FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 18, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 14242 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 2 1 2 - C R - - OR L - 3 1 - DA B U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l ai nt i ff -A pp el l ee C r o s s - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C A R L O S V A Z Q U E Z , D ef endant -A pp el l ant C r o s s - A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 18, 2007) B efo re T JO F L A T , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: O n cro ss-ap p eal , th e g o v ern m en tch al l en g es C a r l o s V a z q u e z ’ s 1 1 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e , im p o s e d a f

te rh e p le d g u ilty to c o n s p ir in g to p o s s e s s w ith th e in te n t toB e fo retheg ov e rnment’ s f ilingof thec ro ss- a

pp e al, V azqu e z fi le d a

no tic eof a pp e al to 1 challeng e his conviction. Vazquez’s attorney, Ernest L .Chang , then filed a motion to withdrawfrom repre sentatio n o n a

pp e al, pur su ant to And e rsv. Ca li forni a, 38 6 U .S. 73 8 ( 19 67 ). Withre g ard to Vazquez’s conviction, an independent review of theentire rec ord reveals that c ounsel’s asse ssment of the re lative merit of the a ppeal is cor

rec t. Be causeindependent examination of the entire re cord reve als no arguable issues of m erit re g ardingVazquez’s conviction, counse l’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and V azquez’s conviction is AFF IRMED. As to t heg ov e rnment’ s c ro ss- a

pp e al of Vazqu e z’s sentenc e , Mr. Cha ngha s f ile d a b ri e f in oppo sition

to theg ov e rnment’ s arguments . A c c ording ly, w eDENYAS M OO T themotion to withdraw a s to Vazquez’s sentence . 2 di s tr i but e 500 g ra m s orm or e of a m i xtur e c ont a i ni ng c oc a i ne pow de r , i n vi ol a t i on o f 2 1 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(B )(i i) , an d 8 4 6 . T h e 1 1 0 -m o n th sen t en ce w as a 1 d o w n w ard v ari an ce fro m th e ad v i so ry G u i d el i n es ran g e o f 2 1 0 t o 2 6 2 m o n th s’ i m pri sonm ent . T he go vernm entar gu es thatthe se nt ence i m po se d b y the di stri ct c o u r t is u n r e a s o n a b le b e c a u s e th e c o u r t e rr o n e o u s ly c o n s id e r e d a n im p e r m is s ib le fa ct or - - the c ou r t ’ s ow n di s a gr e e me nt w i th the c a r e e r - of f e nd e r pr ov i s i on of

§ 4B 1. 1 o f the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes - - t hu s, re nd er i ng V az qu ez ’ s s ent ence pr oc e dur a l l y unr e a s ona bl e . T h e gove rnm e nta l s o a r gue s tha ta s e nt e nc e of 110 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nti s s ubs t a nt i ve l y unr e a s ona bl e . A ft er t hor ough r e vi e w of the re co rd an d ca re fu l co n sid er atio n o f th e p ar ti es ’ b rief s, w e v ac ate V az q u ez ’s s e nt e nc e a nd r e m a nd f

orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs , c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s a r e the s e . O n D e c e m be r 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , V a z que z a nd c od efen d an tA d al b ert o R o sa w ere i n d i ct ed o n o n e c o u n to f co n sp i racy t o p o ssess3

w i th the i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e 500 gr a m s orm ore of a m i xtur e c ont a i ni ng c oc a i ne po w der, i n v i ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . §§ 84 1(a) (1), (b)( 1)(B )( i i ), and 8 46 . V az qu ez pl e d gui l ty , pur s ua ntt o a w r i tt e n pl e a a gr e e m e nt , w hi c h i nc l ude d a s t a t e m ent p r o v id in g th e f

a c tu a l b a s is f

o rV a z q u e z ’s g u ilty p le a . A c c o r d in g to th a t s ta te m e n t, a c onf i de nt i a l i n for m a nt( “ C I ” ) c ont a c t e d a ge nt s w i th the D rug E nf or c e m e nt A dm i ni stra t i on (“ D E A ”) t o al ertthem thatV az qu ez and co-defendant R osa w er e t r a ve l i n g f

