NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 3101

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. KEI TH STEW AR T, a / k / a N a u g h ty, a /k /a N u tty KEI TH STEW AR T, A ppel l ant

____________ N o. 09- 3102

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S HE DR I CK CR AF T ON, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . N os . 2- 08- cr - 00346- 001 and 2- 08- cr - 00346- 004) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Sus an D . W i gent on

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 16, 2010H onor abl e G ene E. K . Pr att er , U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges , a n d P RATT ER, D is tr i ct Judge . * Fi l ed: A pr i l 27, 2010

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . S h e d ric k C ra f

to n a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n a n d se n ten c e , an d c o -d e f e n d a n t K e ith S tew a rt a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n , fo r c o n sp irin g to d istrib u te, a n d to p o ss e ss w ith in ten t to d istrib u te, o n e k ilo g ra m o r m o re o f h e ro in a n d f

iv e k ilo g ra m s o r m o re o f c o c a in e , in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a ) a n d (b )(1 )(A ), an d 8 4 6 . S tew a rt a lso a p p e a ls h is c o n v ictio n f

o r p o ss e ss in g w ith in ten t to d istrib u te 1 0 0 g ra m s o r m o re o f h e ro in , in v io latio n o f

2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (a ) a n d (b )(1 )(B ). F o r th e re a so n s s tate d h e re in , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. W e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w ho ar e fa m i l i arw i th the fa ctual cont extand l egal hi s t oryof thi s cas e. T her efor e, w e w i l l s etfor th onl ythos e fa ct s nece s s aryt o our analy si s. F ro m A u g u st 2 0 0 6 u n til F e b ru a ry2 0 0 8 , S tew a rt a n d C ra f to n c o n sp ire d to di s tr i but e mul t i - ki l ogr am quant i t i es of her oi n and coc ai ne i n and ar ound N ew ark, N ewT h e f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g t o th i s a p p e a l wi l l b e d i s c u s s e d s e q u e n t i a l l yb e l o w. 1 T h e o th e rtw o c o - c o n s p i r a t o r s p l e d g u i l ty. 2 3 Je rse y . T h e e v id e n c e a g a in st th e m , the m a jo rityo f w h ich is n o t re lev a n t to th is a p p e a l, compri s ed ( 1) t es t i m onyof coope r at i ng co- cons pi r at or s , ( 2) i nt er cept ed ce l l ul art el ephone conver s at i ons , ( 3) a conve r s at i on r ecor ded bya conf i dent i al i nform ant( C I ) , ( 4) s ei zur es of n arcot i cs duri ng traffi c st op s and the execu t i on of search an d arr estw arr ants , ( 5) C r aft on’ s confe s s i on, and ( 6) expertt es t i m onyi nt erpr et i ng code us ed i n t el ephone con versat i on s. 1 O n A ugus t1, 2008, a fe der al gr and j urys i t t i ng i n N ew ark, N ew J er s ey , i ndi ct ed C r aft on, St ew art , and tw o otherco- cons pi r at or s . T he i ndi ctm entchar ged C r aft on and St ew artw i th cons pi r i ng t o di s tr i but e, and t o pos s es s w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e, one ki l ogr am or more of her oi n and fi ve ki l ogr ams orm or e of c ocai ne, i n vi ol at i on of 21 U .S .C . § § 8 4 1 (a ) a n d (b )(1 )(A ), an d 8 4 6 . T h e in d ictm e n t als o c h a rg e d S tew a rt w ith p o s s e s s i n g wi th i n t e n tt o d i s tr i b u t e 1 0 0 g r a ms o rmo r e o f h e r o i n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

2 1 U. S . C. § 8 4 1 (a ) a n d (b )(1 )(B ). C ra f to n a n d S tew a rt p ro c e e d e d to trial. 2 O n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , af

ter a n e ig h t-d a ytrial, th e ju ryre tu rn e d a g u iltyv e rd ict o n a ll count s . T her eaf

t er , the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d C r aft on t o 360 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent and t en y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e and St ew artt o tw o concurr entt erm s of 360 m onths of i m pr i s onm entand t en y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e, and i s s ued St ew arta $30, 000 fi ne. C raft on and S t ew arteach ti m el yapp eal ed, and this C ou rtcon sol i dated the ap peals .4 II. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . §3742( a) . W e r evi ew a di s tr i ct court ’ s deni al of a mot i on t o s uppr es s forcl earerr oras t o the under l y i ng fac t s , but e x e rc is e p le n a ry re v ie w o v e r t h e c o u rt ’s le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s . U ni t ed Stat es v. Shi elds , 458 F. 3d 269, 275- 76 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . T he s ame st andar d appl i es t o cl ai m s of outr ageous g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t. U ni t ed Stat es v. H

