FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOV 28 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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- 12530 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -003 34 -C R -W T M -4 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 R A H E E N T I M O T H Y E A R L W H I T F I E L D , 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 S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 28, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B r a he e n T i m othy E a r l W hi t f i e l d appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e of 262 m onths of i m pr i s onm e nti m pos e d a f t e rW hi t f i e l d pl e a de d gui l tyt o be i ng af e l on i n pos s e s s i on2

of a f i re arm . 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g). W hi t fi el d argues thatthe di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed th e S ix th A m en d m en t w h en itm ad e f ac tu al fin d in g s in co n n ec ti o n w ith W h it field ’s s e n te n c e a n d im p o s e d a n u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . W e a f f irm . I . B AC KG RO UN D In O ct ob er20 05 , W hi t fi el d, K ar ee m A bd ul S al aam , and a m i no r f em al e, w er e app re hend ed af

t era hi gh -s peed chase du ri ng w hi ch they tra vel ed i n a st ol en 20 05 T oyot a C am ry . O ff i ce rs foun d i n the C am rythe t ag fr om another s t ol en vehi cl e and tw o fi re arm s. W hi t fi el d and S al aa m , bo th con vi ct ed fe l on s, w er e i n d i c t e d b y af

e d e r a l g r a n d j u ry f

o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

as t o l e n mo t o rv e h i c l e , 1 8 U . S. C. § 2 3 1 3 , a n d b e in g af

e lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f

af ir e a rm , 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 ( g ) . W h itf ie ld pl ea ded g ui l ty t o the fi re arm char ge, and the go vernm entdi sm i ss ed the st ol en m o to rv e h ic le c h a r g e . T h e p ro b at i o n o ffi cer setW h i t fi el d ’ s b ase o ffen se l ev el at2 4 b ecau se W hi t f i e l d w a s i n pos s e s s i on of af i r e a rm a f t e rha vi ng a tl e a s ttw o vi ol e ntordrug re l at ed fe l on y c on vi ct i on s. U . S . S . G . § 2 k2 . 1(a) (2). T he prob at i on offi ce r a dd ed f o u rle v e ls u n d e rs e c tio n 2 k 2 .1 ( b ) ( 5 ) b e c au s e W h itf ie ld p o s s e s s e d th e f

ir e a rm in conn ec t i on w i th a carj ac ki ng . T he prob at i on offi ce r then add ed a tw o-l evel i ncre as e bec ause W hi t fi el d att em pt ed t o esc ape w hi l e i n cust od y and a tw o-l evel enhancem entbecause of the hi gh -s peed chase before S al aa m and W hi t fi el d w er e3

apprehended for a t ot al offe nse l evel of 32 . B ec ause W hi t fi el d w as an arm ed c a r e e rc r i m i na l a nd tha tof f e ns e l e ve l e xc e e de d the c a l c ul a t e d of f e ns e l e ve l , the prob at i on offi ce r s etW hi t fi el d’ s off ense l evel at34 . W i th a cr i m i nal hi st ory c a t e gory of

V I , the r e s ul t i ng gui de l i ne r a nge w a s 262 t o 327 m onths of i m pri sonm ent . T he prob at i on offi ce r deni ed W hi t fi el d a re du ct i on for a cc ept ance of r e s pons i bi l i ty be c aus e W hi t f i e l d de ni e d i nvol ve m e nti n the c a r j a c ki ng a nd b e c au s e o f

W h itf ie ld ’s e s c ap e a tte m p t. W h i t fi el d fi l ed o b

j ect i o n s t o th e rep o rto f th e p ro b at i o n o ffi cer. S p eci fi cal l y, W hi t f i e l d obj e c t e d t o the de ni a l of ar e duc t i on f

ora c c e pt a nc e of

r e s pons i bi l i ty , the f our - l e ve l e nha nc e m e ntf orpos s e s s i on of

af i r e a rm i n c onne c t i on w i th the c a r ja c k in g , a n d th e tw o - le v e l e n h a n c e m e n t f o ro b s tru c tio n o f

ju s tic e . A f t e rc ons i de r i ng W hi t f

i e l d’ s obj e c t i ons , the di s tr i c tc ourta dopt e d the gui de l i ne c a l c ul a t i ons of the pr oba t i on of

f i c e re xc e ptf

orthe e nha nc e m e ntf

orthe hi gh -s peed chase because W hi t fi el d w as no tdri vi ng the vehi cl e. T he di stri ctcourt ex p re ss ly ad o p ted th e f

in d in g s o f th e p ro b atio n o ff icerw ith re sp ec t t o W h it field ’s o b je c tio n s . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt s e n te n c e d W h itf ie ld to 2 6 2 m o n th s o f

im p r is o n m e n t. I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW W e r evi ew the appl i ca t i on of the se nt enci ng gu i del i nes by the di stri ctcourt de novo a nd r e vi e w f

i ndi ngs of

f a c tf orc l e a re rr or . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r a w f or d, 4074

F .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 7 - 7 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e v ie w s e n te n c e s f o rr e a s o n ab le n e s s . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. W i l l i a m s , 435 F . 3d 1350, 1353 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . R e vi e w f or re as on abl enes s i s def

er ent i al , U ni t ed S t at es v. T al l ey , 43 1 F . 3d 78 4, 78 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ), and “ w hen the di stri ctcourti m po se s ase nt ence w i thi n the advi sory G ui de l i ne s r a nge , w e or di na r i l y w i l l e xpe c ttha tc hoi c e t o be ar e a s onabl e one . ” I d. I I I . DI S CUS S I ON W hi t fi el d m akes tw o m ai n argum ent s on app ea l . F i rs t , W hi t fi el d argues that the di stri ctcourtvi ol at ed hi s r i gh t s und erthe S i xth A m endm entw hen i tenhanced h is s e n te n c e u s in g ju d ic ia llyf o u n d f a c ts . S e c o n d , W h itf

ie ld a r g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . B o th a r g u m e n ts f a il. W hi t fi el d’ s f

i rs tar gu m enti s bas ed on a m i sapp re hensi on of l aw . A ft er U 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 ctcourtdo es note rrw he n i tm a ke s f

i ndi ngs of

f a c ta ts e nt e nc i ng. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C hau, 426 F . 3d 1318, 1324 ( 11th C i r . 2005) . W hi t f i e l d’ s S i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ght s w e r e not v i o l a t e d w h e n th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtma d e e n h a n c e me n t s t o h i s s e n t e n c e o rd e n i e d h i m a r e d u c tio n b a s e d o n f

a c tu a l f in d in g s m a d e a t s e n te n c in g . W hi t fi el d’ s s ec on d argum enti s bel i ed by the re cord. W hi t fi el d argues that the di s tr i c tc ourtf

a i l e d t o rul e on hi s obj e c t i ons t o the pr e s e nt e nc e i nve s t i ga t i on r e port , the s e nt e nc e doe s nota c c ur a t e l yr e f l e c tthe gr a vi tyof

hi s c r i m e , a nd the5

d istrict co u rt fa il ed to tak e in to ac co u n t th e m it ig atin g ev id en ce o f W h it field ’s b ip o la rd is o r d e ra n d d ru g u s e . T h e tr a n s c r ip t o f th e s e n te n c in g p r o c e e d in g r e f le c ts tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourtrul e d on W hi t f i e l d’ s obj e c t i ons w he n i te xpr e s s l ya dopt e d the r e s p o n s e o f

th e p r o b a tio n o f

f ic e rto th o s e o b

je c tio n s ; th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s ta te d th a t it ha d c ons i de r e d the m i t i ga t i ng e vi de nc e , w hi c h w a s pr e s e nt e d a ts e nt e nc i ng; a nd the di s tr i c tc ourts t a t e d s e ve r a l r e a s ons w hythe s e nt e nc e , w hi c h w a s a tthe l ow - e nd of the gu i del i ne rang e, w as approp ri at e. In the l i gh tof thi s r ec ord, W hi t fi el d h as f a ile d to e s tab lis h th a t h is s e n te n c e is u n r e a s o n ab le . I V . CONCL US I ON W h i t fi el d ’ s sen t en ce i s A F F I R M E D .