FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT NOVEMB ER 30, 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. 06- 12076 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 2 7 3 - C R - WS 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 B I L L Y J A C K K E E N 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 So u th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 30, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d C A RN E S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C A RN E S , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

B e tw e e n J ul y 26 a nd A ugus t4, 2005, B i l l y J a c k K e e ne a nd hi s c oco n sp irato rs , Jes se A rn o ldan d Je n n iferK ee n e ( K ee n e’s s ister a n d A rn o ld ’s gi r l f r i e nd) , r obbe d thr e e ba nks i n s outhe rn A l aba m a . A s pa r tof e a c h he i s t , K e e ne or Je nn i fe r w ou l d d ri ve A rnol d t o and fr om the bank s, w hi l e A rnol d w enti nsi de, hand ed the t el l era threa t eni ng no t e, and t oo k the m on eyfr om the shaken t el l er . T he not e K e e ne a nd A rnol d j oi nt l y dr a f t e d f orthe f i r s tba nk r e a d, “ G i ve m e a l l the m on ey , and n o o ne w i l l gethu rt ! L ov e, m e. ” K ee ne, A rnol d and Je nn i fe r then m a de a w a y w i th $5, 205. 00. K ee ne and h i s c o-conspi ra t ors w er e a rr es t ed soon af t erthe l as tbank robb ery f ol l ow i ng a t i p f

r om A rnol d’ s m othe rt o the F B I tha the rs on w a s r e s pons i bl e f or the s tr i ng of

r obbe r i e s . K e e ne w a s i ndi c t e d f orthr e e c ount s of

t a ki ng m one y by f o r c e o rin tim id a tio n f

r o m a f in a n c ia l in s titu tio n in s u r e d b y th e F e d e r a l D e p o s it I n s u r a n c e C o rp o r a tio n , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 1 3 ( a ) . H e p le a d e d g u ilty to a ll th r e e c o u n ts w ith o u t ap le aa g r e e m e n t. T he prob at i on offi ce subm i tt ed a pre- se nt ence i nv es t i gat i on re po rt , w hi ch reco m m en d ed th atth e d i stri ctco u rten h an ce K een e’ s sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n e b ase o ffen se l ev el b y tw o p u rsu an tt o U . S . S . G . § 2 B 3 . 1 (b )(2 )(F ). T h atg u i d el i n es p ro v isio n sp ec ifies th at if, i n th e c o u rs e o f a ro b b er y, ex to rtio n o r b lack m ail, “a thr e a tof de a th w a s m a de , ” the de f e nda nt ’ s ba s e of

f e ns e l e ve l m us tbe “ i nc r e a s e [ d]3

by 2 l evel s. ” T he theory w as thatthe no t e K ee ne had h el ped d ra ft , w hi ch w as hand ed t o the t el l eratthe fi rs tbank , const i tut ed a threa tof death. K ee ne obj ec t ed to a n y th r e a t- o f

- d e a th e n h a n c e m e n t b a s e d o n th e n o te , a r g u in g th a t w h ile th e n o te w ar n ed th e teller th at sh e w o u ldb e “h u rt” if s h e d idn o t co m p ly w ith A rn o ld ’s de m a nds , i tdi d noti m pl y tha tA rnol d w oul d ki l l he r . K e e ne ’ s pos i t i on i s tha tthe th r e a t o f v io le n c e a lo n e is n o t e n o u g h f o rth e th r e a t- o f

- d e a th e n h a n c e m e n t. T he di stri ctcourtov errul ed K ee ne’ s obj ec t i on , and b as ed on the enhanced of f e ns e l e ve l a nd K e e ne ’ s c r i m i na l hi s t ory a rr i ve d a ta n a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge o f 1 0 0 to 1 2 5 m o n th s im p r is o n m e n t. W ith o u t th e tw o - le v e l th r e a t- o f - d e a th e nha nc e m e ntthe gui de l i ne s r a nge w oul d ha ve be e n 84 t o 105 m onths i m pri sonm ent . T he di stri ctcourtse nt ence d K ee ne w i thi n the enhanced range, i m pos i ng a120- m onth s e nt e nc e , buti n doi ng s o the c our ti ndi c a t e d tha te ve n i f the tw o- l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntha d notbe e n appl i e d the c our tw oul d ha ve r e a c he d the s a m e s e n te n c e u n d e rits 2 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a u th o r ity to im p o s e a r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e o u ts id e th e g u id e lin e s r a n g e . In hi s app ea l t o u s, K ee ne ra i se s the sa m e i ss ue thathe di d i n the di stri ct c o u r t, a r g u in g th a t th e U .S .S .G . § 2 B 3 .1 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( F ) e n h a n c e m e n t d o e s n o t ap p ly to thr e a t s of

vi ol e nc e unl e s s the r obbe rbr a ndi s he d aw e apon, s t a t e d ors ugge s t e d he ha d one , ora tl e a s tm a de a m e na c i ng ge s tur e . T he i s s ue i s one of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on4

be f or e ourC our t . F r om w ha tw e c a n t e l l , onl y one othe rc i r c ui tha s de c i de d the is s u e , a n d it h e ld th a t th e th r e a t- o f - d e a th e n h a n c e m e n t d id in f a c t ap p ly to ci rcu m st an ces si m i l ar t o th o se w e h av e h ere. S ee, e. g . , U n i t ed S t at es v . T h o m as, 327 F . 3d 253, 254–55 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( hol di ng tha tnot e gi ve n t o ba nk t e l l e rby the de f e nda nt , w hi c h r e a d, “ D o e xa c t l y w ha tthi s s a y s , f i l l the ba g w i th $100s , $50s and $ 20 s, a dye pack w i l l bri ng m e bac k for your as s, do i tno w . T ruel y [ si c] y our s , ” c ons t i tut e d athr e a tof de a th w a rr a nt i ng the e nha nc e m e nt ) . T ha tm a y be the w a y th e is s u e s h o u ld b e d e c id e d , b u t w e n e e d n o t d e c id e it in th is c a s e . T h e r e a s o n it is u n n e c e s s a ry f o ru s to d e c id e th e e n h a n c e m e n t is s u e is th a t a de c i s i on e i the rw a y w i l l nota f f e c tthe out c om e of

thi s c a s e . W e know i tw i l l not be c a us e the di s tr i c tc our tt ol d us tha tthe e nha nc e m e ntm a de no di f f e r e nc e t o the se nt ence i ti m po se d. A ft erthe courtov errul ed K ee ne’ s obj ec t i on and fou nd w hat the c our tbe l i e ve d t o be the appr opr i a t e gui de l i ne r a nge t a ki ng i nt o c ons i de r a t i on the tw o- s t e p e nha nc e m e nt , the c our tm a de c l e a rtha te ve n i f i t s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i c a t i on of

U . S . S . G . § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F ) w a s w r ong, i tw oul d s t i l l ha nd dow n the sa m e 120 -m on th sent ence : A nd I w i l l sa y f

or the re cord thateven i f the gu i del i ne ca l cul at i on s a re w rong , m y app l i ca t i on of the se nt enci ng fa ct ors und erS ec t i on 35 53 (a ) w oul d s t i l l c om pe l the c onc l us i on tha ta 10- y e a rs e nt e nc e [ 120 m o n th s ] is r e a s o n ab le a n d ap p r o p r ia te u n d e ra ll th e f a c to r s th a t I c ons i de r e d.5

( R : 29: 14) . T he c our te s s e nt i a l l y a c c e pt e d the i nvi t a t i on e xt e nde d by the c onc urr i ng o p i n i o n i n 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 7 3 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (C arn es, J. , concurri ng ), w hi ch i s notsurpri si ng si nce the sa m e di stri ctcourtj ud ge w as in v o lv e d in b o th c a s e s . A s the c onc urr i ng opi ni on i n W i l l i a m s e xpl a i ne d, “ poi nt l e s s r e ve r s a l s a nd u n n e c e s s a ry d o - o v e r s o f s e n te n c e p r o c e e d in g s ” c a n b e a v o id e d if d is tr ic t c o u r ts f a c e d w ith d is p u te d g u id e lin e s is s u e s s ta te th a t th e g u id e lin e s a d v ic e th a t r e s u lts fr om deci si on of tho se i ss ues does notm att ert o the se nt ence i m po se d aft erthe § 3553( a ) f a c t or s a r e c ons i de r e d. I d. L i ke w i s e , i f r e s ol ut i on of

the gui de l i ne s i s s ue d o e s m a tte rto th e ju d g e ’s u ltim a te s e n te n c in g d e c is io n , n o tin g th a t it d o e s “w ill h el p fo cu s o u r att en t i o n o n th e i ssu es th atm att er. ” Id . T h i s ap p ro ach i s a l e gi t i m a t e one be c a us e , a s the W i l l i a m s c onc urr i ng opi ni on e xpl a i ne d, “ [ t ] he S u p r e m e C o u r t a n d th is C o u r t h a v e lo n g r e c o g n iz e d th a t it is n o t n e c e s s a ry to de c i de gui de l i ne s i s s ue s orr e m a nd c a s e s f orne w s e nt e nc e pr oc e e di ngs w he r e the gui de l i ne s e rr or , i f

a ny , di d nota f

f e c tthe s e nt e nc e . ” I d. ( c i t a t i ons t o f our s u p p o r tin g d e c is io n s o m itte d ) . W hether t o d ec i de and st at e on the re cord i f the deci si on of a gui del i nes i ss ue m att er s t o the ul t i m at e s ent ence i m po se d i s up t o the di stri ctcourti n eac h i nd i vi du al ca se . Id. at77 5– 76 (“ Iti s the prer og at i ve of se nt enci ng court s t o speak6

or re m ai n si l entabou tsuch m att er s. T he choi ce i s thei rs . ”) . H er e, the di stri ctcourt deci ded t o speak on the m att erand t ol d u s thati t s r es ol ut i on of the § 2B 3. 1(b)(2)(F) enhancem enti ss ue di d n otm att erbecause i tw ou l d h ave i m po se d th e s a m e s e n te n c e , u s in g its § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a u th o r ity , e v e n w ith o u t th e e n h a n c e m e n t. T h a t is a ll w e n e e d to k n o w , e x c e p t f o ro n e th in g . T he one thi ng w e a dd t o the appr oa c h s ugge s t e d i n the W i l l i a m s c onc urr i ng opi ni on i s tha tthe s e nt e nc e i m pos e d thr ough the a l t e rna t i ve orf a l l ba c k r e a s oni ng o f § 3 5 5 3 (a) m u stb e reaso n ab l e. In d et erm i n i n g w h eth er i ti s reaso n ab l e w e m u st as sum e thatthere w as gu i del i nes e rr or— thatthe gu i del i nes i ss ue shou l d h ave been deci ded i n the w aythe defendantar gu ed and the advi soryra ng e r educed a c c or di ngl y— a nd the n a s k w he the rthe f i na l s e nt e nc e r e s ul t i ng f r om c ons i de r a t i on of the § 3553( a ) f

a c t or s w oul d s t i l l be r e a s onabl e . O the rw i s e , w e w i l l notknow w hether a ny error i n d ec i di ng the gu i del i nes i ss ue, i n arr i vi ng atthe advi sory gui de l i ne s s e nt e nc e , w a s trul y ha rm l e s s . T he W i l l i a m s c onc urr i ng opi ni on ap p r o a c h i s , a f

t e ra l l , a n a s s u m e d e rr o rh a rm l e s s n e s s i n q u i ry . I th a s two c o mp o n e n t s . O n e i s k n o w l e d g e th a tth e d i s tr i c tc o u r tw o u l d h a v e r e a c h e d th e s a me re sul teven i f i thad d ec i ded the gu i del i nes i ss ue the other w ay , and w e kno w that i n thi s c as e bec ause the courtt ol d u s. T he other c om po nenti s adet erm i nat i on that th e s e n te n c e w o u ld b e r e a s o n ab le e v e n if th e g u id e lin e s is s u e h a d b e e n d e c id e d in7

th e d e f e n d a n t’s f

a v o r , a n d w e tu rn to th a t q u e s tio n n o w . As we h a v e a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t , i f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r th a d d e c i d e d th e U. S . S . G. § 2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F ) e nha nc e m e nti s s ue i n K e e ne ’ s f a vorthe a dvi s ory gui de l i ne s r a nge w oul d ha ve be e n 84 t o 105 m onths , i ns t e a d of the 100 t o 125 m onths r a nge tha tthe courtarri ved atappl yi ng the tw o-l evel enhancem ent . T he qu es t i on then, i s w hether the 120- m onth s e nt e nc e the c our ti m pos e d i s r e a s onabl e , a s s um i ng e xa c t l y the s a m e c o n d u c t a n d o th e rf a c to r s in th e c a s e , b u t u s in g a n a d v is o ry r a n g e o f 8 4 to 1 0 5 m o n th s . O ur po st -B oo ker r ea sonabl enes s r evi ew t akes i nt o acc ou ntthe § 3 55 3(a) f a c t o r s a s w e l l a s th e a d v i s o ry g u i d e l i n e s r a n g e . U n i t e d St a t e s v . Bo o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. 22 0, 26 1, 12 5 S . C t . 73 8, 76 5– 66 (200 5) (m aj . op . of B re ye r, J. ). Iti s a

“ defe re nt i al ” r evi ew , and the bu rden i s on the defendantt o p rove thathi s s ent ence i s unrea sonabl e i n l i gh tof the re cord and sect i on 35 53 (a ). U ni t ed S t at es v. V al no r, 451 F . 3d 744, 750 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . K e e ne c a nnotc a rry the bur de n of s how i ng thathi s 120 -m on th sent ence w as un re as on abl e e ven w i th an ass um ed advi sory g u id e lin e s r a n g e o f

8 4 to 1 0 5 m o n th s . T h e f a c ts d e v e lo p e d d u r in g th e g u ilty p le aa n d s e n te n c e p r o c e s s w e r e th a t: ( 1) K e e ne , a t29 y e a r s of a ge , ha d a l r e a dy be e n c onvi c t e d of pos s e s s i on of m a r i j ua na a nd c oc a i ne , bur gl a ry , c r e di tc a r d f r a ud, pa s s i ng ba d c he c ks , a nd dr i vi ng8

w hi l e und erthe i nfl uence; (2) K ee ne w as on prob at i on atthe t i m e he c om m i tt ed the s e c r i m e s ; ( 3) K e e ne ha d al e a di ng r ol e i n pl a nni ng the thr e e ba nk r obbe r i e s ; ( 3) K e e ne he l pe d dr a f

tthe not e , w hi c h a tthe ve ry l e a s tthr e a t e ne d vi ol e nc e a ga i ns tthe b a n k te lle r ; a n d ( 4 ) K e e n e in d u c e d h is s is te r , w h o h a d n o c r im in a l h is to ry , to jo in i n the c r i m i na l e nt e rpr i s e . G i ve n the c i r c um s t a nc e s , a s e nt e nc e of 120 m onths f

or the thr e e r obbe r i e s i s notunr e a s onabl e r e ga r dl e s s of w he the rthe gui de l i ne s r a nge i s 84 t o 105 m onths or100 t o 125 m onths . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H unt , 459 F . 3d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (“ a d i stri ctco u rtm ay d et erm i n e, o n a case-b y-case b a s is , th e w e ig h t to g iv e th e G u id e lin e s , s o lo n g a s th a t d e te rm in a tio n is m a d e w ith re fe re nce t o the re m ai ni ng se ct i on 35 53 (a ) f ac t ors thatthe courtm ustal so consi der i n cal cul at i ng the defendant ’ s s ent ence ”) . F orthe s e r e a s ons , w e c onc l ude tha ti f the r e w a s a ny m i s appl i c a t i on of the §2B 3. 1( b) ( 2) ( F ) e nha nc e m e nt , “ the e rr ordi d nota f f e c tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s e l e c t i on o f th e s e n t e n c e i mp o s e d . ” W i l l i a ms v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 5 0 3 U . S. 1 9 3 , 2 0 3 , 1 1 2 S. C ou rt . 11 12 , 11 20 –2 1 (19 92 ). P uta l i tt l e di ff er ent l y, i tw ou l d m ake no sense t o set a s id e th is r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e a n d s e n d th e c a s e b a c kto th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s in c e it h a s a l r e a d y t o l d u s th a ti two u l d i m p o s e e x a c t l y th e s a m e s e n t e n c e , a s e n t e n c e we w o u ld b e c o m p e lle d to a f f irm . AF F I RME D.