of f ecker , 5 3 0 F . 3 d 1 3 7 , 1 5 3 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) . We r evi ew cr i m i nal s ent ence s and di s tr i ctcourtrul i ngs on cont empora neous obj ect i ons foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . U

ni t ed Stat es v. Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d 5 5 8 , 5 6 7 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) (en b an c); U nited S tates v. L ore , 4 3 0 F . 3 d 1 9 0 , 2 1 0 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). III . C ra f to n a n d S tew a rt to g e th e r ra ise f o u r d isc re te is su e s o n a p p e a l. F irst, b o th C raft on and S t ew artcon t end that the D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in den y i ng the d efen dan t s’ m ot i on t o s uppr es s w i r et ap evi dence bas ed on a f al s e s t at ementcont ai ned i n the w arr ant affidavi t . S econ d, C raft on and S t ew artal l ege thattheyw ere denied a fai r tri al becau se the pr os ecut orcomm ent ed on the def endant s ’ abi l i tyt o pr es entevi dence dur i ng the pr os ecut or ’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent s . T hi r d, St ew artcl ai m s thatoutr ageous governm ent c o n d u c t v io late d h is d u e p ro c e ss rig h ts. F o u rth a n d f in a lly , C ra f

to n a rg u e s th a t h is s ent ence i s both pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. W e w i l l addr es s eac h cont ent i on i n turn.5 A . M oti on to Su p p ress O n N ovember15, 2007, Speci al A gentT i m othyC ar eyof the D epart m entof H om el and Secur i ty , I m m i gr at i on and C us t om s E nfor cement , s ubm i t t ed a thi r ty - page af fid av itin su p p o rto f a w arran t t o interce p t t elep h o n e c all s m ad e to a n d fro m C raf ton ’s cel l ul art el ephone. I n the af fi davi t , Speci al A gentC ar eys t at ed thathe l earned, bas ed on a rec o rde d co n v ersa ti o n b etw ee n the C I an d C raf ton an d the o b serv ati o n o f C raf ton ’s w h e re a b o u ts, th a t C ra f

to n n e e d e d to g e t h is “ d ru g p re ss ” b a c k f ro m th e h o m e o f

h is as s oci at e, R as heed Ti l l ett . Speci al A gentC ar eyal s o s t at ed thatl aw enfor cementhad r ecove r ed the drug pr es s , al ong w i th otherdrug par aphernal i a, fr om the Ti l l ettr es i dence aft erT i l l ett ’ s m ur der . Fi ndi ng thatther e w as pr obabl e ca us e thatC r aft on, St ew art , and other s w er e enga ged i n i l l i ci tnar cot i cs deal i ng thr ough the us e of Cra ft on’ s cel l ul ar t el ephone, a j udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eyi s s ued a w ire tap w a rra n t. P rio r to trial, C ra f

to n f iled a m o tio n , in w h ich S tew a rt jo in e d , to s u p p re ss a ll i nt er cept ed ce l l ul art el ephone c onver s at i ons beca us e, contr aryt o C ar ey ’ s aff i davi t , l aw enfor cementdi d notr ecove ra drug pr es s fr om the Ti l l ettr es i dence . A tthe s uppr es s i on hear i ng, Speci al A gentC ar eyadmi t t ed thathe had made a mi s t ake i n the af fi davi tby as s um i ng w i thoutchec ki ng thatthe drug pr es s w as r ecove r ed fr om the Ti l l ettr es i dence bas ed on conve r s at i ons betw een the C I and C r aft on and l aw enfor cement ’ s obs ervat i on of C ra f to n ’s w h e re a b o u ts. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n to su p p re ss f ro m th e b e n c h :6

“thi s m i s r epr es ent at i on w as nota s ubs t ant i al bas i s upon w hi ch the w arr antw as gr ant ed. ” (A p p . at A 1 2 4 . ) O n ap p ea l, C raf ton an d S tew art co n tend that this de cisi o n w as in erro r. W e h a v e sta ted th a t, “[w ] her e a de fenda ntdemonstr at es bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence ‘ that a fa l s e s t at ementknow i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l y , orw i th r eckl es s di s r egar d for the truth, w as i ncl uded bythe af fi anti n the w arr antaff

i davi t , and [that ] the al l egedl yfal s e s t at ementi s nece s s aryt o the fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e, ’ the F o u rth A m e n d m e n t re q u ire s th a t ‘th e f ru its o f th e se a rc h ’ b e e x c lu d e d ‘to the s ame ext entas i f pr obabl e ca us e w as l acki ng on the fa ce of the af fid av it . ’” Shi elds , 458 F. 3d at276 ( quot i ng Franks v. D el aw are , 4 3 8 U . S . 1 5 4 , 1 5 5 -56 (19 7 8 )). In otherw ords, “i n o rdert o secure supp res si on of the frui t s of t he search, a def end ant m ust s how both t hatbad fa i th orr eckl es s di s r egar d exi s t ed on the partof the af fi ant , and that ther e w oul d have be en no pr obabl e ca us e butforthe i ncorr ects t at ement . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Frost , 9 9 9 F . 2 d 7 3 7 , 7 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). W e w i l l aff

i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the s uppr es s i on m ot i on. T he defe ndant s pr ovi ded no evi dence thatSpeci al A gentC ar eym ade the fa l s e s t at ement k n o w in g lyo r re c k les sly . M o re im p o rta n tly , the o m iss io n o f th e sta tem e n t d o e s n o t n e g a te the exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e: T he l engthyaff i davi tcont ai ned a pl ethor a of e vi dence in d ic a tin g d ru g tr a f

f ic k in g a c tiv ity a p a rt f

ro m th e s ta te m e n ts re g a rd in g th e d ru g p re s s . Fur therm or e, even i f l aw enfor cementdi d notul t i m at el yr ecove rthe drug pr es s fr om t he T i l l ettr es i dence , C r aft on’ s s t at ementt o the C I thatthe drug pr es s w as ther e and l aw7

enfor cement ’ s obs ervat i on of C r aft on dr i vi ng t o the Ti l l ettr es i dence t o r ecove rthe drug pr es s s t i l l i ndi cat e thatC r aft on w as engage d i n i l l i ci tnar cot i cs deal i ng. B . P ros ecut ori al M i s conduct D u r i n g c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s , C r a f t o n ’ s c o u n s e l a r g u e d th a tth e G o v e rn m e n t“ c h e r r ypi cked” w hi ch w i r et apped c onver s at i ons t o ent eri nt o evi dence , om i t t i ng conver s at i ons th a t co u ld h a v e c re a ted re a so n a b le d o u b t. In re sp o n se , the p ro se c u to r n o ted d u rin g h is cl os i ng ar gum ent s thatC r aft on coul d have i ntr oduced a nys uch exc ul pat oryconver s at i ons hi m s el f:

“ L e t m e b e c lea r a b o u t th is. D e f e n d a n ts h a v e n o b u rd e n w h a tso e v e r to pr es enta ca s e, t o t es t i fy , t o pr es entanyevi dence atal l . O kay ? B utthey can. A nd i f theyw ant ed t o br i ng i n othercal l s , theycoul d. T heyhave no o b lig a tio n , c a n ’t h o ld it a g a in s t th e m , b u t th e yc o u ld .” ( A pp. atA 1186. ) C r aft on’ s couns el obj ect ed, butthe D i s tr i ctC our toverrul ed. B as ed on th is ru lin g , C ra f

to n a n d S tew a rt a lleg e o n a p p e a l th a t th e yw e re d e n ied th e ir rig h t to a f a ir trial. “To fi nd thatthe courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n fai l i ng t o or dera mi s tr i al for pr os ecut or i al m i s conduct , w e mustfi r s tbe convi nced thatthe pr os ecut i on di d i n fac t m i s conducti t s el f. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. R i vas , 493 F. 3d 131, 139 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . A l though a p ro s e c u to r c a n n o t s u g g e s t th a t th e d e f e n d a n t h a s th e b u rd e n to p ro d u c e e v id e n c e , s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. B al t er , 91 F. 3d 427, 441 ( 3d C i r . 1996) , a pr os ecut orm ay“‘ focus the j ury ’ s att ent i on on hol es i n the def ens e’ s theory , ’ ” L ore , 430 F. 3d at213 ( quot i ng B al t er , 9 1 F . 3 d at 44 1 ).8

