at i ons of the gui del i nes . T he part i es ’ s ent enci ng expec t at i ons ar e ce r t ai nl ynotl i s t ed among th e fa c to rs in c lu d e d in § 3 5 5 3 (a ). M or eover , H erul a’ s C ol or ado pl ea a gr eements peci fi cal l ynot i fi ed hi m that “the C our tm ayi m pos e anys ent ence , up t o the s t atut orym axi m um , r egar dl es s of anygui del i ne r ange c om put ed, and thatthe C our ti s notbound byanypos i t i on or re c o m m e n d a tio n o f th e p a rties .” (0 5 -1 0 9 1 R . V o l. I, D o c . 1 7 2 a t 1 4 .) H is 5r ange c om put ed, and thatthe C our ti s notbound byanypos i t i on of the part i es . ”

(0 5 -1 1 0 9 R . V o l. I , D o c . 3 a t 1 7 .) B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 5 4 2 U . S . 2 9 6 (20 0 4 ). 6I r oni cal l y , i f w e w er e t o adoptH erul a’ s ar gum ent s and al l ow hi m t o be 7 r es ent ence d s epar at el yon the C ol or ado i ndi ctm entand R hode I s l and i nform at i on, i ts eems pr obabl e hi s s ent ence w oul d be hi gher . A l though hi s r ecomm ended r ange mi ghtbe l ow er , the di s tr i ctcourtw oul d be fr ee t o i m pos e cons ecut i ve ra th e r t h a n c o n c u rr e n t s e n te n c e s o n re m a n d . See 18 U . S. C. § 3 58 4( a ) ; U SSG § 5 G 1 .3 (a ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t’s re c o m m e n d a tio n fo r c o n c u rre n t se n ten c e s w o u ld notbe bi ndi ng on the di s tr i ctcourt . T hus , al though H erul a’ s s ent enci ng r ange w as hi gherthan ant i ci pat ed, he s t i l l pot ent i al l ybenef i t t ed fr om havi ng bot h cas es -11- as s ert i on thatthe part i es s t i pul at ed a pa r t i cul argui del i ne r ange w oul d be appl i ed b yth e d istric t co u rt is n o t b o rn e o u t b yth e re c o rd . T h e g o v e rn m e n t m e re ly agr eed thati tant i ci pat ed a pa r t i cul argui del i ne r ange w oul d be us ed and c o m m itte d its e lf

to re c o m m e n d a p a rt ic u la r s e n te n c e , w h ic h it d id . R u l e 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) m a k e s c l e a rth a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s n o tb o u n d b y a r ecomm endat i on byt he governm entas t o a part i cul ars ent ence ors ent enci ng r ange. I f H erul a w ant ed t o ens ur e a c er t ai n s ent enci ng out come i n excha nge for hi s gui l typl ea, he s houl d have ne got i at ed a f i r m agr eementt o a s peci fi c s ent ence o r r a n g e . See F ED . R. C R IM . P . 1 1 (c )( 1 )( C ). H erul a’ s fi nal ar gum ent— t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o m andat or yappl i cat i on of the gui del i nes s houl d “C ongr es s choos e t o compl yw i th the r equi r ement s ” of B la ke ly — i s al s o m i s pl ace d fort he s i m pl e r eas on thatC ongr es s has not

6 att empt ed t o m ake the gui del i nes m andat or yi n the w ake of B ooker . (A p p ell an t’ s B r . at19. ) C ons equent l y , H erul a’ s s ent ence i s r eas onabl e. 7group ed as m ult i ple coun t s. -12-

B . E x P o st F a c to A r t i cl e I of the U . S. C ons t i tut i on pr ohi bi t s C ongr es s and the s t at es fr om pas s i ng an “e x pos tfac t o L aw . ” See U .S . C ONST . art . I , § 9, cl . 3; art . I , § 10, cl . 1. A l though byi t s t erm s the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e l i m i t s l egi s l atur es i ns t ead of the j udi ci ary , “l i m i t at i ons on ex p o st fa c to j udi ci al deci s i onm aki ng ar e i nher ent i n the not i on of due pr oces s . ” R ogers v. Tenn. , 5 3 2 U .S . 4 5 1 , 4 5 6 (2 0 0 1 ). “A l though ex pos tfac t o pr i nci pl es ar e thus r el evantt o the r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of j udi ci al deci s i ons thr ough the due pr oces s cl aus e of e i thert he Fi fth ort he F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, th e E x P o st F a c to C lau se is n o t in c o rp o ra ted w h o les a le or‘ j ot - for -j ot . ’ ” E vans v. R ay , 390 F. 3d 1247, 1251 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . “‘ [D ] ue pr oces s l i m i t at i ons on t he r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of j udi ci al i nt erpr et at i ons of cr i m i nal s t atut es ’ onl yappl yt o thos e dec i s i ons ‘ thatar e unexpe ct ed and i ndefe ns i bl e byr efe r ence t o t he l aw w hi ch had be en expr es s ed pr i ort o the conducti n i s s ue. ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng R og ers , 5 3 2 U . S . at 46 1 ). W e , as w e ll as a ll o th e r c irc u its, h a v e ro u tin e lyrejec ted e x p o st fa c to ar gum ent s pr emi s ed on B ooker . See Uni t ed Stat es v. R i nes , 419 F. 3d 1104, 1106- 0 7 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( “ W e d e c l i n e De fe n d a n t ’ s i n v i t a t i o n t o h o l d t h a tt h e S u p r e me C our tor der ed us t o vi ol at e the C ons t i tut i on . . . . T he onl ydi ffe r ence betw een the B oo ker r egi m e underw hi ch hi s s ent ence i s det erm i ned and the r egi m e he w oul d have a nt i ci pat ed atthe t i m e of hi s offe ns e i s t hatt he gui del i nes ar e notSee als o Uni t ed Stat es v. Stat en , 4 5 0 F . 3 d 3 8 4 , 3 8 9 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); 8 Un itedS ta tes v . Ha le , 448 F. 3d 971, 988 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ; Uni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 3 4 8 , 1 3 5 4 -5 5 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C ounce, 445 F .3 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 1 9 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Un itedS ta tes v . P e n n a v a ria , 445 F. 3d 720, 723- 2 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); United S tates v. D avenpo rt , 4 4 5 F . 3 d 3 6 6 , 3 6 9 -70 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. C har on , 4 4 2 F .3 d 8 8 1 , 8 9 3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Fai r cl ough , 4 3 9 F .3 d 7 6 , 7 9 (2 d C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 126 S. C t . 2915 ( 2006) ; Un ite dS ta te s v . R ic h a r ds o n , 4 3 7 F .3 d 5 5 0 , 5 5 5 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. A ls t on- G r aves , 4 3 5 F .3 d 3 3 1 , 3 4 3 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Un itedS ta tes v . P e re z-R u iz , 4 2 1 F .3 d 1 1 , 1 5 (1 s t C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S . C t. 1 0 9 2 (20 0 6 ). -13- m a n d a to ry.” ), cer t . deni ed , 1 2 6 S .C t. 1 0 8 9 . A lth o u g h H e ru la’ s a rg u m e n t is 8 f ra m e d d iffe re n tly f

ro m p re v io u s e x p o s t fa c to a rg u m e n ts , it is e q u a lly d e fe c tiv e . Fi r s tand for emost , w e not e B ookerh a s n o t b e e n a p p lied re tro a c tiv e ly , b u t o n lyto c a s e s o n d ir e c t r e v ie w a t th e tim e o f th e o p in io n . See Booker , 125 S. C t . at769; Un i t e dS ta t e s v . B e l la my , 4 1 1 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A d d iti o n a lly , H e ru la w a s s e n te n c e d w ith in a c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d g u id e lin e ra n g e . R i nes , 419 F. 3d at 1107 ( “[D efe ndant ] w as s ent ence d w i thi n the gui del i nes r ange, s o he ca nnot c o m p lain o f

a n yu n a n ticip a ted h a rsh n e ss .”). T h e re is n o su g g e stio n H e ru la w o u ld h a v e b e e n s e n te n c e d d iffe re n tly h a d th e g u id e lin e s b e e n a p p lie d m a n d a to ri ly. C o n seq u en tl y , h e h ad ad eq u ate n o ti ce as to the s en tenc e h e re ce ived . A s H eru la’s arg u m en t con ce d es, i n li g h t of o u r pre ce d ing d iscu ssion , an yincre ase in H eru la’s s ent ence w as due t o hi s m i s i nt erpr et at i on of the G ui del i nes , notas a r es ul tof B ooker ’s m at eri al m od i fi cat i on of the gu i deli nes. Ba s e d o n th e fo r g o i n g a n a l y s i s , we AF F I RM He ru l a ’ s s e n t e n c e a n d DE NY hi s M ot i on fora Li m i t ed R emand.