FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 1, 2006 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. 05- 15533 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 3 5 - CR- CLS- RRA 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 D E A N D R A M A R T E Z S Q U A R E , a .k .a . D e a n d r e S q u a r e , a .k .a . D e 'A n d r e S q u a r e , a .k .a . D e a n d r a C a r te r , a .k .a . D r e , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 1, 2006) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d B A R K E T T , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

D e a ndr a M a r t e z S qua r e appe a l s hi s 51- m onth s e nt e nc e f orvi ol a t i ons of

the C ontr ol l e d S ubs t a nc e R e gi s tr a ntP r ot e c t i on A c t( “ C S R P A ” ) , 18 U . S . C . § 2118, im p o s e d a s p a r t o f

a to ta l 2 9 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e f o rr o b b in g a p h a r m a c y , in c onne c t i on w i th w hi c h he ha d a l s o pl e d gui l ty t o us i ng a f i r e a r m dur i ng a c r i m e of vi ol ence , i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c ). B ec ause S qu ar e’ s s ent ence w as r e a s ona bl e , c ons i de r i ng the f a c t or s l i s t e d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , e s pe c i a l l y the n e e d f o rth e s e n te n c e to r e f

le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e o f f e n s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id note rrby va ry i ng the s e nt e nc e upw a r d f r om the c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d S e nt e nc i ng G u id e lin e s r a n g e , a n d w e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D S qua r e pl e d gui l ty , pur s ua ntt o a ne got i a t e d pl e a a gr e e m e nt , t o: ( 1) c ons pi r a c y t o vi ol a t e the C S R P A , 18 U . S . C . § 2118( d) ( C ount1) ; ( 2) vi ol a t i on of the C S R P A , 18 U . S . C . § 2118( a ) , ( c ) ( 1) ( C ount2) ; a nd ( 3) us e of a f i r e a r m dur i ng a c r im e o f v io le n c e , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( C o u n t 3 ) . A c c o r d in g to th e p le a a g r e e m e n t, S qu ar e a nd tw o cod ef

endant s r ob bed a ph arm ac y, and, w hen a po l i ce offi ce r att em pt ed t o st op the robb ery, S qu ar e a nd on e c od ef endantfi re d m ul t i pl e s ho t s a t the of f i c e ra nd f

l e d. R 1- 26 a t3- 4. A uthor i t i e s l a t e rr e c ove r e d “ a l m os t40 s pe nt s h e lls ” f r o m th e s c e n e . I d . a t 4 . A lth o u g h S q u a r e g e n e r a lly w a iv e d th e r ig h t toDespite this guideline sentenc e, the district cour t, explaining that S quarewould rec eive the 1 same sentence f

or Count 3 as his codef

endant, sentence d S qu ar e t o 240 months as to Count3. Se eR3 at 15 . Squ are did no t ob je c t to the sentenc e , e ith e r at th esentenc inghe aringor on a pp e al, and, therefore, has waived any argument concerning this issue. See United States v. Ford, 270 F.3d 1346, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (recalling the “well established r ule” r ule that issues not raised in the briefs on appe al are deemed aba ndoned). The 240-month term of imprisonment does not exceed the statutory

maxi mum for the off

ense. See18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (A)( iii). 3 appeal hi s s ent ence , he re se rved the ri gh tt o app ea l a s ent ence const i tut i ng an u p w a r d d e p a r tu r e f

