This order and judgment is not bi nding prece dent, except underthe doctrine s of * l aw o f th e c a s e , r e s j u di c at a , an d c o l l at e r a l e s t o p p e l . It m a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, fo r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ay16,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt 

### UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

T E N T H C IRC U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, v. J IM M Y W A Y N E M A H A N , J R ., D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. N o. 05- 1518 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - c r - 1 0 4 - WYD) ( C ol or ado)



### ORD ERAN D J UDG M EN T * B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f J u d g e , S EY M OUR , and RO B I NS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

J i m m y W a yn e M a h a n J r . p l e d g u i l ty t o p o s s e s s i o n o f a fi r e a r m b y a pr ohi bi t ed per s on i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . 922( g) ( 1) and w as s ent ence d t o 77 m o n th s im p riso n m e n t. O n a p p e a l, he c h a llen g e s th e re a so n a b len e ss o f h is s ent ence . B eca us e w e conc l ude hi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e, w e vac at e i tand r emand forr e- s ent enci ng. O n O ct ober16, 2004, the pol i ce w er e i nform ed thata man, l at er i dent i fi ed as M r . M ahan, pos s es s ed a gun i n the parki ng l otof a fas tfood-2-

r es t aur ant . O n arr i val , the pol i ce di s cover ed M r . M ahan i n pos s es s i on of an unl oaded s hot gun w i th a barr el l ength of l es s than 16 i nches and an obl i t er at ed s er i al num ber . H e as s ert ed thati m m edi at el ypr i ort o hi s arr es t , thr ee men s ever el ybeathi m i n the s ame par ki ng l ot . H e cl ai m ed thatfol l ow i ng t he beat i ng, he dr ove home, r etr i eved the unl oaded s hot gun, and qui ckl yr eturned to th e p a rk in g lo t w ith th e w e a p o n . H e w a s th e n se e n in th e p a rk in g lo t w ith the s hot gun. T he pol i ce a r r es t ed M r . M ahan. M r. M a h a n p le d g u ilty to b e in g a fe lo n in p o s s e s s io n o f a fir e a rm . Pr i ort o s ent enci ng, the U ni t ed St at es Pr obat i on O ffi ce de vel oped an i nd i vidual i zed p res entence report(PS R ). T he P S R assi gn ed a b ase offen se l evel of 22, added 2 a ddi t i onal l evel s forthe i nvol vementof a s aw ed off sh o tg u n , an d a p p lied a re d u c tio n o f 3 lev e ls fo r a c c e p tan c e o f re sp o n sib ili ty fora t ot al offe ns e l evel of 21. C om bi ni ng t hi s bas e l evel w i th hi s cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egoryof V I , t he PSR gener at ed a c orr es pondi ng gui del i nes s e n te n c in g ra n g e o f

7 7 to 9 6 m o n th s . A t s e n te n c in g M r. M a h a n s o u g h t a b e lo w g u id e lin e s s e n te n c e . S p e c ifica lly , h e a ttem p ted to c o n v in c e th e c o u rt to im p o se su c h a se n ten c e in l i ghtof the fa ct or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . H e not ed hi s hi s t or yof m e n tal h e a lth iss u e s, in c lu d in g b ip o lar d iso rd e r a n d “ sc h izo p h re n ic di agnos es , ” r ec. , vol . I I I at8, and hi s i nabi l i tyt o affor d appr opr i at e medi cat i on a t th e tim e o f

th e in c id e n t. See U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ) (“ th e c o u rt . . . sh a llSee R ec. , vol I I I at9 ( H e w as not“ca rry i ng i ts o he ca n comm i tanother 1 cri m e. N ot carry i ng i ti n co njunct i on w i th som e kind of drug-associ at ed o ffen se . . . b a s ic a lly . . . [ h ]e g e ts p o u n d e d , w a n ts to m a k e s u re th a t it s to p s , a n d th e n . . . comes ba ck t o t he s cene w i th . . . t hi s gun. ”) -3- co n side r . . . the h ist o ryan d ch ara cterist ics o f th e d efen d an t. ”). I n an effo rt t o favor abl ychar act er i ze “ the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e, ” 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 1) , hi s couns el des cr i bed how he had r etr i eved a n unl oaded g u n t o p r o t e c t h i s w i fe fo l l o w i n g a v i o l e n t b e a t i n g . A s t o M r . M a h a n 's 1 di s cus s i on of hi s m ent al heal th i s s ues , the di s tr i ctcourtr emar ked thatnone of the ment al heal th “fa ct or s t ake thi s cas e out s i de of the hea r t l and of c as es . ” R e c ., v o l. III a t 2 1 . In re sp o n se to M r. M a h a n ’s d isc u ss io n o f th e fa c ts s urr oundi ng hi s cr i m e, the di s tr i ctcourts t at ed that“thi s offe ns e, i n m any r es pect s , i s a s tr i ct - l i abi l i tyoffe ns e . . . t he r eas ons w hy[M r . M ahan] had the w e a p o n . . . are n ' t so m e th in g th e C o u rt c a n c o n sid e r” in d e ter m in in g h is s ent ence . R ec. , vol . I I I at18. T he courtdes cr i bed s uch conc erns as

“ e x tr a n e o u s fa c to rs ,” a n d n o te d th e “ la w a s a m a tte r o f p o lic yh a s s a id th a t . . . irre sp e c tiv e o f

th e re a so n s w h yth e w e a p o n w a s o b tain e d , [in d iv id u a ls w ith fel onyconvi ct i ons ] need t o know t hat[they ] j us tcan' thave a w eapon. ” Id. T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded that“the s ent enci ng fac t or s under. . . 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) r equi r e me t o l ook att he s ent enci ng fac t or s i n the s t atut e as w el l as the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange. A nd the C our tfi nds t hatt he s ent enceT he di s tr i ctcourtl eftno doubtt hati tcons i der ed the gui del i nes as 2 a d v is o ry. See R ec. , vol . I I I at21 ( “The C our t , w hi l e notbound t o appl yt he G u id e lin e s, h a s c o n su lted th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s a n d tak e n th e m in to a c c o u n t, alon g w ith the s en tenc ing fa ctors fo u n d at 18 U . S . C . 3 5 5 3 (a). ”). -4- w ith in th e a d v is o ry G u id e lin e ra n g e is a re a s o n a b le s e n te n c e . . . .” Id. at21. 2 T he courts ent ence d M r . M ahan t o 77 m onths i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm att he bot t om of the r ecomm ended gui del i nes r ange. M r . M ahan c ont ends the di s tr i ctcourtfai l ed t o appr opr i at el yappl yt he § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs b yre f u sin g to c o n sid e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f h is c rim e a n d h is h ist o ryo f m en tal il lnes s, an d b yu sing the a p p ell ate “ rea so n ab lene ss” s tand ard t o eval uat e the appr opr i at enes s of hi s gui del i nes s ent ence . B eca us e w e agr ee w i th M r . M ahan’ s fi r s tpr opos i t i on, w e nee d notcons i derthe s econd. Fol l ow i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 (2 0 0 5 ), w e e v a lu a te s e n te n c e s im p o s e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Uni t ed Stat es v. Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). “T o d eterm ine w h ethe r a s ent ence i s r eas onabl e, w e cons i derboth pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve as pect s of the di s tr i ctcourt ' s deci s i on. ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 471 F. 3d 1162, 1166 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) . T o s a t i s f y B ooker ' s pr ocedur al r equi r ement s , “the s ent enci ng fac t or s s etfor th i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) m us tbe cons i der ed byt he di s tr i ct courti t s el f w hen i m pos i ng a s ent ence . ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez

- Juar ez , 446 F. 3d 1109, 1115 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . Speci fi cal l y , “w her e a de fenda nthas r ai s ed a n o n f r i v o l o u s a r g u me n tth a tth e § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa c t o r s wa rr a n ta b e l o w--5-

G ui del i nes s ent ence and has expr es s l yr eques t ed s uch a s ent ence , w e mustbe abl e t o di s cern fr om the r ecor d thatthe s ent enci ng j udge . . . cons i der ed w hetherthe gui del i nes s ent ence actual l yconform s , i n the ci r cumst ance s , t o the s t atut oryfac t or s . ” Id. a t1 1 1 7 ( q u o t a t i o n m a r k s a n d b r a c k e t s o m i t t e d ) . We not e thata pr es um pt i on of r eas onabl enes s appl i es onl yt o cl ai m s of s ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s ; w e do notappl ythi s pr es um pt i on w hen eva l uat i ng pr ocedur al re a s o n a b le n e s s . See Un itedS ta tes v . A ten c io , 4 7 6 F . 3 d 1 0 9 9 , 1 1 0 2 (10 th C ir . 2007) ( pr es um pt i on notappl i ed w her e “r ever s [i ng] on pr ocedur al re a so n b len e ss ” a lo n e ); Uni t ed Stat es v. McC ul l ough , 457 F. 3d 1150, 1171 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( des cr i bi ng Kris tlpr es um pt i on as “thatpr es um pt i on of s ubs tant i ve re a so n a b len e ss ” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); Uni t ed Stat es v. G al arz aP ayan , 4 4 1 F .3 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 8 -8 9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (a p p ly in g p re su m p tio n to su b stan ti v e b u t no t pro ce d u ral reaso n ab lene ss an aly sis) . D i s tr i ctcourt s m us tcons i derthe 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) fac t or s i n appl y i ng a s e n t e n c e th a ti s “ s u ffi c i e n t , b u tn o tg r e a t e rth a n n e c e s s a ry ” t o f u l fi l l th e a i ms o f th o s e fa c to rs . Id. A m o n g o th e r fa c to rs, § 3 5 5 3 (a )(1 ) re q u ire s th e c o u rt to cons i der“the natur e and c i r cumst ance s of the offens e” w hen deve l opi ng an appr opr i at e s ent ence . Fol l ow i ng M r . M ahan’ s des cr i pt i on of how and w hyhe came t o pos s es s the gun, the di s tr i ctcour ts ai d “the r eas ons w hyy ou had the w eapon . . . ar en' ts om ethi ng the C our tcan c ons i der , ” bec aus e pos s es s i on of a fi r earm bya fe l on i s a s tr i ctl i abi l i tyoffe ns e. R ec. , vol . I I I at18. T he di s tr i ct-6-