W e fi nd no m i s conducther e. T he pr os ecut ordi d nots ugges tt o the j urythatthe defe ndant s had the bur den t o pr oduce e vi dence . R ather , the pr os ecut orm er el yr es ponded t o the def

endant s ’ m i s l eadi ng ar gum entthatthe pr os ecut ori nt ent i onal l yfai l ed t o pr es ent excul pat oryr ecor di ngs , w hi l e r ei t er at i ng, i n the s ame br eath, thatdefe ndant s do notbear th e b u rd e n o f

p ro d u c in g e v id e n c e . T h is re s p o n s e w a s p e rm is s ib le . See , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 188 F. 3d 773, 779 ( 7th C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng thatther e w as no pr os ecut or i al m isco n d u ct w h en a p rose cu tor co m m en ted th at th e d ef en se c o u ld h av e c all ed an ex p ert w i tnes s i n r es pons e t o the def ens e’ s cl ai m thatan expe r tw i tnes s w oul d have di s pr oved the g o v ern m en t’ s w itn ess testi m o n y ). C . O ut rageous G overnm ent C ondu ct T h e C I de li v ere d the f

inal sh ipm en t of

h ero in to S tew art’s r esid en ce b ef o re St ew art ’ s arr es t . D ur i ng pr e- tr i al di s covery , the G overnm entdi s cl os ed thati thad s i nce p a id th e C I $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 in c a s h f o r r e lo c a tio n e x p e n s e s d u e to th re a ts m a d e o n th e C I’ s lif e . T her eaf t er , attr i al , Speci al A gentC ar eyi ndi cat ed dur i ng cr os s - exami nat i on thatthe G o v e rn m e n t h a d m a d e a d d itio n a l p a ym e n ts to th e C I t h a t p re d a te th is c a s e . ( See A pp. at 4 2 5 -2 7 .) O n appea l , St ew artcl ai m s thatthes e fa ct s amount t o outr ageous governm ent conductvi ol at i ng hi s due pr oces s r i ght s . M or e s peci fi cal l y , St ew artas s ert s that“the governm entagent s knew thatthe C I w as goi ng t o go t o the home of M r . St ew artand pl ant drugs i n hi s hom e unbeknow n t o hi m , ” ( St ew artB r . at10) , and thatthe G overnm ent9

i nappr opr i at el ypai d t he C I $40, 000 i n excha nge forthe C I pr ovi di ng i nform at i on for St ew art ’ s pr os ecut i on. T h is c la im is w a iv e d . M o tio n s “ a lle g in g a d e f e c t in in s titu tin g th e p ro s e c u tio n ,” in c lu d in g th e d e f

e n s e o f o u tr a g e o u s g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t, m u s t b e ra is e d b e f o re tr ia l. F e d . R . C rim . P . 1 2 (b )(3 )(A ); U n itedS ta tes v . P itt , 1 9 3 F . 3 d 7 5 1 , 7 6 0 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). In o r d e rt o o b t a i n r e l i e f

f r o m wa i v e r , th e d e f

e n d a n tmu s ts h o w “ g o o d c a u s e . ” F e d . R. Cr i m. P. 12( e) . H er e, St ew arthas fai l ed t o do s o, as he has pr ovi ded abs ol ut el yno expl anat i on f o r h is f a ilu re to ra is e th e o u tr a g e o u s g o v e rn m e n t c o n d u c t is s u e w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt . See U nited S tates v. R ose , 538 F. 3d 175, 184- 85 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( hol di ng thatthe defe ndantdi d nots how “good ca us e” be caus e the def endantdi d notpr es ent“any c o lo ra b le e x p lan a tio n ” a s to w h yh e h a d f a iled to ra ise h is s u p p re ss io n a rg u m e n t u n til ap p ea l) . E ven i f the outr ageous governm entconductcl ai m w er e pr oper l ybefor e us , the cl ai m w oul d fai l on the mer i t s . W e have s t at ed thatw e ar e “‘ extr emel yhes i t antt o fi nd l aw enfor cementconducts o offe ns i ve thati tvi ol at es the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. ’ ” H of f ecker , 530 F. 3d at154 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. V

oigt , 8 9 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 6 5 (3d C ir . 1996) ) . A ccor di ngl y , an i ndi ctm ents houl d be di s m i s s ed onl yi f the governm entconduct i s “mosti nt ol er abl e, ” and not“ea ch t i m e the governm entact s dece pt i vel y . ” I d. (q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n s o m itt e d ). H e re , S tew a rt’s a ss e rtio n th a t th e C I p lan ted d ru g s in S t e wa r t ’ s h o me i s wi th o u ts u p p o r t , a n d th e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s th a tth e o n l yp a yme n tth e CI10

