W e g ra n t A p p e llan t’s u n o p p o se d m o tio n to c o n c e a l h is tru e id e n tity * t hr oughoutt hi s or derand j udgm ent , and w e make perm anentt he pr ovi s i onal s eal pl ace d on t hi s ent i r e mat t eron J ul y31, 2006. A ft erexami ni ng t he 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 yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is 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 . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### Jan u ary12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E 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. J OH N D OE, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. * N o. 06- 3156 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 1 9 0 - M LB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e HO LM ES , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es. A p p e llan t ch a llen g e s h is s e n ten c e fo r p o ss e ss in g w ith in ten t to d istrib u te 5 0 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f m e th a m p h e tam in e . H e a rg u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in notgr ant i ng a dow nw ar d departur e fr om t he s ent enci ng gui del i nes forpr ovi di ng s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance t o t he governm ent . W hi l e w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der- 2-

t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s r efus al t o departdow nw ar d, w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew Ap p e l l a n t ’ s s e n t e n c e fo rr e a s o n a b l e n e s s . Co n d u c t i n g a r e a s o n a b l e n e s s r e v i e w, we det erm i ne thatA ppel l antm us tbe r es ent ence d. B AC KGROU ND D ur i ng a tr aff

i c s t op i n K ans as , a H i ghw ayPatr ol T r ooperdi s cover ed over 1, 700 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne i n a vehi cl e occ upi ed byA ppel l antand an as s oci at e. B ot h m en w er e l at eri ndi ct ed forunl aw ful l yent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es and forpos s es s i ng w i t h i nt entt o di s tr i but e 500 gr ams orm or e of m ethamphet ami ne. A ppel l antpl eade d gui l tyt o the pos s es s i on countand the G o v e rn m e n t ag re e d to m o v e to d ism iss th e u n law f u l-e n tryc o u n t. T he P res entence Invest i gati on R epo rt(PS R ) cal culat ed A pp el l ant’ s offen se l e v e l a s t h i r t y- fi v e a n d h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry a s c a t e g o ry tw o . A c c o r d i n g l y, A pp e l l a ntfe l l i n the gu i de l i ne s e nt e nc i ng r a ng e of 18 8 t o 2 35 months . The PSR al s o s t at ed thatt her e w as no i nform at i on t o w arr anta depa r tur e. T he G overnm entl at erm oved for“a 24 mont h r educt i on fr om t he l ow end of the gui del i ne r ange, r es ul t i ng i n a s ent ence of 164 m onths . ” R O A , V ol . 2, D oc. 25 at1. T he G overnm ents t at ed onl yt hat“[t ] he defendanthas pr ovi ded s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e , a s t h a tt e r m i s u s e d i n [ U. S . S . G. ] § 5 K1 . 1 a n d 1 8 U. S . C. [§] 3553( e) , t o t he G overnm ent . ” R O A , V ol . 2, D oc. 25 at1. A tt he s ent enci ng h e a rin g , the d istric t co u rt re v iew e d th e m o tio n a n d c o m m e n ted , “T h is d o e sn ’t tell m e anyt hi ng. ” Id. , V ol . 4, at4. T he G overnm entt hen offer ed more s ubs t ance :- 3- T h e h a n g -u p in th e c a s e w a s w ith th e c o -d e fe n d a n t. [A ppel l ant ] , t hr ough pr offe r i ng w i th hi s att orney , pr ovi ded a pr offe r to th e U n ite d S ta te s s ta tin g w h a t h e w o u ld s a yif h e w a s to te s tif

y . H e al s o w as w i l l i ng t o t es t i fyagai ns tthe co- defe ndant . O nce the co- defe ndant ’ s couns el w as not i fi ed of that , then the co- defe ndant di d pl ead. So t he G overnm entbel i eved thati tw as i ns trum ent al by [A ppel l ant ] forhi s cooper at i on and w i l l i ngnes s t o cooper at e, s o [the] G overnm entfi l ed the [mot i on] fora 24 mont h devi at i on fr om the a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s . . . . Id. T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed the mot i on, s t at i ng: “R ol l i ng overon a co- defe ndant i s n’ ts ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance i n m yj udgm ent . ” Id. at5. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt th e n h e a rd th e p a rt ie s ’ s e n te n c in g re c o m m e n d a tio n s . W hi l e the G overnm entr ecomm ended 188 mont hs w i thoutel abor at i ng, A ppel l ant ’ s couns el r ecomm ended that“[A ppel l ant ] r ece i ve the l ow end of the s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange” bas ed, i n par t , on A ppel l ant ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o t es t i fy a g a in s t h is c o -d e fe n d a n t. Id. at5- 6. T he di s tr i ctcour ts ent ence d A ppel l antt o t he hi gh end of the gui del i ne r ange, 235 m onths , s t at i ng onl ythat“the pr es ent ence r epor ti s acc ur at e. ” Id. at7. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. D I SC US SI ON I . A ppel l at e Juri s di ct i on “U pon m ot i on of the governm ents t at i ng thatt he defendanthas pr ovi ded s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance i n t he i nves t i gat i on orpr os ecut i on of anotherper s on w ho has comm i t t ed an offens e, t he courtm aydepartfr om t he gui del i nes . ” U .S .S .G . § 5 K 1 .1 ; acco rd1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (e). B u t “a d istri ct co u rt ’s- 4-

d iscreti o n aryref

u sal t o g ran t a do w n w ard d ep arture, i n clud ing a re fu sal af ter a g o v e rn m e n t m o tio n p u rs u a n t to § 5 K 1 .1 ,” is b e y o n d o u r j u ri s d ic tio n . Uni t ed Stat es v. F i tzherbert , 13 F. 3d 340, 344 ( 10th C i r . 1993) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on onl yi n “the veryr ar e ci r cumst ance thatthe di s tr i ctcour ts t at es thati tdoes not h av e a n yau tho ri tyto d ep art fro m the s en tenc ing g u ideline ra n g e fo r th e e n ti re cl as s of ci r cumst ance s pr offe r ed bythe defendant . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mi r anda- R am i r ez , 3 0 9 F . 3 d 1 2 5 5 , 1 2 5 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (qu o tat ion o m itted). A p p e lla n t a n d th e G o v e rn m e n t b o th c o n te n d th a t w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n . T heyar gue thatt he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o cons i derthe part i cul arci r cumst ance s of th is c a se a n d in ste a d a n n o u n c e d th a t th e e n tire c las s o f d e fe n d a n ts w h o c o o p e ra te agai ns tco- defe ndant s i s i nel i gi bl e for§ 5K 1. 1 r el i ef. W e di s agr ee. U pon r evi ew i ng t he G overnm ent ’ s m ot i on, the di s tr i ctcour tobs erved thatthe mot i on r evea l ed nothi ng aboutt he ci r cumst ance s of A ppel l ant ’ s as s i s t ance t o the G overnm ent . T hi s pr om pt ed the G overnm entt o r evea l thos e ci r cumst ance s . T he di s t r i ctcour tt hen cha r act er i zed the ext entof A ppel l ant ’ s as s i s t ance as “[r ] ol l i ng o v e r,” a n d it d e n ied th e m o tio n . A t n o tim e d id th e d istric t co u rt su g g e st th a t it la c k e d th e a u th o ri ty to d e p a rt d o w n w a rd fo r c o o p e ra tio n a g a in s t a c o -d e fe n d a n t. See Uni t ed Stat es v. R odr iguez , 30 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 19 (10t h C i r. 19 94 ) ( “[U ]nl ess t he j udge’ s l anguage unambi guous l ys t at es thatthe j udge does notbel i eve he has author i t yt o dow nw ar d depart , w e w i l l notr evi ew hi s deci s i on. ”) . R ather , the d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d w h e th e r A p p e llan t’s w ill in g n e ss to tes tifya g a in st h isO t herci r cui t s have l i kew i s e r ecogni zed a j ur i s di ct i onal bart o r evi ew i ng 1 w hethera defendant ’ s w i l l i ngnes s t o t es t i fyagai ns tort o i ncul pat e a c o- defe ndant i s “s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance . ” See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. Fos t er , 988 F. 2d 206, 208, 2 1 0 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. D el l i nger , 9 8 6 F . 2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 3 (6th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). T he § 3553( a) fac t or s i ncl ude: ( 1) t he natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the 2 offe ns e and the hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of the defendant ; ( 2) t he nee d t o r efl ect t he seri ou sness of t he o ffen se, t o p rom ote r espectfor the law , and t o p rovi de just puni s hm entfort he offens e; ( 3) t he nee d fordet err ence ; ( 4) t he nee d t o pr ot ectt he publ i c; ( 5) t he nee d t o pr ovi de the defendantw i th neede d educa t i onal or vocat i onal t r ai ni ng orm edi cal car e; ( 6) t he ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e; ( 7) t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange; ( 8) pert i nentpol i cys t at ement s of the Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on; ( 9) t he nee d t o avoi d unw ant ed s ent enci ng di s par i t i es ; and ( 10) t he need t o p rovi de rest i tuti on t o v i ct i m s.

- 5- c o -d e fe n d a n t c o n s titu te d “ s u b s ta n tia l a s s is ta n c e ,” a n d c o n c lu d e d th a t it d id n o t. We l a c k j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w t h a t e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we 1 D IS M IS S th a t p o rtio n o f th is a p p e a l. II. R eason ab l en ess N evert hel es s , i n l i ghtof Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U . S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 4 (20 0 5 ), w e d o h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to re v ie w A p p e lla n t’ s s e n te n c e fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . See Uni t ed Stat es v. C havez - D i az , 444 F. 3d 1223, 1229 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . A s ent ence t hatfal l s w i t hi n a pr oper l ycal cul at ed advi s oryr ange r ece i ves a pr es um pt i on of re a so n a b len e ss th a t m a yb e re b u tted b y“ d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e se n ten c e is u n re a s o n a b le w h e n v ie w e d a g a in s t th e o th e r fa c to rs d e lin e a te d in [ 1 8 U .S .C .] § 3 5 5 3 (a ).” Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

2 N ei t herA ppel l antnort he G overnm entdi s cus s r eas onabl enes s i n l i ghtof th e p re sc rib e d fa c to rs. In ste a d , the ya ss e rt th a t th e se n ten c e is u n re a so n a b leT h e P S R w as li k ew ise sil en t as t o § 3 5 5 3 (a). 3

- 6- beca us e the di s t r i ctcour t“r efus ed t o even c ons i derthe [G overnm ent ’ s ] m ot i on fo r a ‘su b sta n tial a ss ista n c e ’ re d u c tio n .” A p lt. B r. at 2 1 ; see also A p le e . B r. a t 8 . B utas w e i ndi cat ed above i n Par tI , the di s tr i ctcour tcons i der ed w hether A ppel l ant ’ s cooper at i on w i t h t he G overnm entw as s ubs t ant i al as s i s t ance and fo u n d th a t itw a s n o t. T o the ext ent A pp el l ant m ai ntai ns t hat hi s sent ence is un reas on able because t he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o cons i derhi s cooper at i on w hen i ts el ect ed 235 mont hs fr om t he 188- t o- 235- m ont h gui del i ne r ange, w e agr ee w i th the Second Ci r cui tt hat in fo rm u latin g a re a so n a b le s e n ten c e u n d e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ), a s e n ten c in g ju d g e “ sh o u ld tak e u n d e r a d v ise m e n t . . . the c o n ten tio n th a t a d e fe n d a n t m a d e e ffo rts to cooper at e. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Fer nandez , 4 4 3 F .3 d 1 9 , 3 3 (2 d C ir .), cer t . deni ed , 127 S. C t . 192 ( 2006) . A ppel l ant ’ s couns el ar gued fora l ow - end s ent ence bas ed on A ppel l ant ’ s cooper at i on, butthe di s tr i ctcour tdi d notaddr es s i t . I ndeed, the di s t r i ctcour tdi d notr efe r ence anyof the § 3553( a) fac t or s i n s ent enci ng A pp el l ant. “T here i s no q uest i on t hat, i n ad dit i on t o g uidi ng ou r r easona bleness

3 r evi ew on appea l , t he s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) m us tbe c o n s id e re d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt its e lf w h e n im p o s in g a s e n te n c e .” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109, 1115 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . W hi l e “w e w i l l not demand t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tr eci t e anym agi c w or ds t o s how us t hati tful fi l l edI n r emandi ng forr es ent enci ng, w e i n no w ayexpr es s an opi ni on r egar di ng 4 w hatt he ul t i m at e s ent ence s houl d ors houl d notbe.

- 7- its re sp o n sib ili tyto b e m in d f u l o f th e fa c to rs th a t C o n g re ss h a s in stru c ted it t o co n side r, ” w e m ayn o t “si m p lyp resu m e [ that] th e d istri ct co u rtw eigh ed a p arty ’s ar gum ent s i n l i ghtof the § 3553( a) fac t or s . ” Id. a t 1 1 1 5 -1 6 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). C ons equent l y , w hen a de fenda ntr ai s es “s ubs t ant i al cont ent i ons conce rni ng n o n -G u id e lin e s § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs a n d th e d istric t co u rt im p o se s a se n ten c e w ith in t he G ui l del i nes r ange, ” the di s t r i ctcour ts houl d “expl ai n on the r ecor d how the § 3553( a) fac t or s j us t i fyt he s ent ence . ” See Uni t ed Stat es v. Lopez - F l or es , 4 4 4 F .3 d 1 2 1 8 , 1 2 2 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), pet i t i on f orcer t . f

i l ed , N o. 06 - 52 17 ( U . S. Ju ly7 , 2 0 0 6 ); s ee als o Sanchez - Juar ez , 446 F. 3d at1117 ( r equi r i ng t he di s tr i ct cour tt o m ake a s uffi ci ent§ 3553( a) r ecor d w hen pr es ent ed w i th a “nonf r i vol ous arg u m en t”). B eca us e w e ca nnotdi s cern fr om the r ecor d w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tr el i ed on t he gui del i nes al one orw hetheri tcons i der ed A ppel l ant ’ s cooper at i on i n l i ght o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs, w e R E M A N D to th e d istric t co u rt w ith in stru c tio n s to v a c a te A p p e llan t’s s e n ten c e a n d to re se n ten c e h im a f ter e x p re ss lyc o n sid e rin g h is re q u e st fo r a se n ten c e re flec tin g h is c o o p e ra tio n w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t. 4 E n tered fo r th e C o u rt W ade Brorby C i r cui tJ udge