T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce 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 . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th 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 19, 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, N o. 07- 1091 v. D . C ol o. FERNA ND O PI NA - RO DR I GU EZ,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D . C. N o. 05 - CR - 43 8- PSF)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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.A departur e occ ur s “w hen a c our tr eac hes a s ent ence above orbel ow t he 1 r ecomm ended G ui del i nes r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of C hapt er s FourorFi ve of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . ” Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 4 7 6 F .3 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 1 , n .1 ( 10th C i r . 2007) . A var i ance occur s “w hen a c our tenhanc es ordetr act s fr om t he r ecomm ended r ange thr ough appl i cat i on of § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” Id. T h e 2 0 0 6 e d iti o n o f

th e U n ited S tate s S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s w a s u se d to 2 cal culat e P i na-R od ri gu ez’s gu i deli ne rang e. P oli cyS t at em ent §5K 2. 20 al l ow s a dow nw ar d departur e “onl yi f the defendantcomm i t t ed a s i ngl e cr i m i nal occurr ence or. . . tr ans act i on thatw as ( 1) comm i t t ed w i thouts i gni fi cant pl anni ng; ( 2) w as of l i m i t ed dur at i on; and ( 3) r epr es ent s a mar ked devi at i on by th e d e fe n d a n t f

ro m a n o th e rw is e la w -a b id in g life .” -2- I . BA CKGROUND F ernand o P i na-R od ri gu ez pled gu i l tyt o a ch arge of co nspir acyt o p ossess , w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of c ocai ne i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S . C . § § 8 4 1 (a)(1) a n d 8 4 6 . P ri o r t o sen tenc ing , h e fil ed a m o ti o n fo r do w n w ard de pa r tur e . I n i t , he c l a i med h i s c r i mi na l be ha vi orw a s “ a be rr a nt ” un de rU SSG

1 §5 K 2. 20 . The go ve r nmen tthe n move d fora do w nwar d d e pa r tur e un de rU SSG

2 § 5 K 1 . 1 . In th at m o ti o n , the g o v ern m en t st ated itb eli ev ed d o w n w ard d ep arture w as appr opr i at e bec aus e of Pi na- R odr i guez’ s cooper at i on, butr ecomm ended a m o re lim ite d d e p a rt u re th a n h e re q u e s te d . A tsent encing, the d i stri ctcou rtdeterm i ned P i na-R od ri gu ez’s t otal offense l evel w as 29 and hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryw as I , r es ul t i ng i n a gui del i nes r ange of 87 t o 108 m onths . T he di s tr i ctcourtdeni ed Pi na- R odr i guez’ s m ot i on for dow nw ar d departur e ( on the bas i s of abe rr antbehavi or ) , butgr ant ed the g o v e rn m e n t’ s m o tio n fo r d o w n w a rd d e p a rt u re p u rs u a n t to U S S G § 5 K 1 .1-3-

( s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o author i t i es ) and s ent ence d hi m t o a t erm of 48 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , as t he governm entr ecomm ended. O n appea l Pi na- R odr i guez a r gues the di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n notdepart i ng d o w n w a rd to a g re a ter e x ten t. In a d d iti o n , h e a rg u e s th e se n ten c e is s u b sta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . A . E x tent o f D o w n w ard D ep arture P ina-R o d ri g u ez ’s co m p lai n t abo u t th e d eg ree to w h ich th e d istri ct co u rt depart ed mustbe di s m i s s ed forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. “Thi s courthas no j u r i s d i c t i o n . . . t o r e v i e w a d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s c r e t i o n a ry d e c i s i o n t o d e n y a m ot i on fordow nw ar d departur e on the gr ound thata defendant ’ s ci r cumst ance s do notw arr antthe depa r tur e. ” Un itedS ta tes v . S ier ra -C a stillo , 405 F. 3d 932, 936 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A n d that d id n o t cha n g e a fter Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 54 3 U. S. 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ). See Uni t ed Stat es v. F ons eca , 4 7 3 F . 3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). (“E v en af

ter B oo ker, th i s c o u r th a s n o j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a d i s tr i c tc o u r t 's di s cr et i onarydeci s i on t o denya mot i on fordow nw ar d departur e on the gr ound thata defendant ' s ci r cumst ance s do notw arr antthe depa r tur e. ”) . H er e, the di s tr i ctcourtcl ear l yunder s t ood i t s di s cr et i onaryauthor i tyt o departt o w hat ever ex tent itd eterm ined ap p rop ri ate u n d er the g u idelines , y et de cli n ed to d ep art f ur t her , as Pi na- R odr i guez ur ged. U nderthes e ci r cumst ance s , w e l ack ju ri s d ic tio n a n d d e c lin e to c o n s id e r t h e a rg u m e n t.P ina-R o d ri g u ez m ak es a n o b scu re refere n ce to the d istri ct co u rt ’s 3 o b li g ati o n to “f

u ll yex p lai n ” it s rea so n ing fo r th e se n tenc e im p o sed . (A p p ell an t’ s B r . at18. ) H ow ever , Pi na- R odr i guez di d notart i cul at e the ar gum entorpr ovi de anyl egal author i tyther efor . A ccor di ngl y , w e nee d notcons i dera pr ocedur al re a s o n a b le n e s s a rg u m e n t in th is c a s e . See Fuers chbach v . Southw es tA i r l i nes C o. , 4 3 9 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (A p p ell an t w aive d claim o n ap p ea l w h ere s he “ma[d] e no ar gum ent , ci t e[d] t o no author i ty , and di r ect [ed] us t o no evi dence s u p p o rt in g ” th e c la im .) -4- B . R eas onabl enes s of the Sent ence 3 W h e n re q u e s te d to d o s o , w e re v ie w s e n te n c e s fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Uni t ed S ta tes v . K ris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). H ad the d istri ct co u rt sent enced P i na-R od ri gu ez t o 1 08 m on ths ( i . e. , t he t op of the gui del i ne r ange) , t he s e n te n c e w o u ld h a v e b e e n p re s u m p tiv e ly re a s o n a b le . See i d. a t 1 0 5 4 ; Uni t ed S ta tes v . R ita , – U . S . – , 1 2 7 S . C t . 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 ( A c o u r to f a p p e a l s “ m a y a p p l y a pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s t o a di s tr i ctcourts ent ence t hatr efl ect s a pr oper a p p lic a tio n o f

th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s .” ), r eh’ g deni ed , __ S . C t . __ , 2 0 0 7 WL 2349931 ( 2007) . I ns t ead, and as r ecomm ended byt he governm ent , t he di s tr i ct courtdepart ed dow nw ar d a t ot al of 39 m onths bel ow t he bot t om of the gui del i ne r ange ( and 60 mont hs bel ow the t op of the gui del i ne r ange) . I taddr es s ed Pi naR odr i guez’ s ar gum ent s fora gr eat erdow nw ar d departur e and s t at ed i t s r eas ons forr efus i ng t he r eques t . T hats at i s fi ed the pr ocedur al componentof re a s o n a b le n e s s re v ie w . S e e R ita , 1 2 7 S .C t. at 2 4 6 5 ; Un itedS ta tes v . P ru itt , 2007 W L 2430125, *9 ( 10th C i r . 2007) ( “[The defendant ] does notchal l enge the d istri ct co u rt ' s ca lculati o n o f th e G u idelines ran g e, an d the d istri ct co u rt-5-

adequa t el yexpl ai ned i t s r eas ons fori m pos i ng the s ent ence i tdi d. T hus , w e fi nd n o p ro c e d u ra l e rr o r i n th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ' s d e c is io n .” ). P in a -R o d rig u e z ’s a rg u m e n ts u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa il. H is d e sc rip tio n o f

sy m p a th e tic c irc u m sta n c e s, in c lu d in g a h isto ryo f c o m m u n ity s ervi ce, a l ow cr i m i nal hi s t ory , and fa m i l yhar ds hi p due t o hi s curr ent i ncar cer at i on, w er e cons i der ed bythe di s tr i ctcour t . W e ar e nei therperm i t t ed nor i ncl i ned t o s ubs t i tut e ourj udgm entforthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s ful l yi nform ed dec i s i on and cons i der ed exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on. I n anyevent , he r ece i ved a s ent ence of a p p r o x i ma t e l yo n e - h a l f o f th e l o we re n d o f

th e g u i d e l i n e r a n g e . I n n o wa ya r e we pr epar ed t o s ays uch a s ent ence i s unr eas onabl yhar s h. A p p e llan t’s u n o p p o se d m o tio n fo r le a v e to file h is re p lyb rie f o u t o f tim e is GR ANT E D. AFF I RM ED . FOR TH E CO UR T: T err ence L . O ’ B r i en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge