T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * (c o n tin u e d ...) 

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

### January26,200 7 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- 5018 v . (N .D . o f O k la .) DA VI D A LAN W ESTCOTT,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

____________________________ ( D. C. No . CR - 0 2 - 1 2 0 - 0 2 - E A)

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- 5019 v . (N .D . o f O k la .) CH AR L E S AR NOL D M OOK,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

____________________________ ( D. C. No . CR - 0 2 - 1 2 0 - 0 4 - E A)

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- 5026 v . (N .D . o f O k la .) M OR GAN E AR L WI NDR I X,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . CR - 0 2 - 1 2 0 - 0 1 - E A)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *( . . . cont i nued) * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 ( eff. D ec. 1 , 2 0 0 6 ) an d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 . 1 (eff. Jan . 1 , 2 0 0 7 ). A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. -2- B efo re , HA RTZ , EBEL , and T YMKOV I CH , C i rcui tJudg es. ** D efe ndant s - A ppel l ant s M or gan Ear l W i ndr i x, C har l es A rnol d M ook, and Da v i d Al a n W e s t c o t ta p p e a l t h e i rs e n t e n c e s fo rt h e i rr o l e s i n a n Ok l a h o ma m etha m p h etam ine ring . A ll three w ere co n v ict ed o f c o n sp ir ing to m an u fa cture and di s t r i but e met hamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 846, and of p o ss e ss in g e q u ip m e n t an d c h e m ica ls fo r th e m a n u fa c tu re o f m e th a m p h e tam in e in vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 843( a) ( 6) . W i ndr i x w as fur therconvi ct ed of pos s es s i ng m ethamphet ami ne w i t h t he i nt entt o di s tr i but e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 843, and mai nt ai ni ng a drug hous e i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 856( a) ( 1) and ( b) . M ook w as addi t i onal l yconvi ct ed of be i ng a fe l on i n pos s es s i on of a f i r earm i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( a) ( 2) . T hes e cons ol i dat ed appe al s fol l ow r esen tenc ing . A p p ell an ts’ firstsen tenc es w ere o v erturn ed fo r error u n d er Uni t edT he s ubs t ance ofal l t hr ee A ppel l ant s ’ cr i m i nal i t y i s det ai l ed i n W i ndr ix I , 1 a n d w ill n o t b e re p e a te d h e re . See 4 0 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 4 8

– 5 2 . -3- Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). S e e Un itedS ta tes v . Win drix , 405 F. 3d 1 1 4 6 (10 C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( Wi ndr ix I).

th 1 W e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on under21 U . S. C . § 1291, and A FFIRM t he di s tr i ct c o u rt. I . Backg r ound I n Wi ndr ix I, w e vac at ed ea ch A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence t o al l ow forr es ent enci ng underan advi s or yG ui del i nes s cheme cons i s t entw i th B ooker . I n doi ng s o, w e voi ced c oncern w i t h t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s attr i but i on of ac tual m ethamphet ami ne t o al l t hr ee A ppel l ant s , not i ng thatw i thoutl abor at or yt es t i ng, an assu m p ti o n that all the m etha m p h etam ine w as p u re m ayb e m ist ak en . In acc or dance w i t h ourr emand, t he di s tr i ctcourtr es ent ence d eac h A ppel l antde n o v o . E a c h A p p e lla n t c h a lle n g e s th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f h is n e w s e n te n c e . W es t cot tand M ook eac h m ake f ur therchal l enges r egar di ng the drug quant i t i es at t r i but ed t o t hem and t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s m andat e on r e- s ent enci ng. W e r evi ew t he fa ct s r el evantt o eac h A ppel l ant ’ s s ent ence . A . W in d r ix W ind ri x w as o ri g inallysen tenc ed to li fe in p ri so n u n d er the then m an d atory G ui del i nes . H e w as found t o be ac count abl e for1. 927 ki l ogr ams of ac tual-4-

m etha m p h etam ine w h ich p rov ided a b ase o ffen se lev el of 3 8 . T h e d istri ct co u rt ad d ed tw o leve ls fo r W ind ri x ’s po sses sion o f a firearm . F o u r m o re lev els w ere added forhi s l eade r s hi p r ol e i n t he cons pi r acy , w hi ch pl ace d hi s offe ns e l evel at 43, t he maxi m um . C om bi ned w i th W i ndr i x’ s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryI , the G u id e lin e s p re s c ri b e d life im p ri s o n m e n t. O n rem and , t he d i stri ctcou rtat tri bu t ed d rug qu anti t i es t o W i nd ri x in excess of thos e found byt he j ur y , fi ndi ng W i ndr i x acc ount abl e for8. 85 ki l ogr ams of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne. T hi s s ethi s bas e offens e l evel at36 bas ed on the di ffe r ence betw een the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ng of “a ctual ” met hamphet ami ne ver s us t he court ’ s “s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng” fi ndi ng. W i th the fi r earm and le a d e rs h ip e n h a n c e m e n ts W in d ri x ’s o ffe n s e le v e l w a s th e re fo re re d u c e d to 4 2 . C om bi ned w i t h hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I , the G ui del i nes r ecomm ended 3 6 0 m o n th s to life im p ri s o n m e n t. E x p lic itly ta k in g th e fa c to rs u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) i nt o acc ount , t he courts ent ence d W i ndr i x t o 360 m onths forthe cons pi r acyand equi pm entconvi ct i ons , 120 m onths forthe equi pm entconvi ct i on, and 240 mont hs forpos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, w i th the s ent ence s t o run c o n c u r r e n t l y. B . W estc o tt W es t cottw as or i gi nal l ys ent ence d t o 360 m onths i n pr i s on, t he mi ni m um a v a ilab le u n d e r th e th e n m a n d a to ryG u id e lin e s. H e w a s fo u n d to b e a c c o u n tab le-5-

for 1. 92 7 k i l og ram s of actual m et ham ph et am i ne w hich provided a b ase offen se l evel of 38. C om bi ned w i t h W es t cott ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof V , the G ui del i nes pr es cr i bed 360 mont hs t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . A tr e- s ent enci ng, not i ng o u r co n ce rn w ith the a ttri b u ti o n o f a ctua l m etha m p h etam ine a b sen t l ab o ratory t es t s t he courthel d W es t cottacc ount abl e for8. 845 ki l ogr ams of a s ubs t ance c o n tain in g m e th a m p h e tam in e . T h is s e t h is b a se o ffe n se lev e l at 3 6 . W ith W e stc o tt’s c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f V , the G u id e lin e s re c o m m e n d e d 2 9 2 to 3 6 5 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. E x p lic itly ta k in g th e fa c to rs u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) i nt o acc ount , t he courts ent ence d W es t cottt o 292 m onths : 240 m onths fo r th e c o n sp ir ac yan d eq u ipm en t con v ict ion s, an d 5 2 m o n ths fo r th e fir ea rm c o u n t. C . M ook M ook w as or i gi nal l ys ent ence d t o 360 m onths i n pr i s on, al s o the mi ni m um a v a ilab le u n d e r th e th e n m a n d a to ryG u id e lin e s. H e w a s fo u n d to b e a c c o u n tab le for 1. 84 kil og ram s of actual m et ham ph et am i ne w hich provided a b ase offen se l evel of 38. T he di s t r i ctcour tadded tw o l evel s forM ook’ s pos s es s i on of a fi r earm w hi ch l efthi s offe ns e l evel at40. C om bi ned w i th M ook’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I , t he G ui del i nes pr es cr i bed 360 mont hs t o l i fe im p ri s o n m e n t.-6-

A tr e- s ent enci ng, t he courthel d M ook acc ount abl e for5. 4 ki l ogr ams of a s u b s ta n c e c o n ta in in g m e th a m p h e ta m in e . T h is s e t h is b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l a t 3 6 . W i t h t he fi r earm enhanc ementand M ook’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I , the G ui del i nes r ecomm ended 292 t o 365 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . E xpl i ci t l yt aki ng t he fac t or s under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) i nt o acc ount , the courts ent ence d M ook t o 292 m ont hs : 240 m ont hs fort he cons pi r acyand equi pm entconvi ct i ons , and 52 mont hs fo r th e fire a rm c o u n t. I I . D i s cus s i on In re ac h ing all three A p p ell an ts’ sec o n d sen tenc es, th e d istri ct co u rt at t r i but ed drug quant i t i es t o t hem i n exce s s of thos e found byt he j ury . A tr es ent enci ng, W es t cottand M ook obj ect ed t o the new s ent ence , ar gui ng thatt he cour tcoul d notl egal l yhol d t hem account abl e form or e then 50 gr ams of m ethamphet ami ne or500 gr ams of a mi xtur e bec aus e the j uryhad ac qui t t ed them of ch arges al l eging t heydis t ri bu t ed m ore than t hese am ou nts of d rugs. T heyal so ar gued thatt he l aw of the ca s e pr ecl uded the di s tr i ctcourtfr om r eca l cul at i ng t he w ei ghtof the met hamphet ami ne attr i but abl e t o them atr e- s ent enci ng. T hey argued t hat al l ow i ng t he d i stri ctcou rtt o recal culat e t he d rug w ei gh tw ou l d cau se B ookert o oper at e i n a mannert hatvi ol at es ex pos tfac t o pr i nci pl es of the D ue P roc ess C laus e. A ll three A p p ell an ts co n tend ed their sen tenc es w ere u n rea so n ab le un d er B ooker .-7-

W e a d d re ss th e sa m e a rg u m e n ts o n a p p e a l. A . Scope ofD i s t ri ct C ourt A ut hori t y t o C al cul at e D rug Q uanti t y on R e m and W es t cott ’ s and M ook’ s fi r s tt w o cont ent i ons on appea l conce rn the di s t r i ct cou rt ’s cal culat i on of the drug q uan t i tyat tri bu t able t o them . E ach m ai ntai ns fi rs t t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tcoul d nothol d hi m r es pons i bl e form or e met hamphet ami ne t han the j ur ydi d. A l t ernat i vel y , theyar gue thatt he di s tr i ctcourtw as bound by t he law of the case t o ad here t o it s cal culat i on of d rug w ei gh tused in the fir st s e n te n c in g b e c a u s e th is c o u rt d id n o t g ra n t a m a n d a te fo r d e n o v o re -s e n te n c in g . 1. Impactof

Jur y Verdi ct W es t cott ’ s and M ook’ s ar gum entt hatt he di s tr i ctcourtcoul d notcons i der fa cts co n tr aryto the juryv erd ictat re-sen tenc ing is fo rec lose d b yo u r ca selaw . In Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal l anez , w e hel d thata s ent enci ng cour thas br oad di s cr et i on t o cons i deri nform at i on r egar di ng a defendant ’ s conduct , even c onductt hat confl i ct s w i t h a j ur yver di ct . 408 F. 3d 672, 684–85 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . T he hol di ng of Magal l anezi s bas ed on the di ffe r ents t andar ds of pr oof thatappl yat tr ia l a n d a t s e n te n c in g . A t tr ia l, g u ilt is d e te rm in e d b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id . at 68 4 . “[ E ]ve n af ter Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 (20 0 5 )[], s ent enci ng cour t s det erm i ne r el evantfac t s bas ed on a pr eponder ance s t andar d. ” Id. a t 6 8 5 . M o s t o th e r c ir c u its a g re e . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. Valdez , 453 F. 3d 2 5 2 , 2 6 4 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Vaughn , 4 3 0 F . 3 d 5 1 8 , 5 2 7 (2d C ir .-8-

2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 4 1 8 F . 3 d 7 7 1 , 7 8 8 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e the refo re r ej ectt he ar gum entt hatt he s ent enci ng j udge coul d nothol d W es t cottand M ook a c c o u n tab le fo r m o re m e th a m p h e tam in e th a n th e ju ryfo u n d w a s a ttribu tab le to th e m a t tr ia l. 2. L aw of the C ase W estco ttan d M o o k also co n tend that the d istri ct co u rtco u ld n o t dep art fro m it s d eterm ination that 1 . 9 2 7 an d 1 . 8 4 k il o g ram s o f m etha m p h etam ine w ere attri b u table to th em , resp ec ti v ely . In d o ing so , theyall o w that the d istri ct co u rt coul d det erm i ne thatt he es t abl i s hed w ei ght s w er e of a s ubs t ance cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne and notpur e met hamphet ami ne. T heyi ns i s t , how ever , thatt he t ot al w ei ghtatt r i but abl e t o eac h m us tr emai n unchange d beca us e thi s cour tdi d not g ra n t a m a n d a te to re c o n sid e r th e to tal w e ig h t o f ill e g a l su b sta n c e s a ttribu tab le to th e m . If W e stc o tt an d M o o k a re c o rre c t, th e d istric t co u rt w e n t b e y o n d its a u th o rityw h e n it sim u ltan e o u slyfo u n d th a t W e stc o tt an d M o o k w e re re sp o n sib le fora mi xtur e and notpur e met hamphet ami ne and thatthe t ot al amount of the m ix tu re a ttr ib u ta b le to e a c h w a s 8 .8 4 5 a n d 5 .4 k ilo g ra m s , re s p e c tiv e ly. A s a g e n e ra l m a tte r, r e -s e n te n c in g o n re m a n d is d o n e d e n o v o . Uni t ed Stat es v. Kei

f er , 1 9 8 F .3 d 7 9 8 , 8 0 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). W e m a y , h o w e v e r, li m it d is tr ic t c o u rt d is c re tio n o n re m a n d p u rs u a n t to th e m a n d a te ru le . Id. T h is ru le r equi r es t he di s t r i ctcour tt o exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on i n conform i tyw i th theT he m andat e r ul e i s a r el at i ve oft he l aw oft he ca s e doctr i ne, w hi ch 2 W es t cot tci t es . T hi s doctr i ne r equi r es t hatfi ndi ngs m ade a tone poi nti n l i t i gat i on m a y n o t b e c o n te s te d a t a la te r s ta g e , e x c e p t u n d e r l im ite d c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Uni t ed Stat es v. Webb , 9 8 F .3 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). -9- a p p e lla te c o u rt ’s re m a n d . Uni t ed Stat es v. Hi cks , 1 4 6 F . 3 d 1 1 9 8 , 1 2 0 0 (10 th C ir . 1998) . O urcas el aw r equi r es t hatw e be s peci fi c i f w e i nt end t o l i m i ta di s tr i ct

2 c o u rt ’s d is c re tio n o n re m a n d fo r r e -s e n te n c in g . C ompar e Uni t ed Stat es v. Webb , 98 F. 3d 585, 587 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( panel gi ves di r ect i on t o r es ent ence defe ndant w ith in ran g e o f 2 7 to 3 3 m o n ths) w ith Un itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 912 F. 2d 1210, 1 2 1 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( p ro v id in g fo r g e n e ra l r e m a n d ). O urr emand i n t hi s cas e w as nots o s peci fi c. W e s i m pl y“s etas i de D efe ndant s ’ s ent ence s and r emand forr es ent enci ng. ” Wi ndr ix I, 405 F. 3d at 1158. I ti s t rue thatw e ur ged the di s tr i ctcourtt o “not e a c oncern r egar di ng the det erm i nat i on of the pur i t yof the met hamphet ami ne pr epar ed byD efe ndant s . ” Id . T h is la n g u a g e , h o w e v e r, d id n o t li m it th e d istric t co u rt’s d isc re tio n , b u t ex p licitly advi s ed i tt o cons i derus i ng i t s br oad di s cr et i on t o r evi s i ti t s ear l i erfi ndi ng r egar di ng drug pur i t y . T hatw e i nvi t ed a r eca l cul at i on of drug pur i tydoes not l ead t o t he conc l us i on t hatw e for ecl os ed anynew t hi nki ng r egar di ng the drug amount . W e ther efor e r ej ectt he ar gum entt hatt he di s tr i ctcourtw as r equi r ed byW e n o te th e F ifth C irc u it h a s re c e n tly a rticu late d a d iffe re n t ap p ro a c h to 3 th e m a n d a te ru le . See U nit ed S tates v. P i neiro , 470 F. 3d 200 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hatw i t houtexpl i ci tm andat e, a di s tr i ctcour t ’ s author i t y on r em and for re-sen tenc ing d id n o t i n clud e a u tho ri ty to rec alcu lat e a p p li ca b le ad v isory G ui del i nes r ange) . Suffi ce i tt o s ay thatourpr ece dentfor ecl os es s uch an appr oach. W e s i m i l ar l y r ej ectW i ndr i x’ s ar gum entt hatt he di s tr i ctcour tcoul d not 4 c o n s id e r u n c h a rg e d c o n d u c t in d e te rm in in g h is s e n te n c e . “[W ] hen a tr i al j udge (c o n tin u e d ...) -10- t he l aw of the ca s e ort he mandat e rul e t o conform t o i t s ear l i ercal cul at i on of drug w ei ght . R e- s ent enci ng foral l thr ee A ppel l ant s w as appr opr i at el yde novo. 3 B . E x P o st F a cto A l l t hr ee A ppel l ant s cont end thatt he r emedi al hol di ng of B ookervi ol at es e x p o st fa c to p rin c ip les o f th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e C o n stitu tio n . T h is a rg u m e n t is sim ilarlyfo re c lo se d b yo u r p re c e d e n t. W e first h e ld th a t B ookerdoes notrun afoul of ex pos tfac t o pr i nci pl es i n Uni t ed Stat es v. R i nes , 419 F. 3d 1104, 1 1 0 6

– 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e re c e n tlye x p lain e d th e re a so n in g b e h in d th is ru le in Uni t ed Stat es v. P or t i l l o- Q uez ada , 4 6 9 F .3 d 1 3 4 5 , 1 3 5 4

– 5 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n s hor t , not hi ng i n B ookeral t er ed the s t atut orym axi m um s ent ence s t o w hi ch W in d rix , W e stc o tt an d M o o k w e re su bjec t fo r th e ir c rim in a l co n d u c t. T h e ir exp osure t o p un i shm ent w as therefore un chan ged byre- sent encing an d ex po st fa c to p ri n c ip le s a re n o t im p lic a te d o n re m a n d . See i d. W e ar e thus unper s uaded byt he ar gum entt hatt he s ent ence s vi ol at e ex pos tfac t o pr i nci pl es of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 exer ci s es hi s di s cr et i on t o s el ecta s peci fi c s ent ence w i thi n a def i ned r ange, the d e fe n d a n th a s n o r i g h tt o a j u r yd e t e r mi n a t i o n o f th e fa c t s th a tth e j u d g e d e e ms r el evant . ” B ooker , 543 U . S. at233. I n ourcas es i nt erpr et i ng B ooker , w e have re p e a ted lyre c o g n ize d th a t se n ten c e e n h a n c e m e n ts d o n o t v io late th e S ix th A m en d m en t w h ere the s en tenc ing co u rtap p li es th e G u idelines in an ad v isory fa s h io n . Un itedS ta tes v . B u sta m a n te , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. D al t on , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 5 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal l anez , 4 0 8 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Law r ence , 405 F. 3d 888, 890 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . I n l i ghtof thes e hol di ngs , W i ndr i x has no r i ght to a ju ryd e ter m in a tio n o f th e fa c ts th e trial ju d g e d e e m s re lev a n t in a rriv in g a t h is s e n te n c e , s o lo n g a s th a t s e n te n c e is re a s o n a b le . -11- C . D ru g Q u a n ti ty A ttribu tab le to W estc o tt W e stc o tt co n ten d s th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t p re se n t su fficie n t ev id e n c e to al l ow t he di s t r i ctcour tt o att r i but e 8. 845 ki l ogr ams of a mi xtur e cont ai ni ng m et ham ph et am i ne to hi m . U nd er the ad vis oryG uidel i nes, t he g ov ernm ent m ust pr ove, bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t hatdrug quant i t i es forw hi ch a par t i ci panti n a drug cons pi r acyi s hel d r es pons i bl e w er e “r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e” to h im . See U SSG § 1B 1. 3( A ) ( 1) ( B ) . I n det erm i ni ng the w ei ghtof drugs i nvol ved i n a drug cons pi r acy , t he di s tr i ctcourtm ayr el yon es t i m at es s uppor t ed b yth e fa c ts o f

th e c a s e w h e n a c tu a l d ru g s a re n o t s e iz e d . United S tates v. R uiz C astro , 92 F. 3d 1519, 1534 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) . T hes e es t i m at es can be pr ovi ded by th e te s tim o n yo f

w itn e s s e s a n d c o -c o n s p ir a to rs . Id . W e re v iew the d istri ct co u rt ’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s re g a rd in g d ru g q u a n titie s fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n .-12-

W es t cottm ai nt ai ns t hatm os tof the 8. 845 ki l ogr ams of met hamphet ami ne w a s n o t re a so n a b lyfo re se e a b le to h im b e c a u se u n lik e h is c o -d e fe n d a n ts, h e d id n o t li v e in th e tra iler w h e re th e m e th a m p h e tam in e w a s m a n u fa c tu re d . W e stc o tt argues t hat tri al t est i m on yshow ed o nlythat he w ou l d arr i ve af t er m ost m ethamphet ami ne “c ooks ” and c l ean the equi pm entus ed t o m ake the drugs s o as t o us e the r emai ni ng “s cr aps ” t o s at i s fyhi s ow n drug habi t . H e conc edes that t r i al t es t i m onyal s o s how ed thathe br oke dow n i ngr edi ent s form ethamphet ami ne s eve r alt i m es , butcont ends t hatthi s m eans he di d notpart i ci pat e i n a llthe m anufa ctur i ng s es s i ons dur i ng t he l i fe of the cons pi r acyas found bythe di s tr i ct c o u rt. W e di s agr ee. T he di s t r i ctcourtarr i ved atthe 8. 845 ki l ogr ams byr evi ew i ng avai l abl e t es t i m onyand att r i but i ng t o W es t cottthe amountof m ethamphet ami ne m anufa ctur ed byt he cons pi r acydur i ng the per i od W es t cottpart i ci pat ed i n i t . T he d istric t co u rt d id n o t co m m it cle a r e rro r in a ttribu tin g th e se a m o u n ts to W e stc o tt even i f hi s r ol e w as pr i m ar i l yt o cl ean up the equi pm entaft era manufactur i ng s es s i on. O t herevi dence es t abl i s hed know i ng part i ci pat i on i n m anufa ctur i ng the m e th a m p h e ta m in e , its p re p a ra tio n a s w e ll a s th e re la te d c le a n u p a n d d is p o s a l. D . B oo k er R eason ab l en ess F in a lly, a ll th re e A p p e lla n ts a rg u e th a t th e irs e n te n c e s a re u n re a s o n a b le . W e r evi ew s ent ence s forr eas onabl enes s i n l i ghtof the fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18W es t cot tal one ar gues t hathi s s ent ence w as i m pr oper l ycal cul at ed under 5 th e G u id e lin e s b e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt a ttribu ted m o re m e th a m p h e tam in e to h im t han he c oul d have r eas onabl yfor es een. B eca us e w e hol d W es t cottcoul d have r eas onabl yfor es een that8. 845 ki l ogr ams of met hamphet ami ne w er e manufactur ed b yh is c o -c o n sp ira to rs, w e a lso h o ld h is s e n ten c e to h a v e b e e n p ro p e rly cal cul at ed. -13- U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a). Uni t ed Stat es v. G al arz a- P ayan , 4 4 1 F . 3 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A p ro p e rlyc a lcu late d G u id e lin e se n ten c e is “ e n tit led to a re b u ttab le pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s . ” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 437 F. 3d 1050, 1054 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( percur i am). I n eval uat i ng a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s cal cul at i on of the appl i cabl e G ui del i ne r ange, w e r evi ew i t s fac tual concl us i ons forcl earerr orand its le g a l c o n c lu s io n s d e n o v o . Id. W in d rix , W e stc o tt an d M o o k w e re p ro p e rlyse n ten c e d w ith in th e a p p lica b le G u i d e l i n e r a n g e . T h e i rs e n t e n c e s a r e t h e r e fo r e p r e s u m p t i v e l yr e a s o n a b l e . We 5 a d d re s s th e re a s o n a b le n e s s o f e a c h A p p e lla n t’ s s e n te n c e in tu rn . 1 . Win drix W in d rix a rg u e s th a t Kris tlruns afoul of B ookerand B lakel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296 ( 2004) . A l t hough w e di s agr ee w i th hi s pr emi s e, even i f w e found th e a rg u m e n t p e rs u a s iv e , w e a re b o u n d b yo u r p re c e d e n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. Meyers , 200 F. 3d 715, 720 ( 10t h C i r . 2000) ( not i ng thatone pane l m aynot o v e rr u le a n o th e r p a n e l) .-14-

T he fa ctof the mat t eri s t hatW i ndr i x cannotr ebutthe pr es um pt i on of r e a s o n a b l e n e s s . Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o n s i d e r e d th e r e l e v a n tfa c t o r s u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) i n arr i vi ng ata 360- m ont h s ent ence . T hatW i ndr i x does notl i ke the out come of t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s w ei ghi ng of the § 3553( a) fac t or s does notr ender t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s ent ence unr eas onabl e. B eca us e W i ndr i x advanc es no ar gum enton appea l as t o w hyt he pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s s houl d be r ebut t ed, w e conc l ude hi s s ent ence i s r eas onabl e. E ven w i thoutthe pr es um pt i on, w e ar e unper s uaded thatr eas onabl enes s r equi r es ourr econs i der at i on of the s ent ence . 2 . We stc o tt W e stc o tt co n ten d s h is s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e c o u rt fa iled to gr anthi m ei t herm i nor - par t i ci pants t atus pur s uantt o U SSG § 3B 1. 2 ora nonG ui del i ne s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . H e ar gues thathi s s ent ence s houl d be r educe d becaus e he ( 1) part i ci pat ed i n the cons pi r acynotforfi nanci al g a in , b u t to f

u e l h is o w n d ru g h a b it, a n d (2 ) h a s tw o y o u n g so n s in n e e d o f h is su p p o rt. H e c ites c a se s in w h ich a p p e llate c o u rts, in c lu d in g o u rs, h a v e u p h e ld b e lo w -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s in s im ila r fa c tu a l s itu a tio n s . Puts i m pl y , t he di s t r i ctcourtexpl i ci t l ycons i der ed the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s , i ncl udi ng § 3553( a) ( 1) w hi ch mandat es the courtt ake i nt o acc ount“the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e and the hi s t oryand cha r act er i s t i cs of the-15-

o ffe n d e r” a n d d e ter m in e d th a t a n o n -G u id e lin e se n ten c e w a s n o t ap p ro p ria te to W es t cot t . W e w i l l nots econd gue s s the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on agai ns ta nonG ui del i ne s ent ence w her e the pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s has notbeen re b u tted o r w h e re th e se n ten c e ’s r e a so n a b len e ss h a s n o t b e e n se rio u sly q u e stio n e d . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t W e stc o tt’s se n ten c e is re a so n a b le w ith orw i t houtt he Kris tl pr es um pt i on. 3. Mook M o o k c o n ten d s h is s e n ten c e is u n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e c o u rt fa iled to gr anthi m a non- G ui del i ne s ent ence under18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . H e ar gued at s ent enci ng and r e- s ent enci ng t hathi s s ent ence s houl d be r educe d beca us e he i s ( 1) a drug addi ct , ( 2) s o ol d t hathi s 292- m onth s ent ence w i l l l eave hi m i n pr i s on u n til n e a r h is 7 0 th b ir th d a y , a n d (3 ) s ic k a n d th e re fo re n o t s u ite d to p ri s o n life . T he di s t r i ctcourtexpl i ci t l ycons i der ed the r el evant§ 3553( a) fac t or s , i ncl udi ng § 3553( a) ( 1) . W e w i l l notqui bbl e w i th the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on agai ns ta nonG ui del i ne s ent ence abs entcompel l i ng r eas ons . A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude that M ook’ s s ent ence i s r eas onabl e r egar dl es s of ourm andat e t o appl ya pr es um pt i on of reasonab l eness t o G uidel i ne sentences.-16- I I I . C oncl usi on F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, w e A F F IR M th e d istric t C o u rt. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge