FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 20, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T 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. 06- 16020 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C
. Do c k e tNo
. 0 3
- 0 0 2 1 7
- C R
- OR L
- 2 2
- J GG 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 S A I N T R . M U R P H Y , 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 ort he M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 20, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h is is th e th i r d t i m e w e c o n s id e rS a in t R . M u rp h y ’s s e n te n c e o n a p p e a l. W e h av e t w i ce v acat ed an d rem an d ed M u rp h y’ s sen t en ce, fo r co n sp i ri n g t o p o ssessWe decline to address, except to observewe f ind the argument without merit, Murphy ’s 1 sug g estion that the district court misunderstood th e i mp o rtof B ooker. D espite our lengthy discussion of Booker and theadvisory natureof the Guide lines in our opinion in Murphy I I , which weo b s e r v e th e d is tric t c o urt m a d e c le ar it h a d r e v iew e d

c ar e f u lly p rio r to th e th ird

sentenc ing hearing in this matter, Murphy says that the district c ourt treated the Guidelines a s mandatory and, pr oc e e d i n g un d e r a m an d at o r y s e nt e n c i n g s c h e m e , m a d e j u d i c i a l f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t t o c a l c u l ate his sentenc ing rang e, in violation of Booker. We havecarefully revie wed the record ag ain and from our rea ding of

the transc ript of the third sentenc ing hearing, the district judgefully understood that the Guide lin e s h a d b e e n re nd ered adv iso ry by theB oo ke r d e c isi on , a

nd that ju dic ia l f

a c tual f inding s, or “e x tra-verdict enha

nceme nts,” remain permissible in such an advisory sy stem. Cf. United States v. Cha u, 42 6 F .3 d 13 18 , 13 23 (1 1th Cir
. 20 05 ) (a ft e r B oo ke r, “ theus e of e xtra -v e rdic t e nh anc e me nts 2 w i t h i n t entt o di s tr i but e 5 ki l ogr a m s orm or e of c oc a i ne hy dr oc hl or i de a nd 50 gr a m s orm or e of

co cai ne ba s e , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U
. S
. C
. §§ 846, 841( a ) ( 1) a nd (b )(1) ( A ) ( i i ) , f

orr e s e nt e nc i ng unde rthe now - a dvi s or y S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i nes, pur s ua ntt o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B ooke r , 543 U
. S
. 220 ( 2005)
. S ee U n i t e d S t a t e s v. M urph y, 18 2 F ed. A pp x. 89 4 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 6) (unp ub l i shed) ( “ M urph y I I” ) ( v a c a tin g 1 8 8
- m o n th s e n te n c e a n d r e m a n d in g f o rc o n s id e r a tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a) factors an d fash i o n i n g o f a reaso n ab l e s e n ten ce); U n i t ed S t at es v . M u rp h y, N o . 0 4 -1 6 3 1 2 (1 1 th C ir. M ay 5 , 2 0 0 5 ) ( u n p u b li sh ed o rd erg ra n ti n g g o v er n m en t’ s
m ot i on t o r e m a nd f

or r e s e nt e nc i ng, va c a t i ng 292- m ont h s e nt e nc e , a n d rem a ndi ng f o ra n e w s e n te n c in g h e a r in g ) ( “M u rp h y I ” )
. In t hi s app ea l , “ M urph y I II , ” M urph y app ea l s the 29 2-m on th sent ence i mpos e d a t hi s s e c on d r e s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng . M urph y a r gu e s tha t the di s tr i c t court f a ile d to c o n s id e rth e f

a c to r s o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d im p o s e d a n u n r e a s o n a b le
s e n t e n c e . W e a f

f i r m. 1in an advisory guidelines sy stem is not unconstitutional”(internal quotation and citation omitted)). 3 T he pa r t i e s a r e f

a m i l i a rw i th the pr oc e dur a l hi s t o ry l e a di ng up t o our d ec isio n in M urph y I I, and w e do n otre coun ti tagai n h er e. In M urph y I I, w e not ed t hata prohi bi t i on on ext ra -v er d ictenhancem ent s w as depend enton the m andat ory nature of the S en ten ci ng G ui del i nes, and t hati tre m ai ned p er m i ss i bl e f or a
se nt enci ng courtt o m ake factual fi nd i ng s by a prepon dera nce of the evi dence
w i t hi n t he c onf

i ne s of a n ad v i s or y s y s t e m . W e he l d tha ta tthe f i r s tr e s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng , on r e ma nd f

r om M urph y I , the di s tr i c t c ou r t e r r e d a s a ma t t er of l aw be c a us e i tt houghtt ha ti t w as req u i red t o us e the drug qua nt i ty c ha r ge d i n t he i nd i ctm entor ad m it ted by t he defendanti n cal cul at i ng the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes
r a n g e . A tthe se cond re se nt enci ng hear i ng , M urph y a gai n obj ec t ed t o t he j ud i ci al f in d in g s o f

f a c t o n d r u g q u a n tity o rc r im in a l h is to r y b e y o n d w h a t w a s c h a r g e d in t he i nd i ctm entor adm it ted b y hi m . H e a l so obj ec t ed t o t he court ’ s c on si dera t i on , at t he fi rs tse nt enci ng hear i ng , of t he t es t i m on y of three conv i ct ed fe l on s, i n sup po rt of t he drug qu ant i ty f or w hi ch M urph y w as re sp on si bl e. T he courtov er rul ed M urphy ’ s obj e c t i ons , s t a t i ng tha ti t“ m ad e a factua l f i ndi ng a tt he f

i r s ts e nt e nc i ng
a nd I t hi nk tha tt ha t ’ s bi ndi ng. A nd I s e e no r e a s on w hy I w oul d m a ke a di f f e r e nt deci si on base d o n th e fact s t od ay . ” T he courtdet er m i ned t hatM urph y’ s t ot al4

of f e ns e l e ve l w a s 36, hi s c r i m i na l hi s t or y c a t e gor y w a s V , a nd th e sent e nc i ng r a nge
w a s 2 9 2
- 3 6 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t. P rio r to im p o siti o n o f s en ten ce , th e d istrict co u rt co n sid er ed M u rp h y’s
m i t i ga t i n g ev i d enc e . M urphy t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d unde r gone drug c ouns e l i ng, a nd t h a t h e i n t e n d e d t o t a k e a c o mp u t e r c l a s s . H e r e q u e s t e d a s e n t e n c e b e l ow t he ad v i so ry sen t en ci n g ran g e, p art i cu l arl y i n l i g h to f h i s co - d efen d an t s’ sen t en ces, i n c l u d i n g c o - d e f

e n d a n tRh o d e n , w h o h a d r e c e i v e d a 2 1 5
- mo n th s e n t e n c e a nd,
a c c or di ng t o M urphy , w a s s i gn i fi c a nt l y hi ghe ri n the drug c ons pi r a c y . M urphy
a l s o a r gue d tha thi s cri m i n al hi s t or y w a s pr i m a r i l y ba s e d on m i s de m e a nor s , a nd th u s , h is c r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y m is r e p r e s e n te d h is p r io rc r im in a l c o n d u c t. T he go vernm entre spon ded t hatw hi l e c o-defendan t R h o den h ad supp l i ed M u r p h y w ith d ru g s , M u rp h y w a s r e c e iv in g d ru g s f r o m a n o th e rs u p p lie ra s w e ll,
w hi ch m ade a se nt enci ng com pari son o f the t w o d ef endant s unh el pful
. T he court
a s ke d t he gove r nm e nta boutthe s e nt e nc e s i m pos e d i n r e l a t ed c a s e s , a nd t he gove r nm e nta r gue d tha ta ny di s pa r i ty w a s a t tr i but a bl e t o M urphy ’ s s i gni f i c a nt cri m i n a l hi s t or y . I n s uppor tof a 292- m ont h s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s a tt he l ow e s te nd
o f th e a d v is o r y G u id e lin e s r a n g e , th e g o v e r n m e n t n o te d th a t M u rp h y h a d m u ltip le drug conv i ct i on s a nd w as a vi ol enti nd i vi du al , and t hata G ui del i nes s ent ence w as
n e c e s s a r y to p r o te c t th e p u b lic
.In sentenc ing a defendant, the fa ctors that a district c ourt should consider include : (1) 2 the natureand circumstance s of the off ense; (2) the history and characte ristics of the def endant; (3) the nee d for the sentenceto protec t the public, to afford adequate deter renc e, and provide the defendant with n ee ded medical care or c orre ctional treatment; (4) the per tinent Sentencing Commi ssion policy

statements; and (5) the nee d to avoid unwar rante d sentenc ing disparities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 5 T he di s tr i c tco u rt sent e nc e d M urphy t o 292 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , s t a t i ng th at i tfoun d n o rea son t o d epar tfr om the G ui del i nes r ange and n ot i ng M urph y’s
c r im in a l h is to r y . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d
. O n a ppe a l , M urphy c ont e nds t ha thi s s e nt e nc e w a s unr e a s ona bl e due t o t he di stri ctcou rt’s fa i l ure t o con si der the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors. N ot hi ng i n B oo ker 2
re qu i re s the di stri ctcourtt o st at e on t he reco rd th ati thas e xp l i ci t l y c on si dere d
e ve r y § 3553(a) fact o r ort o di s c us s e a c h f a c t or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S c ot t , 426 F
. 3d 1324, 1329 ( 11th C i r . 2005)
. I n S c ot t , w e f ound tha tthe r e c or d r e f l e c t e d t ha tt he di stri ctcourthad con si dere d t he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors an d gu i del i nes r ange as coun se l “arg u ed atl engt h” t he fa ct ors i n § 35 53 (a ). Id. M oreover, the di stri ctcou rt’s
e xpl i c i ta c know l e dgm e ntt ha ti tha d c ons i de r e d t he de f e nda nt ’ s a r gum e n t s a nd t he f a c to r s s e t o u t i n § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , a lo n e , w a s s u f f ic ie n t. I d . a t 1 3 3 0 . I n d e te r m in in g if t he di stri ctcourthas a dequ at el y c on si dere d th e def endant ’ s a rgum ent s a nd t he § 35 53 (a ) f

ac t ors, w e c an l oo k t o t he di stri ctcourt ’ s statem ent s over the ent i re
se nt enci ng hear i ng . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. W i l l i am s, 43 5 F
. 3d 1 3 5 0 , 13 55 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ).6

H er e, the di stri ctcourt ’ s s ent ence com pl i ed w i th B oo ker a nd w as re as on abl e. A t th e s ec o n d re se n ten cin g h ea rin g , th e d istrict co u rt n o t o n ly h ea rd M u rp h y’s
m i t i g at i n g ev i d en ce an d a r g u m en tco n cern i n g sen t en ci n g d i sp ari t i es, b u tal so que s t i one d the gove r nm e nton t he s e nt e nc e s t ha tha d be e n i m p o sed i n r e l a t e d a nd
s im ila rd ru g c a s e s . T h e c o u r t a ls o c o n s id e r e d th e g o v e r n m e n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t a
se nt ence w i thi n t he advi sory ra n g e w as nece ss ar y t o p rot ec tt he pu bl i c, gi ven M urph y ’ s c r i mi na l hi s t or y . M or e ov e r , the di s tr i c t c ou r t e xp l i c i t l y s t a t e d tha ti t w as
s e n te n c in g M u rp h y w ith in t h e G u i d e l in e s r a n g e , a lb e it a t th e lo w e s t e n d , d u e to M urph y’ s c ri m i nal hi st ory. O n t hi s r ec ord, and i n li gh tof t he advi sory G ui del i nes
ra ng e a nd t he di stri ctcou rt’s consi dera t i on of t he § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors, w e c anno tsa y t hatt he i m po si t i on of a l ow -e nd se nt ence w as un re as on abl e. AF F I RME D.