T he ca s e i s unani m ous l yor der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent * pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) and 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### S e p t e m b e r 12, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court 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. RO NAL D DANI E L KE L L Y, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6284 ( D. C. No. CR- 0 3 - 2 6 1 - T) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es.

I n 2004, R onal d D ani el K el l yappea l ed hi s s ent ence r es ul t i ng fr om a pl ea of g u il tyto p o sses sion o f p seu d o ep h ed ri n e w ith inten t t o m an u fa cture m ethamphet ami ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( c) ( 1) . Fi ndi ng thatt he di s t r i ct courtcomm i t t ed noncons t i tut i onal B ookererr or , w e r emanded hi s cas e for r es ent enci ng. U ni t ed St at es v. K el l y , 159 F. A pp’ x 864 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . A tt heT he tr ans cr i ptfr om the M ay26, 2004, s ent enci ng hear i ng i s noti ncl uded 1 i n the r ecor d on appea l . T hus i n di s cus s i ng D anner ’ s t es t i m ony , w e r efe r (c o n tin u e d ...) - 2 - r es ent enci ng hear i ng, the di s tr i ctcour ti m pos ed the s ame se nt ence , and K el l ynow appea l s . E xer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e AF F I RM . O n D ece m ber30, 2003, K el l ypl eade d gui l tyt o pos s es s i on of ps eudoephe dr i ne w i th i nt entt o m anufa ctur e met hamphet ami ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( c) ( 1) . N othi ng i n the cha r gi ng document s , pl ea a gr eement , or p e tit io n to e n ter a g u iltyp lea in d ica ted th e q u a n tityo f p se u d o e p h e d rin e K e lly pos s es s ed atthe t i m e of hi s arr es t . K el l y ’ s Pr es ent ence R eport( “PSR ”) i ndi cat ed that he po sses sed 2.592 k i l og ram s of pseu do eph edri ne, res ult i ng i n a b ase offen se l e v e l o f 3 6 . A f t e ra th r e e p o i n ta dj u s t m e n tfo ra c c e p t a n c e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i ty, K el l y ’ s offe ns e l evel w as r educe d t o 33. W i th thr ee c r i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s fr om a p ri o r co n v ict ion fo r first -de g ree m u rde r, the P S R ca lculated a c ri m inal h ist o ry ca tego ryo f II. F o r an o ffen se lev el of 3 3 an d a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryo f II, th e re c o m m e n d e d G u id e lin e s ra n g e is 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. K e llyra ise d o bjec tio n s to th e P S R a n d , in p a rticu lar , co n tes ted th e q u a n tity of ps eudoephe dr i ne, cl ai m i ng thathe bel i eved he w as r ece i vi ng l es s t han one k il o g ram o f th e m etha m p h etam ine p rec u rsor. O n M ay2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , the d istri ct co u rt hear d t es t i m onyfr om O ffi cerM ark D anner , a t as k for ce offi cerw i th the D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s tr at i on ( “D E A ”) w ho w as i nvol ved i n K el l y ’ s arr es t , and concl uded thatthe quant i tyl i s t ed i n the PSR w as corr ect . T he courts ent ence d 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 excl us i vel yt o w hatw as r eport ed atthe A ugus t24, 2006, r es ent enci ng hear i ng, the tr ans cr i ptof w hi ch i s i ncl uded i n the r ecor d. M cK ee pl eade d gui l tyt o a s i ngl e t el ephone c ountand r ece i ved a s ent ence 2 o f 4 8 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t. - 3 - K e lly to 1 5 1 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t, w h ich se n ten c e K e llya p p e a led . W h ile h is appea l w as pendi ng, the Supr eme C our tdeci ded U ni t ed St at es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220 ( 2005) , and w e s ubs equent l yr emanded hi s cas e forr es ent enci ng for noncons t i tut i onal B ookererr or . K el l y , 159 F. A pp’ x at865. A tK el l y ’ s r es ent enci ng hear i ng, D annert es t i fi ed aga i n, s t at i ng thati n 2003 the D E A r ece i ved i nform at i on fr om a conf i dent i al i nform antt hatK el l yand K el l y ’ s co- defe ndant , D avi d M cK ee, w er e i nt er es t ed i n pur chas i ng a l ar ge 2 q u a n t i tyo f

p s e u d o e p h e d r i n e i n o r d e rt o ma n u fa c tu r e me th a mp h e t a mi n e . On O ct ober23, 2003, D anner , act i ng under cover , and the conf i dent i al i nform antm et w i th M cK ee t o di s cus s a pos s i bl e dea l . M cK ee t ol d them t hatK el l yw as an acc om pl i s hed met hamphet ami ne “c ook” w ho coul d pr oduce hi gh y i el ds of m e th a m p h e tam in e if

D a n n e r a n d th e in fo rm a n t su p p lied h im w ith ps eudoephe dr i ne. T heyarr anged a notherm eet i ng w i th M cK ee a nd K el l yfor N ovember17, 2003. A tthatm eet i ng, D annert ol d K el l yt hathe coul d pr ovi de fi ve ca s es of ps eudoephe dr i ne, w i th eac h cas e cons i s t i ng of 144 bot t l es , and ea ch bot t l e cont ai ni ng 60 t abl et s w ei ghi ng 60 m i l l i gr ams. I n r es pons e, K el l ycl ai m ed he coul d pr oduce tw o and one- hal f ki l ogr ams of methamphet ami ne fr om t hatK el l ycont es t ed the quant i tyof ps eudoephe dr i ne i n the PSR , r eques t ed a 3 m i norpart i ci pantadj us t m ent , and ar gued thathe s houl d notr ece i ve thr ee c r i m i nal h isto ryp o in ts b e c a u se h is m u rd e r c o n v ictio n fe ll o u tsid e o f th e 1 5 -y e a r a p p lica b le ti m e p eriod set i n U . S . S . G . § 4 A 1 . 2 (e)(1). In B o o k e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt “ re a ffirm [ e d ] [ th e ] h o ld in g in A p p re n d i: 4 A nyfac t( otherthan a pr i orconvi ct i on) w hi ch i s nece s s aryt o s uppor ta s ent ence exce edi ng t he maxi m um author i zed byt he fa ct s es t abl i s hed bya pl ea of gui l tyor a j uryver di ctm us tbe admi t t ed byt he defendantorpr oved t o a j ur ybey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” 543 U . S. at244. - 4 - a m o u n t o f p se u d o e p h e d rin e . A fe w m in u tes late r, D a n n e r b ro u g h t th e c a se s to K el l y , w her eupon K el l yw as arr es t ed. K el l yr ai s ed s ever al ar gum ent s att he r es ent enci ng hear i ng, s om e of w hi ch re itera ted h is o bjec tio n s to th e P S R . D e ter m in in g th a t th e c a se law o f th is c irc u it 3 di r ect l ycontr ol l ed mostof thes e i s s ues , and fi ndi ng thatt he evi dence pr es ent ed d id n o t su p p o rt K e lly ’s c laim s, th e d istric t co u rt rejec ted h is a rg u m e n ts a n d a g a in sent enced K el l yt o 1 51 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent. K el l yno w app eal s. K el l yas s ert s s i x ar gum ent s as t o w hyhe s houl d be r es ent ence d: ( 1) K el l y ’ s couns el ’ s s t at ementthatK el l yt houghthe w as r ece i vi ng a l es s eramount of ps eudoephe dr i ne does notcons t i tut e an a dm i s s i on byK el l yunderB ooker ; ( 2) 4 K el l y ’ s s ent ence w as unr eas onabl e bec aus e i tw as di s pr opor t i onat e t o the s ent ence r e c e i v e d b yh i s c o - d e fe n d a n t ; ( 3 ) I n d e n y i n g Ke l l y ’ s r e q u e s tfo ra b e l o wG uidel i nes sent ence, the sentenci ng cou rtfai l ed to adeq uatel yexp l ai n it s r easons; ( 4) D anner ’ s hear s ayt es t i m onyr egar di ng the conf i dent i al i nform antvi ol at ed K el l y ’ s Si xth A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ont at i on; ( 5) Fact s t hatenhanc e aW e not e thatK el l ydoes notchal l enge thi s appel l at e pr es um pt i on of 5 re a so n a b len e ss , w h ich w a s re c e n tlyu p h e ld in R ita v . U n ited S tate s, 1 2 7 S . C t. 2 4 5 6 (20 0 7 ). - 5 - s ent ence m us tbe pr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt ; and ( 6) W hen appl i ed r etr oact i vel y , K el l ys houl d r ece i ve the bene fi tof B ooker ’ s Si xth A m endment i n t e rp r e t a t i o n b u tn o tth e B o o k e rr e m e d y. W e r evi ew s ent enci ng deci s i ons forboth pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s i n l i ghtof the fa ct or s i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . U ni t ed St at es v. A ten c io , 4 7 6 F .3 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). M o re o v e r, w e a p p lya n a p p e llate pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence s . U ni t ed St at es v. 5 G e in e r, _

__ F .3 d ___ , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 3 5 8 6 7 8 , a t * 2 (1 0 th C ir . A u g . 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 ). B e c a u se a ll o f

th e iss u e s ra ise d b yK e llya re c o n tro lled b ye sta b lish e d c irc u it p rec ed en t and the d o ctri n e o f law o f th e c ase , an d b ec au se th e d istri ct co u rt pr oper l ycons i der ed the fa ct or s i n § 3553( a) , w e det erm i ne thatK el l y ’ s s ent ence i s r eas onabl e. In K ell y ’s firstap p ea l befo re this co u rt , w e h eld th at his co u n sel’s st at em ent r egardi ng the q uan t i tyof p seudo eph edri ne thathe int end ed to possess cons t i tut ed an a dm i s s i on on K el l y ’ s behal f, ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B uonocor e, 416 F. 3d 1124, 1134 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . K el l y , 159 F. A pp’ x at868 n. 4. U ndert he law o f th e c ase d o ctri n e, ou r pre v iou s d ec isi o n s o n a ru le of law sh o u ld g o v ern the s ame i s s ues i n l at ers t ages of the s ame cas e. R ohrbaugh v. C el ot ex C orp. , 53 F. 3d 1181, 1183 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( “[W ] hen a c as e i s appea l ed and r emanded, t heK el l yur ges us t o adoptthe pos i t i on advoca t ed byJ udge Seym ouri n her 6 concurr ence i n B uonocor e, 416 F. 3d at1137- 38, t hatcouns el ’ s s t at ement s ar e not a d m iss io n s fo r S ix th A m e n d m e n t p u rp o se s. T h is p a n e l, ho w e v e r, ca n n o t o v e rru le the maj or i tyhol di ng of anotherpanel of thi s court . See I n r e Sm i th, 10 F. 3d 723, 7 2 4 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) (pe r cu ri am ). - 6 - d e c isio n o f

th e a p p e llate c o u rt e sta b lish e s th e law o f th e c a se a n d o rd in a rilyw ill be fol l ow ed byboth the tr i al cour ton r emand and t he appe l l at e courti n any s u b s e q u e n t a p p e a l.” ). A lth o u g h th is d o c tr in e is n o t a n “ in e x o ra b le c o m m a n d ,” Pi t t s bur gh C ountyR ur al W at erD i s t . N o. 7 v. C i tyof M cA l es t er , 358 F. 3d 694, 711 ( 10th C i r . 2004) , w e det erm i ne thatthe rul e i n B uonocor e appl i es t o thi s i s s ue a n d th u s c o u n s e l ’ s s t a t e m e n tc o n s t i tu t e s a n a d m i s s i o n o n b e h a l f o f K e l l y. 6 A s t o K el l y ’ s s econd a r gum ent , a di s par i tyi n s ent ence s betw een c odefe ndant s does notpr ovi de a ba s i s forr el i ef. See U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 437 F. 3d 989, 997 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W i th r es pectt o hi s t hi r d ar gum ent , w hen a di s tr i ctcourti m pos es a w i thi n- G ui del i nes s ent ence , 18 U . S. C . § 3553( c) r equi r es onl ythatt he courtpr ovi de a ge ner al s t at ementof “the r eas ons fori t s i m pos i t i on of the part i cul ars ent ence . ” § 3553( c) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R ui z- T err aza s , 477 F. 3d 1196, 1199 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . I n R i t a v. U ni t ed St at es , t he defendantr eques t ed a se n ten c e b e lo w th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e , w h ich th e d istric t co u rt d e n ied . 1 2 7 S . C t. at2469. I n uphol di ng the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on, t he Supr eme C our tnot ed that th e d is tr ic t ju d g e “ lis te n e d to e a c h a rg u m e n t [ m a d e b yth e d e fe n d a n t] ,” “cons i der ed the s uppor t i ng evi dence , ” and c oncl uded thatt he G ui del i nes r ange w as “not‘ i nappr opr i at e’ ” and a s ent ence att he bot t om of the r ange w asK e lly a s s e rt s th a t th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s n o t a d d re s s e d th is is s u e h e a d o n . 7 T hi s ar gum ent , how ever , does notm ean thatt hi s panel m ayoverrul e M agal l anez , see In re S m ith , 1 0 F . 3 d at 72 4 , an d w e a lso n o te th at th e C o u rtd en ied c erti o rari in tha t case . S ee M ag all an ez v . U n it ed S tat es, 54 6 U . S . 9 5 5 (20 0 5 ). - 7 - “ a p p ro p ria te.” Id . T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t “[ w ]h e re a m a tter is a s c o n c e p tu a lly s i m pl e as i n the ca s e athand and the r ecor d m akes cl earthatthe s ent enci ng j udge cons i der ed the evi dence and ar gum ent s , w e do notbel i eve the l aw r equi r es the ju d g e to w rite m o re e x ten siv e ly .” Id . In th e p re se n t ca se , K e lly , sp e a k in g o n h is o w n b eh alf a t th e re sen tenc ing h ea ri n g , p rese n ted re aso n s as to w h ya d o w n w ard dep arture w as w arr anted i n his case. T he d i stri ctcou rtl i st ened t o h i s ar gu m ents , butconcl uded, w i th r efe r ence t o the § 3553( a) fac t or s , t hata s ent ence of 151 m o n ths’ im p ri so n m en t w as a p p rop ri ate. G iven that the d istri ct co u rt ’s e x p lan a tio n o f

its d e c isio n c o n tain e d m o re d e tail th a n th a t w h ich th e C o u rt u p h e ld in R ita, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s e x p lan a tio n w a s s u fficie n t. In U n it ed S tat es v . B u stam an te, 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 2 0 0 , 1 2 0 2 -03 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), w e h e ld th a t a s e n ten c in g c o u rt’s r e lian c e o n h e a rsa ytes tim o n yd o e s n o t v io late th e d e fe n d a n t’ s S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts , a n d th u s K e lly’s fo u rt h a rg u m e n t fa ils . I n r es pons e t o hi s fi fth ar gum ent , w e have pr evi ous l yhel d thatdrug quant i tym ay be pr oven bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , U ni t ed St at es v. M agal l anez , 408 F .3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 4 -8 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), a d e c isio n w h ich w e c ited in ru lin g o n th is s ame i s s ue i n K el l y ’ s fi r s tappea l . See K el l y , 159 F. A pp’ x at868. I n addi t i on, 7- 8 -

w e det erm i ne thatt he di s tr i ctcour tdi d notcomm i tcl earerr ori n fi ndi ng t hatthe e v id e n c e s u p p o rt e d th e q u a n tity o f p s e u d o e p h e d ri n e a ttr ib u te d to K e lly. F inally , K ell yarg u es th at be ca u se h is cri m e w as c o m m itted b efo re B o o k er, the B ookerr emedym aki ng the G ui del i nes advi s or ycannotbe appl i ed retroact i velyt o h i s case w i tho ut vi olat i ng his F i ft h A m end m ent due p rocess r i ght s . K el l yas s ert s , how ever , thathe i s ent i t l ed t o the bene fi tof the B ooker hol di ng, thatfac t s affect i ng hi s s ent ence m us tbe admi t t ed byhi m orpr oved b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. In h is p re v io u s a p p e a l, w e h e ld th a t th is a rg u m e n t is w i thoutm er i ti n l i ghtof ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. R i nes , 419 F. 3d 1104, 11 06 (10t h C i r. 20 05 ). W e again con cl ud e t hat this argum ent i s m eri t l ess. A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM th e se n ten c in g d e c isio n o f th e d istric t co u rt. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge