FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 17, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 13426 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 3 - 2 0 8 7 9 - CR - J EM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s R O B E R T B R E H M , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 17, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: R obe r tL y m a n B r e hm appe a l s hi s 120- m onth s e nt e nc e f ori m por t i ng a nd po ss es si ng heroi n w i th i nt entt o d i stri bu t e. T he appeal re qu i re s us t o con si der543 U.S. 220, 125 S. C t. 738 (2005) 1 2 w h e th e rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e te rm in in g th a t B r e h m f a ile d to pr ovi de af

a i ra nd j us tr e a s on f

orw i thdr a w i ng hi s pl e a . I ta l s o pr e s e nt s a n i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on a s t o w he the rthe S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r r e nde r e d the e l i gi bi l i ty r e qui r e m e nt s f ors a f e ty - va l ve r e l i e f

unde r18 1 U . S . C . 3 5 5 3 (f), U . S . S . G § § 5 C 1 . 2 & 4 A 1 . 1 , ad v i so ry o r o th erw i se p erm i tt ed co u rt s di s c r e t i on a s t o the i m pos i t i on of m a nda t ory m i ni m um s e nt e nc e s . W e f i nd no error i n the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on and h ol d thatB oo ker di d n otgrantsuch d i s c r e t i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D B r e hm w a s i ndi c t e d on tw o c ount s : ( 1) i m por t a t i on of he r oi n, i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 952( a ) a nd ( 2) pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e he r oi n, i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (a )( 1). D uri ng pretri al di sc ov ery, B re hm subm i tt ed no t i ce that he i nt e nde d t o i ntr oduc e e xpe r te vi de nc e r e l a t i ng t o am e nt a l di s e a s e orde f e c tor other m ent al cond i t i on bear i ng on the i ss ue of hi s gui l t . T he go vernm entre qu es t ed tha tB r e hm s ubm i tt o aps y c hi a tr i c e xa m i na t i on a nd the c our ts o or de r e d. T he 12 A pr i l 2004 r e por ton the e xa m i na t i on s t a t e d tha tB r e hm “ c l e a r l y [ m e t ] the di a gnos t i c c r i t e r i af

orS c hi z ophr e ni a . ” R 1- 25 A tt a c hm e nta t8. I tc l a r i f i e d, h o w e v e r , th a t ( 1 ) B r e h m ’s a lc o h o l, m a r iju a n a , a n d h e r o in u s e e x a c e rb a te d h is3

m e nt a l i l l ne s s by c a us i ng s i gni f i c a ntpa r a noi a( 2) tha tdur i ng the e xa m i na t i on, B r e h m f u n c tio n e d a d e q u a te ly d e s p ite r e c e iv in g n o tr e a tm e n t f o rh is p s y c h o tic illn e s s ; a n d ( 3 ) if

B r e h m r o u tin e ly r e c e iv e d a n ti- p s y c h o tic m e d ic a tio n , h e w o u ld l i kel y r ea l i ze a s i gn i fi ca ntdecr ea se i n p sy chot i c s ym pt om s, i ncl ud i ng decr ea se d a udi t ory ha l l uc i na t i ons a nd i m pr ove d a tt e nt i on a nd c onc e ntr a t i on; buttha t( 4) succ es sf ul tre atm entof B re hm ’ s psy chot i c i l l ness re qu i re d com pl et e abst i nence f r o m ille g a l d ru g s a n d a lc o h o l. I d . a t 9 - 1 0 . B re hm ’ s c om pet ence t o st and tri al w as al so as se ss ed by w ayof an i nt ervi ew desi gn ed t o eval uat e a n i nd i vi du al ’ s abi l i ty t o art i cul at e und er st andi ng of the nature a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s o f

c r im in a l c h a r g e s a n d c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s , a s w e ll a s th e ab ility t o ass i stcoun se l i n a defens e. In the course of thi s e xam i nat i on , B re hm st at ed that he un ders t oo d h i s c urre ntcr i m i nal char ges a nd corr ec t l y i dent i fi ed them as fe l on i es . Id. at10 . H e a l so un ders t oo d the m eani ng of prob at i on and, w i th regard t o g u i l ty p l eas: M r . B r e h m k n e w a n d u n d e r s to o d th e p le a s o f “g u ilty ,” “n o t g u ilty ,” and “ no tgu i l ty by r ea son o f i nsani ty. ” H e i nd i ca t ed [he] w as no tsure ho w he pl anned t o p l ea d i n rel at i on t o the curre ntca se and thathe w as goi ng t o t a l k w i th hi s a tt orne y aboutthi s i s s ue . H e i ndi c a t e d he “ m i ght ” pl e a d notgui l ty by r e a s on of i ns a ni ty i f

a dvi s e d t o do s o by hi s a tt orney, tho ug h h e w ou l d h ave t o thi nk abou ti t . A l tho ug h M r. B re hm w as no tent i re l y s ure w hata pl eabargai n w as , thi s i ss ue w as d is c u s s e d w ith h im a n d h e w a s ab le to d e s c r ib e it a s “p le a d in g g u ilty i n e xc ha nge f

orl e s s e rc ha r ge s ” w he n a s ke d abouti tdur i ng as e c ond i nt e rvi e w oc c urr i ng one w e e k l a t e r . T he de f e nda ntc ont i nue d t o ha ve4

s om e di f f i c ul ty r e c a l l i ng w ha tr i ght s w e r e gi ve n up w he n a c c e pt i ng a p le ab a r g a in , th o u g h h e u n d e r s to o d th is is s u e w h e n it w a s e x p la in e d to h im . M r . B r e h m in d ic a te d h e w o u ld c o n s id e ra c c e p tin g ap le ab a r g a in i f one w er e off

er ed t o h i m i n the curr entca se . I d. a t11. B r e hm w a s f

ound t o unde r s t a nd the r ol e s of the pr os e c ut i ng a tt orne y , the de f e ns e a tt orne y , a nd the j udge a nd w a s abl e t o a r t i c ul a t e a n unde r s t a ndi ng of approp ri at e c ou rtroom behavi or and t o d i sc uss c ou rtroom procedure. Id. E ven th o u g h B r e h m h a d tr o u b l e i n s e v e r a l a r e a s d u r i n g th e i n i t i a l c o m p e t e n c y i n t e rv i e w, i ncl ud i ng desc ri bi ng the rol e of w i tness es , w hether or nothe w as re qu i re d t o t es t i fy i n h i s ow n cas e, w hatt o d o i f he di sa gree d w i th h i s a tt orney, the defi ni t i on of a pl eabargai n, and w hatt o d o i f w i tness es l i ed abou thi m , these i ss ues w er e di s c us s e d a nd he f

ound t o ha ve r e t a i ne d the i nf orm a t i on ga i ne d f

r om the di s c us s i ons s e ve r a l da y s l a t e r . I d. a t11- 12. B ecau se B reh m co n t i n u ed t o ex p eri en ce d i ffi cu l ty w i th cert ai n areas, ho w ever , such as the ri gh t s r el i nq ui shed w hen acce pt i ng a pl eabargai n, he l at er u n d er w en t an o th erco m p eten cy ex am in atio n d es ig n ed to as se ss a d ef en d an t’ s c apa c i ty t o unde r s t a nd a nd r e a s on l e ga l i s s ue s thr ough que s t i ons aboutthe p r o s e c u tio n o f

ah y p o th e tic a l d e f

e n d a n t. H is c o m p e te n c y to s ta n d tr ia l f e ll w ith in the “ M i ni m al /N o i m pai rm entra ng e. ” I d. at12 . T he exam i ner c on cl ud ed that

“ B r e hm ha [ d] age ne r a l l y good unde r s t a ndi ng of the na tur e a nd c ons e que nc e s of th e c r im in a l c h a r g e s a n d o f th e c o u r t p r o c e e d in g s . H e [ w a s ] w illin g to w o rk w ithTh ee xaminer f ur ther explaine d this l a c k o f mo ti vat ion a s a “ long -s tandingpers on ality 2 characteristic . . . as evidenc ed by [Brehm’s] repe ated trua ncy from school a

nd lack of

motivation to attempt employ

ment.” Id. at 12. 5 h is a tto rn e y , b u t la c k [ e d ] m o tiv a tio n in r e la tio n to th e o u tc o m e o f h is c a s e .” I d .

2 T h e r e p o r t a ls o c a u tio n e d th a t B r e h m ’s m e n ta l s ta tu s w o u ld b e s u b je c t to de t e r i or a t i on due t o “ s tr e s s orothe rpr e c i pi t a t i ng f a c t or s , e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof the f a c t h e is n o t ta k in g a n tip s y c h o tic m e d ic a tio n s ,” a n d th a t s u c h d e te r io r a tio n w o u ld “lik e ly d ir e c tly im p a c t h is c o m p e te n c e to s ta n d tr ia l.” I d . a t 1 2 - 1 3 . T he r e por tf

r om a30 J une 2004 ps y c hol ogi c a l e xa m i na t i on or de r e d by B re hm ’ s c ou rtappo i nt ed coun se l concl ud ed thatB re hm w as experi enci ng a s ever e m e nt a l di s or de r , w i th s y m pt om s of age ne r a l i z e d a nxi e ty di s or de r , drug d e p e n d e n c e , a n d as c h iz o id p e r s o n a lity d is o r d e r . R 1 - 3 5 A tta c h m e n t a t 8 . H is sc ores fr om thi s e xam i nat i on i nd i ca t ed thathe w ou l d “ re qu i re pri son-prov i ded m ent al heal th servi ce s w hen i ncar ce ra t ed. ” R 1-35 at7. N everthel es s, thi s e xam i ner f ound B r e hm t o ha ve a“ f a c tua l a nd r a t i ona l unde r s t a ndi ng of the l e ga l pr oc e s s a nd [ to b e ab le to ] r e la te to a n d a s s is t in h is d e f e n s e .” I d . a t 8 . T h e p le ah e a r in g to o k p la c e o n e m o n th a f te rth is la s t e x a m , o n 2 6 J u ly 2 0 0 4 . A tth e h e a r i n g , th e c o u r ti n s tru c t e d Br e h m: [ I ]f

y o u d o n o t u n d e r s ta n d aq u e s tio n , p le a s e d o n o t a n s w e rit. A sk yo u r att o rn ey o r ask m e t o ex p l ai n i tan d w e w i l l d o o u r v ery b est t o exp l ai n i tt o you , and w e’ l l try . B etw ee n the tw o o f us I am sure6

w e ’ l l be abl e t o e xpl a i n a ny que s t i on t o y ours a t i s f a c t i on s o tha ty ou u n d e r s ta n d it. I f y ou a ns w e raque s t i on, I ’ m goi ng t o a s s um e tha ty ou un ders t oo d i tand i f s om ebod y i s r ea di ng the re cord thatw e a re m a k in g o f

th is n o w a n d th e y h e a ry o u a n s w e r in g aq u e s tio n I w o u ld e xpe c ttha tthe y w oul d be w i thi n the i rr i ght s t o a s s um e tha ty ou u n d e r s to o d it. Y ou unde r s t a nd w ha tI j us ts a i d? R 5 a t 3 - 4 . B r e h m r e s p o n d e d , “Y e s .” I d . a t 4 . W h e n a s k e d if h e w a s p r e s e n tly u n d e rth e in f

lu e n c e o f a n y d ru g o rn a r c o tic o ra lc o h o l, B r e h m r e s p o n d e d , “N o ,” a n d th a t h e h a d n o t h a d a n y s in c e h e h a d b e e n a rr e s te d in O c to b e r2 0 0 3 . I d . a t 5 . T he n the f

ol l ow i ng e xc ha nge oc c urr e d: [D i stri ctC o u rt ] : H av e yo u ev er b een treat ed fo r an y m en t al i l l n ess? [B reh m ] : Y es. [ D is tr ic t C o u r t]: A n d w h a t is th a t? [B re hm ] : T hey di agno se d m e w i th schi zo ef fe ct i ve di sorder . [ D is tr ic t C o u r t]: W h e n w a s th a t? [B re h m ]: I th in k itco u ldh av e b ee n as ea rly a s 2 0 0 0 . B u t i t co u ld n ’t ha ve be e n l a t e rtha n 2001. [D i stri ctC ou rt ] : I di d o rderan eval uat i on of you. I don ’ tre m em ber e xa c t l y w hy butI di d or de ra n e va l ua t i on. I n D e c e m be r2003 y ou w e n t to th e F e d e r a l C o rr e c tio n a l I n s titu tio n in W a s ik a , M in n e s o ta ; is th a t c o rr e c t? [B reh m ] : Y es.7

[ D i s tr i c tC our t ] : A nd the y e va l ua t e d y ou a nd the y c a m e t o the c o n c lu s io n th a t a lth o u g h y o u d id h a v e am e n ta l d is e a s e o rd e f e c t, w hi c h i s pr obabl y w ha ty ou s a i d i tw a s ; I ’ m notpos i t i ve , the s y m p to m s a r e n o t c u rr e n tly s u c h a s to s u b s ta n tia lly im p a iry o u rab ility t o unde r s t a nd the na tur e a nd c ons e que nc e s of the c our tpr oc e e di ngs agai nstyou. S o they det erm i ned you ar e abl e t o ass i styour att orney and t o k no w i ng l y e nt era pl eaof no tgu i l ty i n thi s c as e. D o you agre e w i th them thatyou can ent era pl ea ? [ B r e hm ] : I ha ve s om e tr oubl e butI unde r s t a nd. [ D is tr ic t C o u r t]: C o u n s e l y o u ’v e r e v ie w e d th e r e p o r t, h a v e y o u n o t? [B re hm ’ s C ou nsel ] : Y es , I have, your H on or. [D i stri ctC ou rt ] : A re you sat i sf i ed thatyour cl i entm ee t s the st andard of unde r s t a ndi ng f

orthi s he a r i ng? [B re hm ’ s C ou nsel ] : Y es , your H on or. F or the re cord, I had M r. B re hm i nd ependent l y e val uat ed for c om pet ence before w e c am e her e be c a us e of

the a m ountof

t i m e tha te l aps e d w he n he c a m e ba c k f r om M i nne s ot a . I w a s a f

r a i d he m i ghtha ve l aps e d ba c k. [ D i s tr i c tC our t ] : W he n di d tha thappe n? [B reh m ’ s C o u n sel ] : T h ath ap p en ed a co u p l e o f w eek s. [D i stri ctC o u rt ] : T h ey al so co n cu rred h e w as o f so u n d m i n d t o assi st yo u i n th ese p ro ceed i n g s? [ B r e h m ’s C o u n s e l]: Y e s , y o u rh o n o r . I d. a t5- 7. W he n a s ke d w he the rhe w a s s a t i s f i e d tha tB r e hm unde r s t ood the proceedi ng s, B re hm ’ s c ou nsel re spon ded, “ I a m . ” I d. at7. W hen the courtas ked B r e h m if h e w a s f u lly s a tis f

ie d w ith th e r e p r e s e n ta tio n a n d a d v ic e o f h is c o u n s e l,542 U.S. 296, 124 S. C t. 2531 (2004). 3 8 he r e s ponde d, “ Y e s . ” I d. T he f ol l ow i ng e xc ha nge the n oc c urr e d r e ga r di ng B l a ke l y v. W a s hi ngt on: 3 [ D i s tr i c tC our t ] : H a ve y ou a nd y oura tt orne y di s c us s e d the r e c e nt S u p r e m e C o u r t c a s e o f

B la k e ly v s . W a s h in g to n a t a ll? [ B r e hm ] : N o. [ D is tr ic t C o u r t]: L e t m e ju s t a s k y o u th is . D o w e h a v e a n y is s u e a s to an y a g g ra v atin g fa cto rs , [G o v er n m en t] ? [ G ove rnm e nt ] : I don’ tbe l i e ve w e do, y ourH onor . T he i ndi c tm e nt c h a r g e s th e d e f

e n d a n t w ith im p o r ta tio n a n d p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te o n e k ilo g r a m o rm o r e o f h e r o in . T h e to ta l w e ig h t o f h e r o in w as 2 . 9 6 k i l o g ram s. [ D is tr ic t C o u r t]: A n d th e r e is n o is s u e a s to th e a m o u n t? [ G ove rnm e nt ] : N o i s s ue a s t o the a m ount . T he s e nt e nc i ng r a nge a nd gu i del i nes i s one ki l og ra m t o three ki l og ra m s. S o w e have char ged unde rthe thr e e . S o I don’ tthi nk – [ D is tr ic t C o u r t]: Y o u d o u n d e r s ta n d –I d o n ’t k n o w if I r e a lly w a n t to ge ti nt o ac om pl i c a t e d c ol l oquy w i th M r . B r e hm c onc e rni ng w a i ve rof a g g r a v a tin g f