r o m M a s s a c h u s e tt s t o O r l a n d o , Fl o r i d a , w i th th e i n t e n to f p u r c ha s i ng m ul t i - ki l ogr a m qua nt i t i e s of c oc a i ne p o w d er . O nc e the y a rr i ve d i n O r l a ndo, V az qu ez call ed th e C I t o com pl et e the tra nsac t i on . T he C I c am e t o the ho t el w here V a z que z and R os a w e r e s t a y i ng, a tw hi c h poi ntV a z que z pr e s e nt e d the C I w i th the m on ey . V az qu ez then fol l ow ed the C I t o h is ca r, w here the C I produ ce d a du ff el ba g c o n t a i n i n g c o c a i n e . A s V a z q u e z w a l k e d w i th th e d u f f e l b a g b a c k t o w a r ds t he hi s hot el room , he w as i nt er ce pt ed and arre st ed by D E A agents. R o saal so w as arre st ed. V az qu ez subsequent l y w ai v ed h is ri gh tt o rem ai n si l entand adm i tt ed

“ tha the ha d pi c ke d up m one y earl i e ri n the da y f r om va r i ous W e s t e rn U ni on m one y l oc a t i ons t o b u y thr e e ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i ne a nd w a s pl a nni ng on tra nspo rt i ng the cocai ne back t o M as sa chusett s. ” A ft ertw o chang e- of-pl ea c o llo q u ie s , a t w h ic h V a z q u e z a g r e e d w i t h t h e f o r e g o in g f

a c tu a l d e s c r ip tio n o f

h is of f e ns e , the di s tr i c tc our ta c c e pt e d hi s pl e a a nd he pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng.4

A cc ordi ng t o the P re se nt ence Invest i gat i on R eport (“P S I” ), V az qu ez had pr o vi de d $18, 000 i n U . S . c urr e nc y t o the C I , i n e xc ha nge f or3 ki l ogr a m s of c oc a i n e , w h i c h h e i n t e n d e d t o tr a n s p o r tb a c k t o M a s s a c h u s e tt s . Th e PSI r e co m m en d ed th at b ecau se th e o ffen se i n v o l v ed b etw een 2 k i l o g ram s an d 3 .5 k i l o g r a m s o f

c o c a i n e , Va z q u e z ’ s b a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l wa s a 2 8 , p u r s u a n tt o U. S . S . G. § 2D 1. 1(c ) ( 6) . The PS I f urthe rr e c omme nd e d tha tV a z qu e z qu a l i f i e d a s a c a r ee r o f f e n d e r , u n d e r § 4 B 1 .1 o f th e G u id e lin e s , b e c a u s e h e p r e v io u s ly h a d p le d g u ilty to a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of f e ns e a nd ha d a tl e a s ttw o pr i orf e l ony co n v i ct i o n s f

or e ith e ra c r im e o f v i o le n c e o ra c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e . I n s u p p o r t o f

its r e c o m m e n d a tio n , th e P S I n o te d th a t V a z q u e z w a s c o n v i c t e d o n tw o s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s o f

p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e ( h e r o in ) in A p r il 1 9 9 1 , a n d w a s c o n v i c t e d o f th e r ap e o f

a c h ild , a c r im e o f

v io le n c e , in Ja nu ary 199 6. T he P S I r ec o m m ended t hatas a c ar ee r off ender fa ci ng a s t atut ory m axi m um penal ty of 25 o r m ore y ea rs , V az qu ez ’ s off ense l evel shou l d b e a dj ust ed fr om 28 t o 3 4, pu rs ua n t to § 4 B 1 . 1. T he P S I a l so re com m ended a 2-l evel d o w n w a r d a d

j u s t m e n t f

o ra c c e p ta n c e o f

r e s p o n s ib ility , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 3 E 1 .1 ( a ) , r e s u ltin g in a to ta l o f f e n s e le v e l o f

3 2 . B as ed on 12 cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nts, V az qu ez ’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory c at egory w as V . D ue t o V az qu ez ’ s c ar ee r- offe nd erst atus, hi s c ri m i nal hi st o ry cat egory w as5

a dj us t e d t o V I , pur s ua ntt o § 4 B 1 . 1 . W i th a n a dj us t e d of f e ns e l e ve l of

32 a nd a c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry V I , V a z q u e z f a c e d a n a d v i s o ry G u i d e l i n e s r a n g e o f 210 a n d 2 6 2 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. A ts e nt e nc i ng, V a z que z di d notobj e c tt o the P S I ’ s f a c tua l f i ndi ngs orthe c a lc u l a t i o n o f

h is G u id e lin e s r a n g e , p r io rto ap p lic a tio n o f § 4 B 1 .1 . V a z q u e z d id chal l enge the appl i ca t i on of the G ui del i nes’ ca re er -off ender provi si on , ar gu i ng that the tw o qua l i f

y i ng drug c onvi c t i ons occu rr e d appr oxi m a t e l y 15 y e a r s pr i ort o the i nst antoffe nse, and t hatthe qu al i fy i ng cr i m e of vi ol ence (r ape of a c hi l d) occurre d 10 ye ar s pri or t o the i nst antoffe nse. V az qu ez st ated th at he had served tw o yea rs f ors e xua l ba tt e ry , s t em m i ng f r om a “ c ons e ns ua l - type of f e ns e , ” a nd ha d not com m i tt ed a c ri m e i n th e pastei gh tye ar s, si nce he w as re l ea se d. V az qu ez ar gu ed th a t th e r e m o te n e s s o f

h i s p a s t c r im e s a n d h is w illin g n e s s to a c c e p t r e s p o n s ib ility w arran t ed i m pos i t i on of a s e nt e nc e c l os e rt o the 37- m onth t e r m of i m pr i s onm e nt th a t c o - d e f

e n d a n t R o s a r e c e i v e d . V a z q u e z a c k n o w le d g e d th a t “in te r m s o f . . . com m un i ty dee ds and so o n, [he] do es no t h av e thatsortof m i t i gat i on , ” butas ked t h at t h e c our tc ons i de rtha the ha d a c l os e f a m i l y tha tha d tr a ve l e d f r om M a s s a c h u s e tts to s u p p o r t h im . T h e g o v e rnm e ntr e que s t e d tha tthe c our ts e nt e nc e V a z que z t o a t e r m of i m pri sonm entw i thi n the G ui del i ne ra ng e of 210 t o 26 2 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent , as6

s c o r e d b y th e PSI a f

t e rap p l i c a t i o n o f

§ 4 B1 . 1 . A s f

o rV a z q u e z ’ s c h a l l e n g e t o t he P S I ’s ap p l i cat i o n o f th e career-o ffen d er p ro v i si o n , th e g o v ern m en t resp o n d ed to V a z quez’ s r e que s tf

orm i t i ga t i on by s t a t i ng tha tV a z que z ha d c om m i tt e d a n a c tof s e xua l ba tt e ry w he n he w a s 2 8 years ol d a nd the vi c t i m w a s onl y 14. T he g o v e rn m e n t a r g u e d th a t th e s e n te n c e is s u e d t o V a z q u e z s h o u ld “n o t b e c lo s e ” to the t e r m gi ve n t o R os a be cau se R os a ha d a l e s s e rc r i m i na l hi s t or y a nd w a s i s s ue d a dow nw a r d de pa r tur e f orhi s s ubs t a nt i a l a s s i s t a nc e , t o w hi c h V a z que z w as not e nt i t l e d. A f t er h eari ng the pa r t i e s ’ a r gum e nt s , the di s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d tha t“ w e ’ ve e s t a bl i s he d a gui de l i ne r a nge of 210 t o 26 2 m o n t h s; butw hi l e the gui de l i ne s , of c o u r s e , a r e im p o r ta n t a n d e n title d t o d e f e r e n c e . . . I h a v e a s ta tu to ry o b lig a tio n to consi der the fa ct ors i n [ 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (a )] , i n d et erm i ni ng a r ea sonabl e s ent ence i n the c on t e xt of gu i de l i ne s c or i ng . ” The di s tr i c t c ou r t s t a t e d tha t t he ca re er of f e nd er p ro vi s i on f

ound i n § 4B 1. 1 c r e a t e d “ a qua ntum l e ap i n the gui de l i ne c a l c ul at i on, ” i n w hi c h the S e nt e nc i ng C om m i s s i on “ a tt e m pt [ e d] t o c om e up w i th a de f i ni t i on tha tap p l i e [ d] t o a l l pe opl e i n a l l c i r c um s t a nc e s , w i thoutr e ga r d t o the ac tual o ff

en se s or the nature of the offens e or the t i m i ng of the offens e. ” T he court e xpl a i ne d tha ti tf

e l t“ the gui de l i ne s s i m pl y c a nnotope r a t e r e a l i s t i c a l l y on the h u m an l ev el ” an d t ak e th e p ro ceed i n g s “ astray i n si tu a tio n s w h ere yo u h av e th ese7

q u an tu m -t ype l e aps . ” T he c our tthe n s t a t e d i t s ha d c ons i de r e d the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of

t h e o ffen s e a nd not e d the “ f a i r l y s i gni f

i c a nta m ountof

drugs in v o lv e d ,” b u t a ls o i n d i c a t e d th a t th is c a s e w a s “n o t lik e a n o n g o in g c o n s p ir a c y in w h i ch th e d efen d an ti s ch arg ed w i th m u l t i p l e tran sact i o n s o f traffi ck i n g . It ’ s a o n e - in c id e n t o f

f e n s e .” A s f or V az qu ez ’ s c ri m i nal hi st or y, the di stri ctcourtst at ed thatV az qu ez w as 23 w he n h e c ommi tt e d tw o d rug f e l on i e s i n 1 99 1, w hi c h i tno t e d w e r e se nt ence d to g e th e rc o n c u rr e n tly . T h e c o u r t o p in e d th a t th e c a r e e r - o f f e n d e rp r o v is io n f

a ile d to ta k e in to a c c o u n t th a t th e tw o c o n v ic tio n s “w [ e r e ] a d ru g o f f e n s e o ro f

f e n s e s , if yo u w an tt o sep arat e th em , th ato ccu rred al m o st1 5 years a g o .” T h e co u rtal so f ound tha t“ the othe rof f e ns e tha tr [ a n] hi s s c or e up an d qua l i f i e s hi m unde r[ the c a r e e ro f

f e n d e rp r o v is io n ] [ w a ]s th e s ta tu to ry r ap e c h a r g e ; a n d , w h ile rep reh en si b l e, i tal so w as so m e t i m e ag o an d w a s n o ta cri m e o f v i o l en ce, u n l ess th a t's th e w a y y o u w a n t to d e f in e it. I t w a s c o n s e n s u a l a lb e it ille g a l.” T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e te r m in e d th a t, a b s e n t th e c a r e e r - o f f e n d e re n h a n c e m e n t, V azq u ez w o u l d be s ubj e c tt o a G ui de l i ne s i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge of 110 t o 137 m o n th s . Q u e s tio n in g th e v a lu e o f c r im in a l s e n te n c e s a s d e te rr e n c e to th e illic it drug tr a de , the c our te xpl a i ne d th at i t fel ta m a nda t or y m i ni m um s e nt e nc e of f i ve ye ar s w ou l d “ be adequat e det erre nce” and a se nt ence “i n th e hu nd re d-pl us ra ng e”8

w a s “w a y in e x c e s s o f w h a t is n e c e s s a r y to d e te rth is ty p e o f c r im in a l c o n d u c t.” T h e cour tthe n s t a t e d tha t , a f t e rc ons i de r i ng the § 3553( a ) s e nt e nc i ng f a c t or s , the ar gu m ent s by the part ie s, and t he G ui del i nes r ange, a 110 -m on th sent ence w as approp ri at e, as i tw as “ at th e low end o f w hatw ou l d b e the no n-enhanced gu i del i ne, ju st in term s of r ef er ence as t o h ow the C ou rtarri ved atthat , that se nt ence as bei ng , i n the C ou rt ’ s vi ew , re as on ab le.” T he courtexpl ai ned t hataf t er c o n s i d e r in g th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e s a n d th e s e n te n c in g f a c to r s , it f

o u n d th a t its se nt ence w as re as on abl e, “ n o t g re at erthan n ec es sa ry t o com pl y w i th the st atut ory purpos e s , ” a nd i n e xc e s s of the m a nda t ory m i ni m um . T hi s appe a l f ol l ow e d. W e r e vi e w the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the S en t en ci n g G ui de l i ne s de n o v o an d it s fa ctu al fin d in g s f o r c learer ro r, an d th en re v iew th e d ef en d an t’ s ul t i m a t e s e nt e nc e fo r reaso na bl e ne s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d 1353, 1360 ( 11th C i r . 2006) , c e r t . pe t i t i on di s m i s s e d, - - - S . C t . - - - - , 2007 W L 1 8 3 9 5 75 (J un . 28 , 20 07 ) ( “ A ar on W i l l i am s” ). A l tho ug h the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes a re a dvi s ory , the di s tr i c t cour ti s r e qui r e d t o c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the s e nt e nc i ng r a nge a nd t a ke t h at ran ge i nt o a c c ountw he n i m pos i ng a s e nt e nc e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f o r d , 4 0 7 F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 8 - 7 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . O n c e th e c o u r t c o rr e c tly ca l cul at es the ad vi sory se nt enci ng ra ng e, “ i tm ay i m po se a m ore s ever e or m ore9