courtfur therl abel ed as “extr aneous fac t or s ” M r . M ahan' s r eas ons for pos s es s i ng the gun and a cknow l edged s uch i nform at i on w oul d have no be ar i ng o n its d e te rm in a tio n o f M r. M a h a n ' s s e n te n c e . T h e d istric t co u rt w a s c o rre c t th a t m ens r ea is n o t re lev a n t in determ i ning i f an indivi du al i s gui l t y o f a stric t li a b ili tyc rim e . H o w e v e r, in det erm i ni ng t he appr opr i at e s ent ence fo r on e g u il tyo f su ch a c ri m e, th e c o u rt m us tcons i dert he fa ct or s s etfor th i n § 3553( a) , i ncl udi ng t he natur e and ci r cumst ance s of the offens e. W e fi nd nothi ng i n § 3553( a) t o s ugges tthatthe “ci r cumst ance s of the offens e” fact orexcl us i vel yappl i es t o cr i m es r equi r i ng a m ens r ea o r th a t th is fa c to r is to b e sp e c iallye x c lu d e d w h e n a rriv in g a t a s ent ence fora s tr i ctl i abi l i tycr i m e. I n fac t , w e have pr evi ous l ys t at ed thatthe di s tr i ctcourti s r equi r ed t o cons i deral l § 3553( a) fac t or s w hen s ent enci ng an in d iv id u a l fo r t h e s a m e s tr ic t lia b ility c ri m e p re s e n te d in th is c a s e . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 4 7 1 F .3 d 1 1 6 2 , 1 1 6 3 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). A s a r es ul t , t he ques t i on i s s i m pl yw hetherthe i nform at i on t he di s tr i ct courtr efus ed t o cons i derw as i n fac ta “c i r cumst ance ” of the cr i m e as defi ned b y§ 3 5 5 3 (a ). A t se n ten c in g , M r. M a h a n ’s c o u n se l ex p lain e d th e e v e n ts l eadi ng up t o M r . M ahan’ s unl aw ful pos s es s i on, i ncl udi ng bei ng t he t ar getof an al l eged a s s aul tl eadi ng hi m t o r etr i eve a n unl oaded w eapon thatcoul d have b e e n u s e d a s a “ c lu b ” fo r t h e p ro te c tio n o f h im s e lf a n d h is w ife . See R ec. , vol I I I at9- 10. T he courtappea r ed t o di s r egar d al l of thes e fa ct s i n det erm i ni ng-7-

M r . M ahan’ s s ent ence , not w i ths t andi ng t heyw er e s ur el yci r cumst ance s of the c ri m e . See W ebs t er ' s T hi r d N ew I nt ernat i onal D i ct i onary410 ( 1981) ( defi ni ng ci r cumst ance as “a s peci fi c part , phas e orattr i but e of the s urr oundi ngs or b a c k g ro u n d o f

a n e v e n t” ). T h e c o u rt ' s b ro a d in v o c a tio n o f § 3 5 5 3 (a ), s ee re c ., vol . I I I at21 ( “The C our t. . . has cons ul t ed and . . . t aken . . . i nt o acc ount

. . . the se n ten c in g fa c to rs fo u n d a t 1 8 U .S .C . 3 5 5 3 (a ).”) , ca n n o t d isp lac e its e a rlier u n e q u iv o c a l sta tem e n t th a t itw o u ld n o t co n sid e r th e b a c k g ro u n d fa c ts of M r . M ahan’ s cr i m e. A s w e not ed i n Sanchez

- Juar ez , 4 4 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 1 7 , “o u r a p p e llate ro le encompas s es a l i m i t ed i nqui r yi nt o w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour tdi d i n fac t exer ci s e i t s di s cr et i on bas ed on the 3553( a) fac t or s . . . . ” H avi ng per form ed thi s l i m i t ed i nqui r y , w e conc l ude the di s tr i ctcour tfai l ed t o cons i derthe

“ c irc u m sta n c e s” o f

th e c rim e , an d th u s d id n o t ex e rc ise its p o st- B ooker d is c re tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a ll o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa c to rs . 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) ( 1) . A ccor di ngl y , w e VAC ATE M r . M ahan’ s s ent ence and RE M AND t o the di s t r i ctcourtforr e- s ent enci ng. ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge