## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

____________ N o. 07

- 3236 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. K ENDEL W. M C K INNEY, D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ Appeal from the United S tates District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 4:0 7-CR-40 01 8-JPG

—J. Phil Gilbert, Judg e.

____________ A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 27, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 11, 2008

____________
Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, C hie f Judg e, a nd P OSNERa nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. K endel M cK i nney i s no st ra nger to the pe na l system

. He h as thr ee dr ugc o nv i ct i o ns a nd o ne c o nv i ct i o n f o r ag g r av at ed r o bb er y , pl us ni ne pe ndi ng charg es i n sta te cour t a nd twenty- one tr affi c vi ol at ion s. Altho ug h h e was se nt en ce d t o e i g hty ea r s i n pr i so n o n o ne ofhi s drug convi cti ons, he s er ve d 18 m onths i n a “ boo t cam p ” p rogram before he fou nd him self facing th e cu r-2 N o. 07

- 3236

r e n t f e d e r a l c h a r g e s f o r d i s t r ib u t i o n o f c r a c k c o c a i ne . As th e Gov er nm en t ti r el es sl y po i nt s o ut, b y the t i m e he f aced sentenci ng in thi s case, M cK i nney had acc um ula ted tw i ce the num ber of convi cti ons he needed f orca re er cr i m i na l s ta tu s

— and he did i t a l l by the age o f24

. O n A p r i l 1 2 , 2 0 0 7, Mc K i n n e y p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o t wo c o un t s o fc r a c kdi s t r ib ut i o n i n v i o l a t i on of21 U. S

. C. § § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) & 8 4 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C )

. R e l y i n g on t h e r a p s h e e twe ha ve j us t su m m ar i ze d, the pr es en te nc e r epo r t ( PS R) concl ud ed that M c K i nney was a car eero f f ender subj ect to a s en te nc e enha nc ementunde r U. S

. S

. G. § 4B1

. 1. Ta k i ng i nto acco unt a downw ar d adj ustm ent for acce ptance o f re sponsibi l i ty, the PSR r eco m m ended a Guidel i nes ra nge o f18 8 t o 235 m onths. A t th e sentencing hea ri ng, the Gover nm ent i ntro du ced i nto evi dence a DV D d epi cti ng o ne o fthe vehi cl e chas es i nvol vi ng M cK i nney that had been reco rded on the pol i ce ca r ’ s vi deo c amer a. The video sho ws tha t when th e offi cersi gnal e d tha tMcKinn e ys houl d pu l l o ver, M cK i nney i ns t e a d d r o v e thr o ugh a n e i g hb o r ’ s y a r d, j us tmi s si ng a tree stum p, zo o m ed th r o ug h a r es i den ti al ar ea, r ana s t o p s i g n, a n d p u l l e d i nt o h i s mo t h e r ’ s d r i v e wa y . He th en fled on foo t, w ith th e po lice in p u rs u it, w h ile f a m ily m em ber s r em ove d i tem s fro m hi s ca r. M cK i nney di d not have m uch to sa y f o r hi m se l f when th e di st r i ctcou rt in vit ed h im to sp ea k: h e s aid on ly “ I n e v er kn ew it w ou ld co m e t o t h is.” I n p r o n o u n c i n g i t s s e n t e n c e , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tc o mmen t e d that ev e r y s i ng l e f a c t o r me nt i o ne d i n 1 8 U. S

. C. § 355 3( a) “ ca l l s f o r a l en g th y i nc ar ce r at i o n t o pr o te cttheN o. 07

- 3236 3 p u b lic.” T h e c ou rtad d r e s se d so m e o f th e a rg u m en ts in m itig at ion th at M c K in n ey h ad offe re d , i n c lu d in g h is cl ai m thathe ha s a l ear ni ng di sabi l i ty, but i t f ound that thi s di d not e xcuse M cK i nney’ s be havi or. The di str i ct cou rt then inv oked i ts d iscretion un d er U ni t e d S t at e s v. B o o k er, 543 U. S

. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 ) , a nd U nite d State s v. R it a , 12 7 S. C t. 2456 ( 2007 ), an d w e nt w ellbeyon d the ad visory Gu i de l i ne s r a ng e o f1 8 8 t o 2 3 5 mon t hs , c ho o s i ng i ns t e a d a sente nce o f29 3 m onths. Bef or e thi s co urt, M cK i nney c h a l l e n g e s o n l y h i s s e n t e n c e ; w e a f fi r m. M cK i nney r eco gni zes thathe m ust per suade us that hi s fi na l s en te nce w as unr ea so nabl e. The o nl y r ea so n h e off er s i n sup p or t o fsuch a fi nd i ng i s that the di str i ct c ou rtd id n ot p ro vid e a n ad eq u at e jus tific at i o n for h ow it ar ri ved ati ts “upw ar d d ep ar ture
. ” The use o fpre - B o o k er, pre- R it a vo c ab u lar y g ive s a w ay th e g am e: M c K in n ey is ove rlook ing the di scr eti on that di str i ct c ourt s no w posse ss to choos e a sentence outsi de the appli cabl e Guidel i nes r ange. I f th e G uid eli ne s are prop erly calcu late d , this cou rt re vi ew s a cr i m i nal se ntence f orr eas onabl eness . Rita , 12 7 S. Ct. at24 59. M cK i nney r ai ses no speci fi c o b j ec tio n to th e cal cul at i o n o r a ppl i ca ti o n o fhi s se nt en ce , o nl y t o the failu re of th e d ist ric t cou rt to ex p lain m or e fully w h y it ch ose 293 m ont hs

. A lthou gh neith er K im bro ug h v. U nited S t a tes, 128 S. C t. 558 (2007 ), nor G a ll v. U nited Sta tes, 128 S. Ct. 58 6 ( 2007 ) , had b een hand ed dow n as of the d ate whe n M c Ki nn e y fi l e d h i s o pe ni ngb r i e f, the y p r o v i de th e s ta rt in g p o i n t fo r ou r re so lu tio n of th is a p p ea l. In Kim b r ough, th e C ou rt held that tri al courts w ere p er-4 N o. 07

- 3236

m i tt ed to de vi at e f r o m the 1 00

- o ne r at i o be twe enc r ac ka nd p ow d er co c ain e s en te n c es , 128 S.C t. at 57 3-7 4. T h is flex ibi l i tyi s o fno u se to M cKi nne y , ho wev er, b ec au se the ra ti o l ose s i ts i m port ance i fthe defe n d an t is sentence d as a ca re ero f f ender, as M cK i nney w as . I nd eed, co unsel c on c ed ed th at th e c ra c k/ p ow d er rat io d id n ot p lay a ro le i n McKi nne y ’ s se nt en ce f o r tha t r ea so n. G all has m or e be ar i ng o n M cK i nney’ s ca se. I t s ai d that “a d i s t r i c tj u d g e mu s tg i v e s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o the extent ofany departure fro m the Gu i del in es a n d m ust expla i n hi s co ncl usi on that a n unusuall y l eni ent o r an unu sual l y har sh s en tence i s a pp ro pri ate i n a par ti cul ar ca se wi ths uffi ci en t j us ti fi ca ti o ns . ” 12 8 S

. Ct. at 59 4. Butthe Court rej ecte d any r i gi d rul e that would r equi re a dir ect r e l a t i o n b e t we e n th e d e g r e e o fv a r i a n c e fr o m th e r e c o mm e n d e d Gu i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e a n d t h e t h o r o u g h n e s s o ft he j udg e’ s ex pl an at i o n: I n r e v i e wi ngthe r e a s o nab l e ne s s o fa s e n t e n c e o ut s i de th e G uid eli ne s range , ap p ell ate cou rts m ay th erefore tak e the degr ee ofvar i ance into acco unt an d consi der t h e e x t e n to fa d e v i a t i o n fr o m th e G u i d e l i ne s . We r ej ec t, ho wev er, a n a ppel l at e r ul e t ha t r equi r es “ ex tr aord in ar y” ci rcum sta nces to j usti fy a se ntence outside the G uid eli ne s ra n g e . W e a lso r ej ect th e use of a ri gi d m athem ati calf or m ula t h at uses the per centag e o fa de par tu r e as the s ta nda r d f o r de te r m i ni ngthe st re n gt h of th e jus tific at ion s r e q u ire d for a sp ec ific sente nce. Id. at59 4- 95. T a k i n g th e s e t wo p a s s a g e s fr o m G all t o g e t h e r, we deduc e th atwe m ust s i m pl y s at i sfy o ur se l ve s th attheN o. 07

- 3236 5 dist ri ct c ourt( 1) cal cul ate d the advis or y G uidel i nes r ange cor re ctl y ( som ething that i s no t i n dis pu te here ) , ( 2) ga ve se r i o us c o ns i der at i o n t o s en te nc es b oth w i th i n a nd o ut si de th atr ec o m m en ded r an g e, a nd ( 3) e xpl ai ne d why i t s el ecte d “an unu sual l y l eni ent o r unu sual l y har sh se nt en ce , ” i fi t di d s o . The Co urtdi d no t ch an g e th e rul e that we have follo w ed si nce B o o k er, under wh i ch “the f ac t th atthe di st r i ct cou rtdi d no t es tabl i sha pr ec ise l i nkb et wee n the de g r ee o fthe de par tu r e an d the str ucture ofthe Gu i del i nes, as was re quir ed pre- B o o k er, i s n ot a b as is f o r d ist u rb in g t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s s en te n c e.” U nite d State s v. Va ll e, 45 8 F

. 3d 652, 65 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ; se e al so U nited Sta tes v. C a stro-Ju a rez , 425 F.3d 430 , 436 (7th C ir. 2005 ) ( “A ll t h at i s nec ess ar y no w to sust ai n a s entence ab o ve the g ui del i ne ra ng e i s ana dequa te s ta te m en t o fthe j ud ge’ s r eas ons, consi ste nt w i th se cti on 3 553( a) , f orthi nki ng the se ntence that he has sel ecte d i s indeed appropr i ate f orthe parti cul ar def endant. ”)

. Ratherthan speaki n g o f each m ar gi nal m onth o vero r und erthe Gu i del i nes r ange, G all spe ak s o nl y o f “the deg r ee o f va r i an ce ” an d “ th e ex ten t o f a d eviation.” W e a re n o long er i n a w orld w he re the di str i ct c ourt s m ust j u sti fy e ach m ar gi nal m onth o ver th e G uid eli ne s; o u r r e view f or reasona blene ss goes forw ar d w i th a gr eat erf ocus on the fi nal se ntence chose n and the qual i ty ofthe j usti fi cati on f ori t. Se en in t h is ligh t, th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e x p lan at ion is ad eq u a t e. T h e c ou rtco n sid er ed bo th se n te n c es w ith in th e adv i so r y Gui del i ne s r an g e an d s en te nc es o ut si de th e ra n ge , an d it ex p lain ed w h y it th ou gh t t h at a sig n ifica n tly ha rshe r sente nc e w as ne ed ed for som eon e w ith as d ep lorab l e a r e c o r d a s McKi nn e y . T he di s t r i c tc o ur te xp l a i ne d6 N o. 07

- 3236 th at M cK inn ey’s history d id n ot bod e w ellf or his fut ure p ro sp ec ts , an d th at th e pu b lic w ou ld b e safe r w i t h h im offthe str eet s. I n the end, i t co nclu d ed t hat i t “ [ w a] s no t sure that[ M cK i nney was] ev erg oin g t o be abl e t o adj ust to the r ule s a nd l aw s o fso ci ety
. ” The di str i ct c ourtthen ex p licit l y f ou n d th at a w ith in -G u id elin es se n te n c e w ou ld not suf fi ce t o pu ni sh M cK i nney a n d d ete r future cri m es. Tha t was e no ug h un derb o th G all a nd B o o k er. W e fi nd nothi ng unreas onabl e i n the sente nce th e d istr i ct c ourtchos e for M cK i nney. A s G all c o n fi r me d , we ca nno t puta “ th um b o n the s ca l e f av o r i nga g ui del i ne s e nt e nce, ” U nited Sta tes v. Sa ch senm a ier, 49 1 F

. 3d 680, 68 5 ( 7th Ci r . 20 07 ) , by re qui r i ngtha t di st r i ctc o ur ts s en te nc i ng abov e the r ange gi ve m or e o r b ett err eas ons than tho se se nt en ci ngwi th i n the ran g e. The s en te nc e he r e fi ts the crim e, an d i s the refore A FFI RMED
.

9- 11- 08