r o m th e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . T he prob at i on offi ce r s etS qu ar e’ s bas e off ense l evel for C ou nt s 1 and 2 at 2 0 , p u r s u a n t to U .S .S .G . § 2 B 3 .1 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 4 ) . T h is w a s e n h a n c e d b y o n e le v e l, pu rs uantt o § 2B 3. 1(b)(6), because the cr i m e i nv ol ved t he theftof cont rol l ed s u b s ta n c e s . T h e b a s e o f f e n s e le v e l w a s a ls o in c r e a s e d b y o n e , p u r s u a n t to § 2 B 1. 3(b)(7)(B), because the re l at ed l oss e xcee ded $ 10 , 00 0. F i nal l y, i tw as in c r e a s e d b y tw o le v e ls b e c a u s e S q u a r e ’s s h o o tin g a t th e p o lic e o f f ic e r“r e c k le s s ly c r e a t e d a s ubs t a nt i a l r i s k of de a th ors e r i ous bodi l y i nj ury t o a nothe rpe r s on i n the course of fl ee i ng fr om a l aw enforce m entoffi ce r. ” U . S . S . G . § 3 C 1. 2. S qu ar e r e c e iv e d a th r e e - le v e l r e d u c tio n 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, re sul t i ng i n a t ot al offe nse l evel of 21 . W i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory cat eg o ry o f I, h i s g u i d el i n e sen t en ci n g ran g e w as 3 7 t o 4 6 m o n th s as t o C o u n t s 1 a nd 2. T he gui de l i ne s e nt e nc e f orC ount3 w a s the s t a tut ory m i ni m um , w hi c h, here , w as a t en-y ea r s ent ence t o b e s erved con se cut i vel y w i th sent ence s on o ther c o u n ts . S e e U .S .S .G . § 2 K 2 .4 ( b ) .

14

A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our ta dopt e d the S e nt e nc i ng G ui del i nes c al cul at i on s m ade by the prob at i on offi ce bu tfoun d thatthe se nt ence re sul t i ng fr om corr ec t l y c al cul at ed offens e l evel of 21 di d “ no tadequat el y r ef l ec t the se ri ou snes s of [ S qu ar e’ s] cr i m i nal cond uct . ” R 3 at3-4. T he courtexpl ai ned tha t“ [ m ] or e tha n 40 guns hot s w e r e f i r e d” by S qua r e , hi s c o- de f e nda nt , a nd the p o lic e o f f ic e rw h o a tte m p te d to a rr e s t th e m , “c r e a t[ in g ] a s u b s ta n tia l r is k o f d e a th ors e r i ous bodi l y i nj ury t o othe r s . ” R 3 a t4- 5. N ot i ng the l oc a t i on a nd the t i m e of day a tw hi ch S qu ar e a nd hi s c od ef endant s c om m i tt ed the robb ery, the courtfurther ob se rved that“ [i ] tsi m pl y [ w as ] a m i ra cl e thatm any other pers on s w er e notki l l ed. ” R 3 at5. A cc ordi ng l y, the courtdet erm i ned t hatan offe nse l evel of 24 “ m ore ac cura t el y r ef

l ec t [e d] the se ri ou snes s of [ S qu ar e’ s] cr i m i nal cond uct . ” I d. B as ed on an offe nse l evel of 24 and a cri m i nal hi st ory c at egory of I , the di stri ctcourt d e te r m in e d th a t th e ap p r o p r ia te s e n te n c in g r a n g e w a s in s te a d 5 1 to 6 3 m o n th s . I d . P oi nt i ng outtha tthi s w a s hi s f i r s tf e l ony c onvi c t i on, S qua r e obj e c t e d t o the u p w a r d v a r ia n c e a n d a r g u e d th a t th e s ta tu to ry m in im u m o f 1 2 0 m o n th s f

o rC o u n t 3 a d e q u a te ly a d d r e s s e d h is c r im in a l c o n d u c t d u r in g th e s h o o t- o u t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t, a f t e rc ons i de r i ng the f

a c t or s l i s t e d i n 18 U . S . C . § 3553( a ) , s e nt e nc e d S qua r e t o 291 m onths , i nc l udi ng 51 m onths f orC ount s 1 a nd 2 a nd 240 m onths f orC ount3, t o be s e r v e d c o n s e c u tiv e ly .5

O n ap p e a l, S q u a r e a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e a s to C o u n ts 1 a n d 2 is unr e a s onabl e be c a us e the c our t ’ s thr e e - l e ve l upw a r d va r i a nc e , i m pos e d due t o the s e r io u s n e s s o f

h is c r im in a l c o n d u c t in s h o o tin g a t a p o lic e o f f ic e r , r e s u lte d in i m pe r m i s s i bl e doubl e - c ount i ng. S pe c i f i c a l l y , he a s s e r t s tha tthe S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s i m pos e a s e ve n- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf ordi s c ha r gi ng a f