r ece i ved w i th r egar d t o t he i ns t antcas e w as $20, 000 forr el ocat i on expens es . T hi s i s not i nt ol er abl e conduc tr i s i ng t o the l evel of a due pr oces s vi ol at i on. D . Se nt e nc i ng T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d C r aft on t o 360 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent , fol l ow ed by t en y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s s ent ence w as w i thi n the G ui del i nes r ange of 360 m onths t o l i fe i n pr i s on, w hi ch w as bas ed on C r aft on’ s fi nal offe ns e l evel of 37 and c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ryo f V I. O n a p p e a l, C ra f

to n a rg u e s th a t h is s e n ten c e is b o th pr ocedur al l yand s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. A s C r aft on’ s ar gum ent s r efl ect , w e r evi ew s ent ence s underan abus e of di s cr et i on s ta n d a rd in tw o s ta g e s . Tom ko , 56 2 F . 3d at56 7. F i rs t , w e m ust “e n su re tha t th e d istri ct co u rtco m m itted n o sign ifi ca n t pro ce d u ral error, s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e ( ori m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) the G ui del i nes r ange, tr eat i ng the G ui del i nes as m andat ory , fai l i ng t o cons i derthe § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rlye rro n e o u s f a c ts, o r f a ili n g to adequa t el yexpl ai n t he chos en s ent ence - i ncl udi ng an expl anat i on forany d e v ia tio n f

ro m th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e .” G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U . S. 38, 51 ( 2007) . I f the pr ocedur e i s s ound, w e then cons i der th e s e n te n c e ’s s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s b a s e d o n a to ta lity o f th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Tom ko , 5 6 2 F .3 d a t 5 6 7 . O u r sta n d a rd o f re v iew in th is s e c o n d ste p is h ig h lyd e f e re n tial: “w e w i l l aff

i r m [the s ent ence ] unl es s no r eas onabl e s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed the s ame se nt ence on thatpart i cul ardefe ndantforthe r eas ons the di s tr i ctcourtpr ovi ded. ” I d. at568. “A tboth s t ages of ourr evi ew , the partychal l engi ng the s ent ence has the bur den of de m ons tr at i ng unr eas onabl enes s . ” I d. at567.11

C r aft on cont ends thathi s s ent ence i s pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D istric t C o u rt f

a iled to a d d re ss h is a lleg e d d im in ish e d m e n tal c a p a c ityw ith in its cons i der at i on of the 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s . T hi s ar gum enti s bel i ed bythe r ecor d, w hi ch demonstr at es thatthe C our tdi d addr es s C r aft on’ s al l eged di m i ni s hed capaci tybut decl i ned t o gr anta var i ance : “C l ear l yy ou pr obabl yhave mor e cha l l enges than s om e and f ew er chal l enges than other s , buttheydo notr i s e t o a l evel of w arr ant i ng anytype of var i ance ordow nw ar d departur e fordi m i ni s hed capaci ty , s o I cannot g ra n t a n yv a ri a n c e o r d e p a rt u re o n th a t b a s is .” (A p p . at A 1 2 6 6 .) A s s u c h , w e c a n n o t f in d th a t C ra f

to n ’s s e n ten c e is p ro c e d u ra lly unr eas onabl e. C ra f to n ’s s u b sta n tiv e a rg u m e n t is a lso w ith o u t m e rit. C ra f to n a ss e rts th a t h is sen tenc e w as “ g rea ter th an n ec essa ry , ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 (a), b ec au se th e D istri ct C o u rt di d notexpl ai n w hythe s t atut orym andat orym i ni m um of tw entyy ear s of i m pr i s onm ent w as i ns uffi ci ent . T hi s br i ef a r gum ent– w hi ch s ounds pr ocedur al r atherthan s ubs t ant i ve

– is u n p e rsu a siv e . T h e D istric t C o u rt to o k in to a c c o u n t C ra f to n ’s c rim in a l h isto ry , h is s t atus as a ca r eeroffe nder , the s er i ous nes s of the off ens e, C r aft on’ s s ophi s t i cat i on, the n e e d f o r d e ter re n c e , an d th e n e e d to p ro tec t th e p u b lic b e f o re im p o sin g a se n ten c e w ith in th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e . S in c e C ra f to n h a s s e t f

o rth n o e x p lan a tio n a s to w h yn o re a so n a b le s ent enci ng courtw oul d have i m pos ed s uch a s ent ence , he has notm ethi s bur den of d e m o n s tr a tin g u n re a s o n a b le n e s s . Tom ko , 5 6 2 F . 3 d at 56 7 -68 . T h ere fo re, C raf ton ’s subst anti ve clai m al so fai l s.12 I V. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l aff i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s j udgm ent s of convi ct i on and s ent ence .