a c to r s . I f

y o u h a v e n ’t c h a r g e d h im in th e in d ic tm e n t, y o u a in ’t g o in g to g e t h im , d o y o u u n d e r s ta n d th a t? [G ov ernm ent ] : I und er st and that , your H on or. I d. a t8- 9. B r e hm a c know l e dge d tha the unde r s t ood tha thi s pl e aw a i ve d hi s r i ght s t o a ju ry tr ia l, to r e m a in s ile n t, to c r o s s - e x a m in e w itn e s s e s , to c a ll w itn e s s e s , a n d to9

t e s t i f y on hi s ow n be ha l f

. I d. a t9- 10. A tthe c our t ’ s r e que s t , the gove rnm e nt s t a t e d tha t : “ on both c ount s of the i ndi c tm e ntthe m a xi m um pe na l ty a nd the m a nda t ory m i ni m um pe na l ty a r e the s a m e . I t ’ s at e n y e a rm a nda t ory m i ni m um on b o th C o u n t 1 a n d C o u n t 2 . A n d am a x im u m o f u p to lif e im p r is o n m e n t.” I d . a t 1 0 . B r e hm the n a f

f i rm e d tha the unde r s t ood he w a s e xpos i ng hi m s e l f t o the m a xi m um penal ty r ec i t ed, thathe had d i sc usse d h i s s ent enci ng w i th h i s a tt orney, and thathe unde r s t ood tha tthe c our tha d the a uthor i ty t o i m pos e as e nt e nc e tha tm i ghtbe abov e or bel ow the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange. Id. at11 . B re hm al so i nd i ca t ed th a t h e u n d e r s to o d to w h a t h e w a s p le a d in g g u ilty . I d . a t 1 2 . T he gove rnm e ntthe n s t a t e d the f a c t s of B r e hm ’ s a l l e ge d of

f e ns e , de s c r i bi ng i n som e det ai l ho w U ni t ed S t at es C ust om s a nd B order P rot ec t i on i nspect ors had di s c ove r e d 2. 96 ki l ogr a m s of abr ow n pow de ry s ubs t a nc e , w hi c h t e s t e d pos i t i ve f or h e r o in , c o n c e a le d w ith in th e lin in g o f B r e h m ’s s u itc a s e a s h e r e tu rn e d f r o m atr ip t o R i o de J a ne i r o. I d. a t13. T he f ol l ow i ng e xc ha nge the n oc c urr e d: [D i stri ctC ou rt ] : M r. B re hm , thi s i s very i m po rt antno w . Y ou hear d w h a t th e g o v e rn m e n t s a id . D o y o u a g r e e w ith th o s e f a c ts , th a t th a t is w ha tthe gove rnm e ntc oul d pr ove i f thi s c a s e w e r e t o go t o tr i a l a nd tha ti s w ha ty ou a r e pl e a di ng gui l ty t o? [ G ove rnm e nt ] : F ur the r , 2, 960 gr a m s of he r oi n i s a n a m ountc ons i s t e nt w i th the i nt e nde d di s tr i but i on of he r oi n.10

[ D is tr ic t C o u r t]: Y o u h e a r d w h a t th e g o v e rn m e n t s a id . W e r e th e f a c ts th a t th e y a r e p r e p a r e d to p r o v e a t tr ia l, d o y o u b e lie v e th a t th o s e f a c ts a r e tru e a n d th a t th e y c o u ld p r o v e th e m if it w e n t to tr ia l? [ B r e hm ] : P r obabl y , y e a h. Id. at13 -14. B re hm then ent er ed a pl eaof gu i l ty t o b oth cou nt s a nd the court f ound tha tB r e hm ’ s gui l ty pl e aw a s m a de know i ngl y a nd vol unt a r i l y . I d. a t14. F o rp u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g , th e p r o b a tio n o f f ic e s ta r te d th e c a lc u la tio n w ith ab a s e o f f e n s e le v e l o f

3 2 b a s e d o n U .S .S .G . § 2 D 1 .1 ( c ) ( 4 ) , w h ic h is ap p lic ab le to ade f e nda ntr e s pons i bl e f

ora tl e a s tone butl e s s tha n thr e e ki l ogr a m s of he r oi n, a nd th e n r e c o m m e n d e d a n a d ju s tm 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) an d (b ), red u ci n g th e o ffen se l ev el b y th ree fo r a fi n al b ase of f e ns e l e ve l of

29. B r e hm ha d as ubt ot a l of thr e e c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s a nd re ce i ved an add i t i on al tw o cri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s und erU . S . S . G . § 4 A 1. 1(e) be c a us e he c om m i tt e d the i ns t a ntof f e ns e l e s s tha n tw o y e a r s a f t e rr e l e a s e f

r om i m pri sonm ent . F i ve cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s gave B re hm a c ri m i nal hi st ory c a t e gory of

I I I r e s ul t i ng i n as ugge s t e d gui de l i ne s i m pr i s onm e ntr a nge of 108- 135 m on ths. P ursuantt o U . S . S . G . § 5 G 1. 1(c) (2), ho w ever , because the st atut ory m i ni m um t e rm of

i m pr i s onm e ntf

orB r e hm ’ s of

f e ns e unde r21 U . S . C . §§ 96 0(b)(1)(A ) a nd 84 1(a) (1) w as t en ye ar s, hi s gui del i nes i m pri sonm entra ng e w as a d ju s te d to 1 2 0 - 1 3 5 m o n th s .11

A tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng on 27 Ja nu ary 200 5, the on l y unres ol ved i ss ue w as w h e th e rB r e h m w a s e lig ib le f o ras a f e ty - v a lv e r e d u c tio n p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( f ) a nd U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2, w hi c h a l l ow f ors e nt e nc i ng w i thoutr e ga r d t o a ny st atut ory m i ni m um w hen speci fi c r equi re m ent s a re m et . If he had q ual i fi ed for a safety-v al v e red u ct i o n , B reh m co u l d h av e b een sen t en ced b el o w 1 2 0 m o n th s, w i thi n ar a nge of

108 t o 120 m onths . O ne of the r e qui r e m e nt s f

ors a f e ty - va l ve r e lie f , h o w e v e r , is h a v in g n o m o r e th a n o n e c r im in a l h is to ry p o in t. § 3 5 5 3 ( f ) ( 1 ) . T he courtre

j ec t ed B re hm ’ s a rgum entthatB oo ker m ade the as se ss m entof cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s di sc re t i on ary butcont i nu ed se nt enci ng t o al l ow B re hm ’ s c ou nsel a d d itio n a l tim e to c o n f

irm th a t B r e h m ’s c r im in a l h is to ry p o in ts w e r e c o rr e c tly c a lc u la te d . B r e hm the n f

i l e d am ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e aa nd r e que s t e d a he a r i ng, a r gui ng tha thi s pl e aha d be e n i nvol unt a ry be c a us e hi s hi s t ory of s c hi z ophr e ni aa nd ar e l aps e of tha tc ondi t i on pr e ve nt e d hi m f r om unde r s t a ndi ng th e n atu re o f th e co n st i tu t i o n al p ro t ect i o n s h e w as w ai v i n g an d th e ch arg es ag ai n st hi m . S peci fi ca l l y, B re hm ar gu ed that , w hen h e e nt er ed hi s gui l ty pl ea , he w as un aw ar e of aprevi ou s c on vi ct i on i n 2 00 2, atw hi ch t i m e he had been ho spi t al i ze d f ors c hi z ophr e ni a , a nd a s ar e s ul t , he di d notha ve ar a t i ona l unde r s t a ndi ng of the c ons e que nc e s of

hi s pr e s e ntgui l ty pl e a . T he di s tr i c tc our tde ni e d B r e hm ’ s m ot i on12

a f t e rf i ndi ng tha tB r e hm ’ s a l l e ga t i ons w e r e nots uf f i c i e ntt o ove r c om e the s tr ong pr e s um pt i on tha thi s pl e aha d be e n vol unt a ry . R 1- 50 a t3. T he c our tf ur the rf ound thatsuff i ci entj ud i ci al re source s had been expend ed i n B re hm ’ s c as e i n thathe had been grant ed three cont i nu ance s a s t o h i s s ent enci ng . Id. F i nal l y, the courtno t ed th e g o v ern m en t ’ s arg u m en tth ati tw o u l d b e p rej u d i ced b y th e w i th d raw al b ecau se the pl e aha d be e n t a ke n m or e tha n e i ghtm onths pr e vi ous l y a nd the gove rnm e nt ha d “ l i m i t e d i t s i nve s t i ga t i on t o e s t abl i s h[ i ng] [ B r e hm ’ s ] gui l t . ” I d. a t3- 4. B r e hm r e ne w e d hi s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a , thi s t i m e a l l e gi ng th ath e m ay h av e b een u n d er th e i n fl u en ce o f m ed i cat i o n d u ri n g h i s p l ea co l l o q u y, even tho ug h h e t es t i fi ed otherw i se atthe t i m e. B re hm expl ai ned thathe had b ee n un der the m i st aken i m pres si on thatthe courtw as i nq ui ri ng abou t“ i l l egal subst ance s, ” r ather than l egal l y pre sc ri bed m edi ca t i on . R 1-60 at5. H e a rgued further that , even tho ug h the go vernm enthad exp l ai ned atthe pl eacol l oq uy that B reh m w as su b

j ectt o a t en -year m an d at o ry m i n i m u m sen t en ce as t o b o th co u n t s, th e c o u r t h a d f

a ile d to a d d r e s s B r e h m ’s u n d e r s ta n d in g o f am a n d a to ry m in im u m . A tB re hm ’ s r ec on vened sent enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourtdeni ed B re hm ’ s r enew ed m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eaas w el l as hi s r enew ed obj ec t i on as t o h i s c ri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s i n con nect i on w i th w hi ch he had argued tha t( 1) the c our tha d the di s c r e t i on pur s ua ntt o B l a ke l y a nd B ooke ra nd i n l i ghtof13

th e a d v is o ry n a tu r e o f

th e g u id e lin e s , to d e te rm in e B r e h m ’s c r im in a l h is to ry p o in ts and (2) based on B re hm ’ s e xt ensi ve hi st ory of m ent al i l l ness , these cr i m i nal hi st ory p o in ts w e r e o v e rr e p r e s e n te d . T h e c o u r t f o u n d th a t B o o k e rd id n o t p e rm it it to i gn ore m i ni m um m andat ory s ent ence s a nd that , i n any event , the cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s w e r e noti nappr opr i a t e l y a s c r i be d t o hi m . R 8 a t17- 18. T he c our t , s t a t i ng thati thad con si dere d the fa ct ors s etforth i n 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1) throu gh (7), i m po se d a se nt ence of 12 0 m on ths t o b e f ol l ow ed by fi ve ye ar s of s up ervi se d re l ea se , w hi ch w as bo th w i thi n the advi sorygu i del i ne ra ng e a nd i n acc ordance w ith th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m . O n appe a l , B r e hm a r gue s tha t( 1) the di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by fa i l i ng t o g ra nthi s r equest , pri or t o sent enci ng , t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eabase d o n h is s u f

f e r in g f r o m am e n ta l illn e s s th a t h e a lle g e s a f f e c te d h is ab ility to f

u lly c om pr e he nd the na tur e a nd c ons e que nc e s of hi s pl e a ; a nd ( 2) B ooke rr e nde r e d the el i gi bi l i ty r equi re m ent s f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

advi soryand p erm i tt ed the di stri ct c our tt o e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o gr a ntr e l i e f f r om the m a nda t ory m i ni m um se nt ence .14 I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . W i thd ra w al of G ui l ty P l ea B r e h m f ir s t a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in d e n y in g h is r e q u e s t to w i th d raw h i s g u i l ty p l ea, o r ata m i n i m u m , i n refu si n g t o h o l d a h eari n g t o assess th e v a r io u s is s u e s r a is e d in h is m o tio n s . M o r e s p e c if ic a lly , h e c o m p la in s th a t h is a tt orne y onl y ha d thr e e m onths t o r e vi e w the c a s e w i th hi m , w hi c h, i n c om bi na t i on w i th the di stri ctcourt ’ s di spensi ng w i th the B l akel y i nq ui ryent i re l y a thi s pl ea c o llo q u y , r e s u lte d in h is f a ilu r e to g r a s p th e e f

f e c t o f B la k e ly o n h is s e n te n c e . B r e hm a l s o a r gue s tha tthe “ c our t ’ s one s e nt e nc e i nqui ry . . . r e ga r di ng . . . the m an d at o ry m i n i m u m . . . w as w h o l l y i n ad eq u at e. ” A p p el l an t ’ s B r. at2 1 . F i n al l y, a lth o u g h h e a c k n o w le d g e s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e x p e r t’s f in d in g th a t B r e h m c le a r ly m e t th e d ia g n o s tic c r ite r iaf o rs c h iz o p h r e n iay e t w a s n o t r e n d e r e d u n ab le to unde r s t a nd the na tur e a nd c ons e que nc e s of the pr oc e e di ngs a ga i ns thi m , B r e hm po i nt s outthatthe sa m e e xp ertw rot e thathi s c on di t i on m i gh tdet er i orat e und er s tr e s s o ro th e rp r e c ip ita tin g f a c to r s . W e “ r e vi e w the de ni a l of ar e que s tt o w i thdr a w agui l ty pl e af orabus e of di sc re t i on . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. F re i xas, 33 2 F . 3d 13 14 , 13 16 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T here i s no abu se of di sc re t i on un l es s the deni al i s “ arbi tra ryor un re as on abl e. ” U ni t ed S tates v . W ea v er , 2 7 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 8 n . 8 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). A d istrict co u rt’s15

re fusa l t o h ol d an evi dent i ary hea ri ng i s a l so re vi ew ed for abu se of di sc re t i on . S ee U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S t i t z e r , 785 F . 2d 1506, 1514 ( 11th C i r . 1986) . I tdoe s nota m ount t o abus e of

di s c r e t i on w he n ac our tha s c onduc t e d e xt e ns i ve R ul e 11 i nqui r i e s pr i or t o acc ept i ng the gu i l ty pl ea . Id. T he F eder al R ul es of C ri m i nal P roce du re re qu i re ad is tr ic t c o u r t, b e f

o r e it a c c e p ts ap le ao f

g u ilty , to in f

o rm th e d e f

e n d a n t o f h is r i g h t s r e l e v a n tt o h i s g u i l ty p l e aa n d d e t e rmi n e th a th e u n d e r s t a n d s th e m. Fe d . R. C ri m . P . 11 (b)( 1). A f te rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s a c c e p te d ap le aa n d b e f o r e s e n te n c in g , a d efen d an tm ay w i th d raw a g u i l ty p l ea i f “ th e d efen d an tcan sh o w a fai r an d j u st re as on for r equest i ng the w i thd ra w al . ” F ed. R . C ri m . P . 11 (d)( 2)(B ). In d et erm i n i n g w h eth er th e d efen d an th as m eth i s b u rd en t o sh o w a “ fai r an d j u st re as on , ” adi stri ctcourt“ m ayconsi der the t ot al i ty of the ci rc um st ance s surr ou nd i ng the pl ea . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B uckl es , 84 3 F . 2d 46 9, 47 1-72 (11th C i r. 1988) . I n the c our s e of

thi s i nqui ry , w e c ons i de r“ ( 1) w he the rc l os e a s s i s t a nc e of c ouns e l w a s a va i l abl e ; ( 2) w he the rthe pl e aw a s know i ng a nd vol unt a ry ; ( 3) w he the rj udi c i a l r e s our c e s w oul d be c ons e rve d; a nd ( 4) w he the rthe gove rnm e nt w ou l d b e pre

j ud i ce d i f the defendantw er e a l l ow ed t o w i thd ra w hi s pl ea . ” I d. at 4 7 2 (c it atio n s o m itted ). “T h e g o o d fa ith , cre d ib il ity a n d w eig h t o f a d ef en d an t’ s as se rt i on s i n sup po rtof a m ot i on [t o w i thd ra w a gui l ty pl ea ] ar e i ss ues f or the tri al16

c our tt o de c i de . ” I d. A ddi t i ona l l y , “ [ t ] he l onge rthe de l a y be tw e e n the e ntry of the p le aa n d th e m o tio n to w ith d r a w it, th e m o r e s u b s ta n tia l th e r e a s o n s m u s t b e a s to w h y th e d e f

e n d a n t s e e k s w ith d r a w a l.” I d . a t 4 7 3 . H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o u n d th a t: ( 1 ) B r e h m w a s r e p r e s e n te d b y c o u n s e l; ( 2) B r e hm ’ s gui l ty pl e aw a s vol unt a ry , he w a s c om pe t e ntt o unde r s t a nd the i ndi c tm e nt , a nd he a c know l e dge d w a i vi ng hi s r i ght s t o aj ury tr i a l ; ( 3) s uf f i c i e nt j ud i ci al re source s had been expend ed i n B re hm ’ s c as e i n thathe had b ee n g ra nt ed three cont i nu ance s of hi s s ent enci ng ; and (4) the go vernm entw ou l d b e pre j ud i ce d b y th e w i th d raw al b ecau se th e p l ea h ad b een t ak en o v er ei g h tm o n th s p rev i o u sl y, c a u s in g th e g o v e rn m e n t to lim it its in v e s tig a tio n in e s tab lis h in g B r e h m ’s g u ilt. F ur the r , B r e hm c onc e de d a thi s pl e ac ol l oquy tha the unde r s t ood the m i ni m um a nd m axi m um penal t i es of hi s s ent ence as w el l as the court ’ s autho ri ty t o i m po se a s e n te n c e ab o v e o rb e lo w th e g u id e lin e r a n g e a n d th a t h e w a s s a tis f ie d w ith h is c o u n s e l’s r e p r e s e n ta tio n . F u r th e r , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t “d is p e n s e ” w ith di sc ussi on re l at i ng t o the ef fe ct s of B l akel y on B re hm ’ s s ent ence bu t , ra ther, c orr e c t l y de t e rm i ne d tha tno l e ga l i s s ue i n B r e hm ’ s c a s e w a rr a nt e d adi s c us s i on of B l a ke l y . A ddi t i ona l l y , B r e hm f a i l e d t o pr ove tha the w a s notm e nt a l l y c om pe t e nt t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n hi s pl e ac ol l oquy s i nc e both the c our t - or de r e d m e nt a l e va l ua t i on a nd tha ti ni t i a t e d by B r e hm ’ s a tt orne y f orf e a rof al aps e c onf

i rm e d tha tB r e hm17

suff er ed fr om m ent al i l l ness bu tconcl ud ed thathe had a fac tual and rat i on al unde r s t a ndi ng of

the l e ga l pr oc e s s , c oul d r e l a t e t o a nd a s s i s ti n hi s de f e ns e , a nd w as com pet entt o st and tri al . F i nal l y, B re hm di d n otse ek t o w i thd ra w hi s pl ea u n t i l Ap r i l 2 0 0 5 , l o n g a f t e rh e h a d p l e d g u i l ty i n J u l y 2 0 0 4 . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we fi nd the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d et erm i ni ng thatB re hm had f a ile d to d e m o n s tr a te a“f a ira n d ju s t r e a s o n ” f

o rr e q u e s tin g w ith d r a w a l o f h is gu i l ty pl eaor i n d enyi ng the m ot i on for ahear i ng on thati ss ue. B . S af ety- val ve R el i ef B r e hm ne xta r gue s tha tB ooke rga ve the di s tr i c tc our tdi s c r e t i on a s t o the re qu i re m ent s f

or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef

and err ed w hen i tdet erm i ned thati tw as w i thouta uthor i ty t o s e nt e nc e hi m be l ow the s t a tut ory m a nda t ory m i ni m um se nt ence of 12 0 m on ths. W hether the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n B oo ker r enders c a l c ul a t i on of

c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s unde rthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s f orthe p u rp o s e o f

d e te rm in in g e lig ib ility f o rs a f e ty - v a lu e r e lie f

p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (f) i s a q u est i o n o f l aw su b j ectt o d e n o v o rev i ew . U n i t ed S t at es v . W i l l i am s, 4 3 1 F . 3 d 7 6 7 , 7 6 9 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (p er cu ri am ). Iti s al so an i ssu e o f fi rst im p r e s s io n f

o ru s . S af ety- val ve re l i ef

al l ow s f or se nt enci ng w i tho utre gard t o any st atut ory m i ni m um , w i th r e s pe c tt o c e r t a i n of f e ns e s , w he n s pe c i f

i c r e qui r e m e nt s a r e m e t . 1818

U . S . C . § 3553( f

) . S e c t i on 3553( f

) s e t s f i ve c ondi t i ons , the f

i r s tof w hi c h i s tha tthe de f e nda ntnotha ve m or e tha n “ 1 c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt , a s de t e rm i ne d unde rthe se nt enci ng gu i del i nes. ” I d. ; U ni t ed S t at es v. O rozc o, 12 1 F . 3d 62 8, 63 0 (11 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T h e G u id e lin e s in c o rp o r a te th is s ta tu to ry p r o v is io n in § 5 C 1 .2 a nd c r i m i na l hi s t ory poi nt s a r e c a l c ul a t e d pur s ua ntt o § 4A 1. 1. In B oo ker, the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatthe F eder al S ent enci ng G ui del i nes v io la te th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to atr ia l b y ju ry to th e e x te n t th a t th e y p e rm it a j udge t o i nc r e a s e ade f

e nda nt ’ s s e nt e nc e ba s e d on f a c t s tha ta r e ne i the rf

ound by the j ury nora dm i tt e d by the de f e nda nt . B ooke r , 543 U . S . a t244, 125 S . C t . a t756. T o r e m e dy thi s vi ol a t i on, the C our te xc i s e d tw o s pe c i f i c pr ovi s i ons of

the S ent enci ng R ef

orm A ctof 19 84 – 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(b)(1) (r equi ri ng a s ent ence w i thi n the gu i del i ne ra ng e, abse nta departure) and 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 74 2(e) ( e s t abl i s hi ng s t a nda r ds of r e vi e w on appe a l , i nc l udi ng de novo r e vi e w of departures fr om the appl i cabl e gui del i ne ra ng e) – there by re nd er i ng the gu i del i nes

“ e f f e c t i ve l y a dvi s ory . ” I d. a t245, 125 S . C t . a t756- 57. A s ar e s ul t , as e nt e nc i ng c o u r t m u s t s till “c o n s id e rG u id e lin e s r a n g e s ,” b u t it m a y “ta ilo rth e s e n te n c e in l i ghtof othe rs t a tut ory c onc e rns a s w e l l . ” I d. a t245- 46, 125 S . C t . a t757 ( c i t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) ) . A ddi t i ona l l y , w e ha ve he l d tha t“ [ a ] f t e rB ooke r , s e nt e nc i ng r e qui r e s tw o s t e ps . F i r s t , the di s tr i c tc our tm us tc ons ul tthe G ui de l i ne s a ndBr ehm a s s erts th at th e c o urt in Un ite d St ate s v . D uran , 3 8 3 F . Su p p . 2 d . 1 3 4 5 (D. Utah 4 2005), found the safety-valveprovision should beconsidere d advisory and thus allowed thecourt to disre g ard

thestatutor

y mandator

y minimum. Thede fendant in that c a se , h ow e ver h a d c le arly qualified for

safety valve relief

. I d. at 1348. At issue in that casewas whether the c ourt should be fo rc e d tosentenc ewithin th eGuide lin e s rang e(b e low themandator

y minimum) or

wh e ther it c ould sentenc e below that rang e. I d. at 1349. The court found that the re commended guidelines rang e wa s stillonly advisory under Boo k er. I d. Thus, whether the elig ibility

criteria for safety

valve relief werealsomere ly

a dv iso ry wa s n ot add

re sse d b y that c ourt . 19 corr ec t l y c al cul at e the ra ng e provi ded b y the G ui del i nes. S ec on d, the di stri ctcourt m u s t c o n s id e r[ th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ] f a c to r s to d e te rm in e ar e a s o n ab le se nt ence . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 6 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per curi am ) ( ci t at i on s om i tt ed). A l though w e ha ve noty e ts pe c i f i c a l l y a ddr e s s e d B r e hm ’ s i s s ue , the S e c ond C i rc ui thas don e s o i n U ni t ed S t at es v. B arre ro, 42 5 F . 3d 15 4 (2d C i r. 20 05 ). In 4 B a rr e r o, the de f

e nda nta r gue d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve c ons i de r e d the gu i del i nes a dv i soryfor purpo se s of c al cul at i ng hi s c ri m i nal hi st ory poi nt s a nd that 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) (1), “ by vi rtue of i t s r ef er ence t o and i ncorpo ra t i on of a G ui del i nes t erm (the defendant ’ s ‘ cr i m i nal hi st ory poi nt s’ ), shou l d b e c on si dere d a dvi s ory pos t - B ooke r . ” B a rr e r o, 425 F . 3d a t155. R e j e c t i ng thi s a r gum e nt , the S e c o n d C ir c u it e x p la in e d th a t th e c a lc u la tio n o f c r im in a l h is to ry c a te g o r ie s is prer equi si t e t o cal cul at i on of the corre ctG ui del i nes s ent enci ng ra ng e a nd that , even a f t e rB ooke r , di s tr i c tc our t s r e m a i n obl i ga t e d t o c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e the gui de l i ne ra ng e pursuantt o 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) (1). B arre ro, 42 5 F . 3d at15 6-57 . T he court20

in B a rr e r o w e n t o n to n o te th a t n o t o n ly d id th e d e f e n d a n t’s c o n te n tio n s d ir e c tly confl i ctw i th the pl ai n t erm s of the st atut e, bu t“ [b] y a rgui ng thatw e s ho ul d rea d se ct i on 35 53 (f

) a s app l yi ng even w here the defendanthas m ore than o ne cr i m i nal h is to ry p o in t u n d e rth e G u id e lin e s , [ th e d e f e n d a n t] in e f

f e c t a s k s [ th e c o u r t] to e xc i s e s ubs e c t i on ( f

) ( 1) , pr e s um abl y on S i xth A m e ndm e ntgr ounds . ” I d. a t157. T he c our tde c l i ne d t o do s o. W e a gr e e . T he S e c ond C i r c ui t ’ s r e a s oni ng i n B a rr e o, tha tB ooke rdoe s not re nd erappl i ca t i on of i nd i vi du al gu i del i ne prov i si on s a dv i sorybecause the di stri ct c our tr e m a i ns obl i ga t e d c orr e c t l y t o c a l c ul a t e the G ui de l i ne s r a nge pur s ua ntt o 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(f) (1), i s c on si st entw i th o ur ho l di ng i n T al l ey . T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d at 7 8 6 . F u r th e r , w e a g r e e th a t to tr e a t c a lc u la tio n o f th e s a f e ty - v a lv e e lig ib ility cri t eri a as ad v i so ry w o u l d , i n effect, ex ci se 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (f)(1 ). A cco rd i n g l y, w e f in d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrw h e n it d e te rm in e d th a t B o o k e rd id n o t p e rm it ac o u r t to d is c r e tio n to g r a n t r e lie f f r o m th e m a n d a to ry m in im u m s e n te n c e . I I I . CONCL US I ON B r e h m ap p e a ls h is 1 2 0 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rim p o r tin g a n d p o s s e s s in g h e r o in w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e . W e f i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n de t e rm i ni ng tha tB r e hm f a i l e d t o pr ovi de af

a i ra nd j us tr e a s on f

orw i thdr a w i ng hi s pl eaof gu i l ty. B ec ause w e hol d thatthe S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n B oo ker21

di d n otre nd erthe ca l cul at i on of el i gi bi l i ty r equi re m ent s f or sa fe ty- val ve re l i ef a dvi s ory , w e f

urthe rf i nd tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n f i ndi ng i tha d no di sc re t i on t o g ra ntB re hm re l i ef fr om the st atut ory m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence of 12 0 m on ths for e ac h o f hi s off ense s. A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM both the d istrict co u rt’s ru li n g o n th e m o ti o n to w ith d ra w th e g u il ty p lea a n d B re h m ’s se nt ence .