i r e a r m dur i ng a robb ery, bu tthatenhancem enti s notappl i ed i f the defendanti s a l so conv i ct ed unde r§ 924( c ) , w hi c h S qua r e w a s . H e f ur the rpoi nt s outtha the r e c e i ve d a tw ol e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf

orobs truc t i on of

j us t i c e f orthe s a m e c onduc t . T hus , he ar gu es , the corre ct l y c al cul at ed ra ng e had al re ady a cc ou nt ed for the ci rc um st ance s of hi s c ri m i nal cond uct , and h i s c as e di d n otfa l l ou t si de of the heart l and o f c as es a nt i c i pa t e d by the gui de l i ne s . S qua r e a c know l e dge s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tdi d not enhance hi s s ent ence base d u po n the gu i del i ne prov i si on for di sc hargi ng a f i re arm dur i ng a r obbe ry , butc ont e nds tha tthe c our t ’ s pr of e s s e d r e a s ons f

orthe va r i a t i on w er e t i ed t o thatcond uctand t hatthe structure of the S ent enci ng G ui del i nes i ndi c a t e s tha tC ongr e s s c ont e m pl a t e d the appr opr i a t e s e nt e nc e f ora c ons t e l l a t i on of c r i m e s uc h a s tha tf

orw hi c h he w a s c onvi c t e d. F orthi s r e a s on, S qua r e a r gue s , the up w ar d v ar i ance i n h i s s ent ence as t o C ou nt s 1 and 2 , w hen t hatse nt ence had al re ady bee n enh ance d b as ed on hi s part i ci pat i on i n the shoo t ou t , for w hi ch he w as a ls o b e in g p u n is h e d b y th e s e n te n c e o f 2 4 0 m o n th s a s to C o u n t 3 , e f f e c tiv e ly6

pu ni shes hi m atl ea sttw i ce for the sa m e c on du ctand renders hi s s ent ence un re as on abl e. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A ft erU ni t ed S t at es v. B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . 22 0, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8 (20 05 ), a di stri ct c our ti s no l onge rr e qui r e d t o s e nt e nc e w i thi n the r a nge pr ovi de d by the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s , buti s s t i l l obl i ga t e d c orr e c t l y t o c a l c ul a t e tha tr a nge . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T alley, 4 3 1 F .3 d 7 8 4 , 7 8 6 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) ( p ercu riam ). W e r ev iew a d ef en d an t’ s u l t i ma t e s e n t e n c e f

o r“ u n r e a s o n ab l e n e s s , ” i n l i g h to f th e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n 1 8 U . S. C. § 3 55 3(a) . S ee B oo ker, 54 3 U . S . at26 4, 12 5 S . C t . at76 7; se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. W i ni ng ea r, 42 2 F . 3d 12 41 , 12 46 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). T hese fa ct ors i nc l ude : ( 1) the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e , ( 2) the hi s t ory a nd c ha r a c t e r i s t i c s of

the de f e nda nt , ( 3) the ne e d f

orthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d t o r e f l e c tthe seri o u sn ess o f th e o ffen se, t o p ro m o t e resp ectfo r th e l aw , an d t o p ro v i d e j u st puni s hm e nt , ( 4) the ne e d t o pr ot e c tthe publ i c , a nd ( 5) the gui de l i ne r a nge . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) . F i nal l y, “ [r ] evi ew for r ea sonabl enes s i s def er ent i al , ” a nd “ there i s a r a nge of

r e a s ona bl e s e nt e nc e s . ” T a l l e y , 431 F . 3d a t788. A . D oubl e - C ount i ng T o the e xt e nttha tS qua r e a l l e ge s i m pe r m i s s i bl e doubl e - c ount i ng, the c h a lle n g e is to th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s c a lc u la tio n s . “I m p e r m is s ib le d o u b leIn fac t, the application notes for U.S.S .G. § 3C1.2 explain that a 2-level upward depar ture 2 may be warra

nted under this provision where the level of culpability was higher tha

n “re ckless” a

nd that an upwa

rd depa rture may al s o b e wa

rra nted if the off

ense c onduct imposed a risk of de ath or bo dily inj ur y to m oretha

n o nepers on , a s w a s the c a se here . Se e § 3C1 .2 , c omm e nt. (nn. 2, 6) . Thu s, the Guidelines themselve s provide for an adj u s tm ent of the rang e on the same grounds that the dis tric t c ourt

us e d a nd , even f or thepurp os e s o f Guide lin e s c alculatio ns therewo uld be no do ub le countingbeca

use neither of the other enhanc ements applied - for theft of controlled substance s or amount of loss – acc ount for Square ’s par ticipation in a public shootout with a police offic er. Square a rgues that our de cision in United States v. Brown, 332 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2003), 3 prohibits the upward va

rianc e in light of

the additional 240-month consecutive sentenc e under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In Brown, we did hold that a defenda nt’s sentenc e could not be enhanc ed pursua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5) f or usinga fire arm in conne ction with another of fensewhen that de fendant also had be e n sentenc e d fo r vio lating § 9 24 (c ) b e c a us eit e ff e c tiv e ly punis he d th esame 7 coun t i ng occurs on l y w hen o ne partof the G ui del i nes i s app l i ed t o i ncre as e a d e f e n d a n t’s p u n is h m e n t o n a c c o u n t o f a k in d o f

h a r m th a t h a s a lr e a d y b e e n f u lly ac coun t ed for by app l i ca t i on of anot her par tof the G ui del i nes. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M a t os - R odr i gue z , 188 F . 3d 1300, 1309 ( 11th C i r . 1999) ( i nt e rna l quot a t i ons a nd c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . F u r th e r , “[ d ]o u b le c o u n tin g d u r in g s e n te n c in g is p e r m is s ib le if th e S e n te n c in g C o m m is s io n in te n d e d th e r e s u lt, a n d if th e r e s u lt is p e r m is s ib le b e c a u s e e a c h s e c tio n c o n c e rn s c o n c e p tu a lly s e p a r a te n o tio n s r e la te d to s e n te n c in g .” I d . a t 1 3 1 0 . H er e, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otappl y ase ct i on of the gu i del i nes t o enh ance S qu ar e’ s s ent ence by three l evel s, bu tra ther, af t erca l cul at i ng the gu i del i ne ra ng e, f o u n d th a t r a n g e in a d e q u a te in lig h t o f S q u a r e ’s p a r tic u la ro f

f e n s e c o n d u c t. 2 A cc ordi ng l y, w e c on cl ud e thatthe courtdi d n otengage i n i m perm i ss i bl e dou bl eco u n t i n g , an d w e p ro ceed t o rev i ew th e sen t en ce fo r reaso n ab l en ess. 3conduct – the useor possessi o n o f a fi re armin connec tion with the offense– twice. B rown, 332

F.3d at 1346. First, Square ’s sentenc e does not involve a sentenc ing enhanc ement as does B rown, but a p o s t -B o o ker upw ard va rianc e madeafter the c alculation of thecorrect guideline ra ng e. See id. at 1343. Second, while § 924( c) punishes posse ssion, th e d i strict court ba sed the va rianc e on Square’ s participation in a publi c shoot out with a poli ce of ficer – by which he endang ere d the lives of many oth e rs . 8 B . R easo n ab l en ess I n i m pos i ng the upw a r d va r i a nc e f r om the c orr e c t l y c a l c ul a t e d r a nge , the di s tr i c tc our te xpr e s s e d pa r t i c ul a rc onc e rn ove rboth the num be rof s hot s f i r e d a nd the fa ctthatthe cond uctpo t ent i al l y putthe l i ves of s o m any peopl e a tri sk. N ei ther o f th e s e c o n c e rn s is m e n tio n e d in a n y o f th e s ta tu te s o rg u id e lin e s c o n tr ib u tin g to S q u ar e’s c alcu lated se n ten cin g ra n g e. S u ch co n ce rn s r ef lect th e d istrict co u rt’s c ons i de r a t i on of

the na tur e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s of the of f e ns e a nd the ne e d f

orthe s e n t e n c e t o r e f

l e c tth e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

th a to f f e n s e , t o p r o m o t e r e s p e c tf o rth e l a w, a nd t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm e nt , a l l of w hi c h a r e f

a c t or s l i s t e d i n § 3553( a ) . S e e 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1), (2). T here fore , i tw as prop erfor the di stri ctcourtt o con si der thos e f a c t or s w he n i ti nc r e a s e d S qua r e ’ s s e nt e nc e on C ount s 1 a nd 2 f r om 46 t o 51 m onths of

i m pr i s onm e nt . F ur the r , the f i ve - m onth upw a r d va r i a nc e f r om the G ui del i nes r ange i s s m al l erthan w e have uph el d i n si m i l arca se s. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. E l di ck, 44 3 F . 3d 78 3, 78 9-90 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ) ( per c uri am ) ( up ho l di ng as reaso n ab l e u p w ard v ari an ce fro m 1 0 8 t o 1 8 0 m o n th s i n h eal th care frau d case w he r e the di s tr i c tc our tha d c ons i de r e d the S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s a nd the § 3553The district cour t actually found that a 4 2 -m o nth sentenc e wa s appropriate, but then 4 grante d a d o wnw ard

d ep artu re , p ur s u ant to U . S. S. G . § 5 K 1 . 1 . Valnor, _ _ F . 3 d at _

_ , 2 0 0 6 WL 1529118 at *7. 9 fa ct ors, and d et erm i ned t hatthe gu i del i ne ra ng e w as i nadequ at e “ because i tfa i l ed t o g rasp th e fu l l si g n i fi can ce an d b read th o f h arm i n fl i ct ed b y [th e d efen d an t ’ s] a c t i ons ; ” a nd r e c or d s uppor t e d thi s de t e r m i na t i on) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. V a l nor , __ F .3 d __ , 2 0 0 6 W L 1 5 2 9 1 1 8 a t * 5 - 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( u p h o ld in g a s r e a s o n ab le up w ar d v ar i ance fr om 21 t o 2 8 m on ths, st i l l “ appreci abl y” bel ow the st atut ory m a xi m um , i n c a s e i nvol vi ng the pr oc ur e m e ntof i de nt i f i c a t i on doc um e nt s f

or 4 i l l egal al i ens w here the di stri ctcourtconsi dere d the se ri ou s nature of the offens e, i ncl ud i ng the threa tt o n at i on al se curi ty, and fou nd thatthe gu i del i ne se nt ence f a ile d a d e q u a te ly to d e te ro rp r o te c t th e p u b lic f r o m f u tu r e c r im e s ) . H e r e , a s i n both E l di c k a nd V a l nor , the c our tc ons i de r e d the G ui de l i ne s a nd the § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a nd foun d thatthe corr ec t l y c al cul at ed gu i del i ne ra ng e w as in a d e q u a te b e c a u s e it d id n o t r e f le c t th e s e r io u s n e s s o f

S q u a r e ’s o f

f e n s e c o n d u c t, part i cul ar l y hi s part i ci pat i on i n a gu n b att l e w i th a po l i ce offi ce r. O ur re vi ew re veal s thatthe re cord supp ort s the concerns of the di stri ctcourtas t o the nature, ci rc um st ance s, and ser i ou snes s of the cr i m e. F i nal l y, the court ’ s upw ar d v ar i ance fro m 4 6 t o 5 1 m o n th s h ere w as rel at i v el y sm al l an d i s st i l l w el l b el o w th e tw en ty-10

f i v e - y e a rs t a tu t o ry m a x i m u m . S e e 1 8 U. S . C . § 2 1 1 8 ( c ) ( 1 ) . F o rth e s e r e a s o n s , we c o n c lu d e th a t S q u a r e ’s s e n te n c e o f 5 1 m o n th s a s to C o u n ts 1 a n d 2 is r e a s o n ab le . I I I . CONCL US I ON S qu ar e app ea l s hi s 51-m on th sent ence for vi ol at i on of the C S R P A , i m po se d a s p a r to f a t o t a l 2 9 1 - m o n th s e n t e n c e f o rr o b b i n g a p h a r m a c y . B e c a u s e we c onc l ude tha tS qua r e ’ s s e nt e nc e w a s r e a s ona bl e , c ons i de r i ng the 18 U . S . C . § 3553 f a c t or s , pa r t i c ul a r l y the ne e d f orthe s e nt e nc e t o r e f

l e c tthe c i r c um s t a nc e s a nd se ri ou snes s of the offens e, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n v aryi ng the se nt ence u p wa r d f r o m th e c o rr e c t l y c a l c u l a t e d Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we A F F I R M.