l e ni e nts e nt e nc e a s l ong a s i ti s reaso n ab l e. ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. P ope , 461 F . 3d 1331, 1 3 3 6 - 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s c o n ta in a c a r e e r - o f f e n d e rp r o v is io n , in a c c or da nc e w i th C ongr e s s i ona l di c t a t e s , t o a voi d unw a rran t ed s e nt e nc i ng di s pa r i t i e s a m ongs tr e c i di vi s tof f e nde r s w ho c om m i tc r i m e s of vi ol e nc e ordrug o f f e n s e s . S e e U. S . S . G. § 4 B 1 . 1 ( c o m m e n t . b a c k g r o u n d ( 2 0 0 4 ) ) ( c i t i n g 2 8 U. S . C. § 994( h) ) . T he pr ovi s i on appl i e s t o a de f e nda nt w h o i s a tl e a s te i ght e e n y e a r s of age , w i th a t l e a s t tw o pr i or f e l on y c on vi c t i on s of e i the r a c r i me of vi ol ence or a c ontr ol l e d s ubs t a nc e of f e ns e , a nd ha s c om m i tt e d, a s t h e i ns t a ntof f e ns e , a f e l ony th a t is a c r im e o f

v io le n c e o ra c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e o f f e n s e . S e e U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 ( a ) . T h e p r o v is io n e n h a n c e s th e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

th e in s ta n t o f

f e n s e , in ac cordance w i th a t abl e co n tain ed i n the se ct i on , and t he cr i m i nal hi st ory c at egory to a c a te g o ry V I . S e e U .S .S .G . § 4 B 1 .1 ( b ) . T here i s no q uest i on , and t he part i es do no tar gu e oth er w ise, thatthe di stri ct co u rt c o r r e c tly cal cu l at ed th e S en t en ci n g G u i d el i n e ran g e o f 2 1 0 t o 2 6 2 m o n th s’ i mp r i s o n me nt , a f

t e rap p l i c a t i o n o f

§ 4 B1 . 1 ’ s e n h a n c e me n tp r o v i s i o n . Th e PSI s ta te d th a t V a z q u e z w a s c o n v ic te d o f tw o f e lo n y d ru g o f

f e n s e s in 1 9 9 1 a n d , in 19 96 , he w as co n v icted o f the rape of a chi l d, a f el on i ou s c ri m e of vi ol ence . B e c a u s e V a z q u e z f

a c e d a s ta tu to ry m a x im u m o f 4 0 y e a r s im p r is o n m e n t o n h is10

curr e ntdrug of

f e ns e , the c ou r tpr op e r l y s c or e d h i s of f e ns e l e ve l a t34 , w hi c h w as r e duc e d t o a 32 a f

t e rf a c t or i ng i n a 2- l e ve l r e duc t i on f or h i s a c c e pt a nc e of re spon si bi l i ty, and cl as si fi ed hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory a s aca t eg o ry V I. T he courtthen c o rr e c tl y a n n o u n c e d th a t it “e s tab lis h e d a g u id e lin e r a n g e o f 2 1 0 to 2 6 2 m o n th s .” T h e r e m a in d e ro f

th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g w a s d e v o te d to a s c e r ta i n i n g a r e a s o n a b le s e n t e n c e a n d i ti s th a twh i c h we n o w r e v i e w. R e g a r d l e s s o f w h e th e rth e c o u r t im p o s e d as e n te n c e w ith in th e c o rr e c tly ca l cul at ed se nt enci ng ra ng e, w e nextconsi der w hether the se nt ence i s r ea sonabl e. A a r on W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d a t1360. T he pa r ty c ha l l e ngi ng the s e nt en ce ha s the bur de n of

pr ovi ng the s e nt en ce u n re a s ona bl e . I d. a t1361. A s e nt e nc e c a n be deem ed un re as on abl e bec ause of th e p roce du re used t o d er i ve the se nt ence ( p r o c e d u r a l u n r e a s o n a b le n e s s ) o rb e c a u s e th e le n g th o f th e s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n a b le ( s u b s ta n tiv e u n r e a s o n a b le n e s s ) . I d . a t 1 3 6 1 - 6 3 . A s e n te n c e is r e a s o n a b le if

it a c h i e v e s t h e p u rp o s e s o f s e n te n c in g a s s ta te d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 35 53 (a ). Id. T h at prov i si on re qu i re s thatthe di stri ctcourt“ shal l i m po se a s ent ence suff i ci ent , bu tno tgrea t erthan n ec es sa ry ” “ t o ref l ec tthe se ri ou snes s of the offens e, to p r o m o te r e s p e c t f

o rth e la w , a n d to p r o v id e ju s t p u n i s h m e n t f o rth e o f f e n s e ,” “to a f f or d a de qua t e de t e rr e nc e t o c r i m i na l c onduc t , ” a nd “ t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c f r om fu rth er cri m es o f th e d efen d an t . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A - C ). T h e co u rtal so11

m a y c ons i de r“ the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt , ” “ the ki nds of sent e nc e s a va i l a bl e , ” the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne r a nge , a nd “ the ne e d t o a voi d unw a rr a nt e d s e nt e nc e di s pa r i t i e s a m ong d e f e n d a n ts w ith s im ila rr e c o r d s w h o h a v e b e e n f o u n d g u ilty o f s i m i l a rc o n d u c t.” 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1), (a )( 3), (a )( 4), (a )( 6).

“ T he r e a s on s gi ve n by the di s tr i c t c ou r t f or i t s s e l e c t i on of a s ent ence ar e i m por t a ntt o a s s e s s i ng r e a s ona bl e ne s s . ” A a r on W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d a t1361. I f the party c hal l engi ng the se nt ence as un re as on abl e dem on stra t es thatthe di stri ct c our t ’ s i m p os i t i on of

s e nt e nc e “ w a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y a f f e c t e d by i t s c ons i de r a t i on of im p e r m is s ib le f

a c to r s ,” w e w ill v a c a te th e s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d , u n le s s th e p a r ty de f e ndi ng the s e nt e nce ca n e s t a bl i s h tha tthe e rr ori s ha r m l e s s . I d. a t1361- 62. W he the ra f

a c t ori s i m pe rm i s s i bl e i s a m a tt e rof l a w tha ti s r e vi e w e d de novo. I d. at13 61 . W e w il l uph ol d a se nt ence as procedural l y r ea sonabl e w here w e a re c o n v in c e d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t im p o s e th e s e n te n c e “b a s e d s o le ly o n its di s a gr e e m e ntw i th the G ui de l i ne s , ” w hi c h i s one “ i m pe r m i s s i bl e f a c t or ” w e ha ve re cogn i ze d. U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F . 3d 1 35 0, 13 54 -55 (11 th C i r. 20 06 ), ( “M a r c u s W illia m s ” ) . I n the i ns t a ntcase, the di s tr i c tc our tbe ga n i t s § 3553( a ) a na l y s i s w i th a di s c us s i on of

how the c a r e e r - of

f e nde re nha nc e m e ntc r e at es a “ qua ntum l e ap i n the12

g u id e lin e c a lc u la tio n ” th a t d o e s n o t a c c u r a te ly ap p ly to “a ll p e o p le in a ll c i r c um s t a nc e s . ” A c c or di ngl y , the c our te xpl a i ne d tha tthe pr ovi s i on “ c a nnot ope r a t e r e a l i s t i c a l l y o n a h u m a n l e ve l ” a nd l e a ds the c our t“ a s tr a y ” a ts e nt e nc i ng. T hese vi ew s perm ea t e the court ’ s s ub se qu entdi sc ussi on o f th e § 35 53 (a ) se nt enci ng fa ct ors. T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned t hatthe ca re er -off ender enhancem entdi d n otadequat el y c on si der V az qu ez ’ s c ri m i nal h ist ory, then d is c r e d ite d th e p r e d ic a te o f f e n s e s b a s e d o n th e irr e m o te n e s s a n d th e ir char ac t er i st i cs . W i th regard t o the tw o d rug fel on i es , the courtst at ed thatthey c oul d be c ons i de r e d a s one of f e ns e be c a us e the y w e r e sen t en ce d c onc urr e nt l y . T he courtci t ed no autho ri ty for i t s tre atm entof the tw o p ri or drug fe l on y c on vi ct i on s a s on e . The c ou r t a l s o r e a s on e d tha t a l tho ug h the s t a tut ory r ape of f e nse w as “r e p r e h e n s ib le ,” it “w a s n o t a c r im e o f v io le n c e , u n le s s th a t’s h o w y o u w a n t to defi ne i t . ” T hi s r easo n in g w as i n d i re ctconfl i ctw i th o ur prece denton the i ss ue -- w e r ec ent l y def

i ned st atut ory r ape, even i f “ consensual , ” a s acr i m e of vi ol ence that qua l i fi e s t ow a r ds the c a r e e r - of f e nde re nha nc e m e nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. I vory , 475 F .3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . B as ed on i t s ow n p er so n al d isagre em entw i th the w ay thatthe ca re er of f e nde rpr ovi s i on s affected the i ns t a ntc a s e , a nd i t s de c i s i on t o tr e a tthe tw o pr i or drug f e l ony c onvi c t i ons a s one a nd the s t a tut or y r ape c onvi c t i on as n o t a cri m e of13

vi ol e nc e , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tth e n p r o c e e d e d t o d e t e r mi n e w h a tth e s e n t e n c i n g r a nge w o u ld b e if

th e c a r e e r - o f

f e n d e rp r o v is io n d id n o t ap p ly . T h e c o u r t a rr iv e d a t a s e n te n c e o f

1 1 0 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t, w h ic h w a s “a t th e lo w e n d o f w h a t w o u ld be the no n-enhanced gu i del i ne, j usti n t erm s of r ef er ence as to h o w the [ c] ou rt arri ved atthat. . . se nt ence . ” T h e c o u r t’s d is a g r e e m e n t w ith th e e f f e c t o f th e c a r e e r - o f

f e n d e rp r o v i s io n in thi s c a s e i m bue d the e nt i r e s e nt e nc i ng h eari n g , a nd w e r e a di l y c onc l ude tha tthe c o u r t’s d is a g r e e m e n t w ith th e G u id e lin e s , a n im p e r m is s ib le f a c to r , “s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c t e d” i t s s e nt e nc i ng c a l c ul us . A a r on W i l l i a m s , 456 F . 3d a t1361- 62. I n A a r on W i l l i a ms , w e va c a t e d a nd r e ma nd e d abe l ow - G ui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e tha tw a s ba se d on s i m i l a rdi s a gr e e m e ntw i th the e f f e c tof the c a r e e r - of

f e nde rpr ovi s i on of

§ 4B 1. 1. In th atcase, th e d is tr ictco u rtsai d th atth e career-o ffen d er en h an cem en t“ i s a t o t al l y i napp ropri at e w ay t o con si der the i nd i vi du al nature of an offe nse or a d e f e n d a n t ’ s i n di v i d u a l b a c k g r o u n d ” a n d s a i d i tw a s n o tg o i n g t o s e n t e n c e W i l l i a ms a s a c a r e e ro f

f e n d e r . I n its s e n te n c in g m e m o r a n d u m , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a g a in e xpl a i ne d w h a ti tc ons i de r e d t o be the “ a rbi tr a ry c om poundi ng” e f f e c tof the c a r e e r - o f f e n d e re n h a n c e m e n t. I d . a t 1 3 6 9 .In § 944(h), Congress dire cted the SentencingCommi ssion to: 2 assurethat the guidelines specify a sentenc e to a term of imprisonment at or near the maximumterm

a uth orize d f

or cat egori es of

de fendantsin which th ede fendant i s eighteen year s old or older a nd- (1 ) h a s b e e n c onvic te d o f a fe lony tha t is - (A) a crime of violence; or (B ) a n of fens e de sc ribe d in se c tio n 40 1 of the Controll e d Sub sta nc e s A c t ( 21 U. S.C. 841) . . . ; and (2 ) h a s p revious ly

be e n c onvic te d o f t

woor moreprior

fe lonie s, e a c h o f which is - (A) a crime of violence; or (B ) an of fens e de sc ribe d in se c tio n 40 1 of the Controll e d Su bs tanc e s A c t ( 21 U. S.C. 841). . . . 28 U.S.C. § 994(h). 14 S e c tio n 4 B 1 .1 e m b o d ie s C o n g r e s s io n a l p o lic y , r e f le c te d in 2 8 U .S .C . § 99 4(h), “ thatre peatdrug offe nd er s r ec ei ve se nt ence s ‘ at or near’ the enhanced

2 st atut ory m axi m um s s etou ti n [28 U . S . C . ] § 8 4 1 (b ).” I d. T hi s C on gres si on al go al

- - t o t arg e ts pe c i f

i c r e c i di vi s t s , pa r t i c ul a r l y r e pe a tdrug of f e nde r s a nd vi ol e nt cri m i n al s -- cl earl y i s i m p l i cat ed h ere, as th ere i s l i tt l e q u est i o n th atV azq u ez i s a re ci di vi st , w i thi n the m ea ni ng of 28 U . S . C . § 9 94 (h), and there fore § 4 B 1. 1 a p p li es t o h i m . O n thi s r ec ord, the go vernm enthas m eti t s burden t o p rove thatthe di stri ct c o u r t’s im p o s itio n o f

s e n t e n c e w a s “s u b s ta n tia lly a f f e c te d ” b y a n im p e r m is s ib le fact o r, th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d i sag reem en tw i th th e G u i d el i n es.15

M or e ove r , V a z que z ha s nots how n tha t t h e d i str i c tc our t ’ s e rr one ous co n si d erat i o n o f i t s d is ag reem en tw i th th e career-o ffen d er p ro v i si o n w as h arm l ess. T he courtdi d n ototh er w i se re as on abl y j ust i fy i t s s ent ence , w hi ch vari ed d o w n w a r d s f

r o m th e s e n te n c in g r a n g e b y a p e r io d o f 1 0 0 m o n th s a n d w a s b a s e d , in part , on o ther i m perm i ss i bl e f ac t ors. T he ot her f

ac t ors thatthe courtconsi dere d w er e th e r em o ten es s o f V az q u e z ’s p rio r f elo n ies, th e c o u rt’s b elief th at V az q u ez ’s tw o p ri or drug conv i ct i on s s ho ul d cou ntas on l y one, the court ’ s bel i ef that V az qu ez ’ s st aut ory rape conv i ct i on w as no t a cr i m e of vi ol ence , an d th at V az qu ez w as engaged i n a d rug con spi ra cy thati nv ol ved a si ng l e obj ec t i ve ra ther than an ongoi ng c ons pi r a c y . V a z que z e ve n a dm i tt e d tha the ha d n o t pa r t i c i pa t e d i n a ny “c o m m u n ity d e e d s ” th a t w a rr a n te d m itig a tio n . A lth o u g h th e c o u r t e x p r e s s e d its bel i ef thatthe st atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um w ou l d suffi ci ent l y det ersuch cond uct , and t hata s en t ence “ i n the hu nd re d-pl us ra ng e” w as “ i n exces s of w hat [ w a ] s ne c e s s a ry t o de t e rthi s ty pe of cri m i n al c onduc t , ” i tw a s onl y c ons i de r i ng a s e n te n c e in th a t r a n g e b e c a u s e it f e lt th a t a r e a s o n a b le s e n te n c e in th is c a s e w o u ld b e o n e n o t e n h a n c e d b y th e c a r e e r - o f f e n d e rp r o v is io n . T h e g o v e rn m e n t h a s m e t its bur de n t o s how tha tV a z que z ’ s s e nt e nc e i s pr oc e dur a l l y unr e a s ona bl e due t o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s us e of

a fa ul ty pr oc e dur e t o f a s hi on V a z que z ’ s s e nt e nc e . A a r onBe causewe have found pro ce dura l unrea sonablene ss, we nee d not, and do not, reach the 3 g overnment’s alternative argument, that the sentenc e also wa s substantively unrea sonable. F or purp os e s o f t

here -s e ntenc ing he aring , we ob serv ethat th edis tric t c ourt mus t st art

wi th t hec or re c tly calculated advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e of 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment. In consideration of the § 3553(a) fac tors, the cour t may impose a higher or

lower sentence , with the cave at that a sentence constituting an “ extraordinary reduc tion” from the Guide line rang e s hould be supported by “extraordinar

y circumstances.”United States v. McVa y, 447 F.3d 1348, 1357 ( 11th Cir. 2006). A district court has discret i o n re gardingthe weight to be g iven any one sentencingfac tor, however, “this Court will remand for resentencing if we are left with thedefinite a nd firm conviction that the district court committed a clea r error of judgment in weighing the§ 3553(a) fac tors by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the rang e of reasona ble sentenc es dictate d by th e facts of the ca se.” United States v. Clay , 483 F.3d 739, 746 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 16 W i l l i am s, 45 6 F . 3d at13 61 . A cc o rd in g l y, w e vac at e a nd re m and for re- 3 s e nt e nc i ng c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. S E NT E NC E V AC AT E D A ND RE MAND E D.