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

### M ay31,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C 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. N o. 06- 6111 L E RO Y E RI C A L L E N,

D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. NO . CR- 0 5 - 1 5 8 - T) P a u l A n t o n i o L a c y, A s s i s t a n tF e d e r a l P u b l i c D e fe n d e r , O k l a h o m a C i ty, O k lah o m a , fo r th e D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t. J ohn C . R i cht er , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , O kl ahoma C i ty , O kl ahoma, fort he Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee. B efo re O’ BRI EN , HOLL OW AY , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. M c CO NNELL , C i r cui tJ udge. L er oyE r i c A l l en pl eade d gui l tyt o a s i ngl e countof pos s es s i on of m etha m p h etam ine w ith inten t t o d istri b u te. T h at crim e c arries a statutory m i ni m um puni s hm entof t en y ear s i m pr i s onm entand a maxi m um of l i fe. T he d istri ct co u rtsen tenc ed M r. A ll en to 3 6 0 m o n ths im p ri so n m en t, w h ich is m o re-2-

t han t w o-and-a-hal f t i m es the top en d o f t he S entenci ng G uidel i nes’ re c o m m e n d e d ra n g e . T h e d istric t co u rt b a se d its se n ten c in g d e c isio n o n c e rta in e x t r e m e fa c t s t h a tc a m e t o l i g h td u r i n g th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f M r . A l l e n — n a m e l y, hi s pr ofes s ed des i r e t o r ape a nd m ur dery oung gi r l s and the pos s i bl e s t eps he t ook t ow ar d achi evi ng t hos e ends . I ndeed, the di s tr i ctcour tgave M r . A l l en the s ent ence he w oul d have r ece i ved had he been c onvi ct ed bya j uryof s ol i ci t at i on o f m u rd e r o r a ttem p ted se x u a l ab u se a n d a b d u c tio n o f a c h ild . W e h o ld th a t, al t hough t he s ent enci ng cour tm aycons i derM r . A l l en’ s unr el at ed, non- char ged conducti n fas hi oni ng a s ent ence , the magni tude of the var i ance i n thi s cas e and t he w ayi tw as cal cul at ed w er e unr eas onabl e. W e ther efor e vac at e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng. I . BA CKGROUND A . T he I nves t i gat i on T hi s hi ghl ydi s turbi ng cas e bega n on M ay27, 2005, w hen Ler oyE r i c A l l en vi s i t ed an O kl ahoma C i t yes t abl i s hm entfea tur i ng adul tent er t ai nm ent . T her e, he b e f r i e n d e d o n e o f

t h e c l u b ’ s d a n c e r s , wh o m w e wi l l c a l l “ M s . A, ” a n d t h e t wo m ade pl ans t o m eetathi s apart m entl at ert hateveni ng. H ervi s i tl as t ed s ever al hour s , dur i ng w hi ch t i m e the pai rengage d i n a w i de- r angi ng di s cus s i on that cul m i nat ed i n an exc hange a boutM r . A l l en’ s s exual pr ocl i vi t i es . M r . A l l en des cr i bed i n gr aphi c det ai l hi s pr efe r ence for“y oungerki ds ”— gi r l s as y oung as ei ght - y ear s - ol d— and hi s des i r e t o ki dnap, r ape, and murde rt hem. R . V ol . I I I , at-3-

16, 30–32. A s M s . A r eca l l ed dur i ng an evi dent i aryhear i ng befor e the di s tr i ct c o u rt: H e s ai d t hathe w oul d w antm e t o hel p hi m , m aybe, ki dnap a gi r l , and he s ai d t hathe w oul d l i ke t o getahol d of a c hi l d and— ora y oung g ir l and k idn ap h er, r ap e h er, an d then , w h en h e w as d o n e w ith h er, he w ant ed t o puta bag ove rherhead a nd w at ch herbr eathe i n and out , and he— he w ant ed t o s ee the moi s tur e on herl i ps and the bag, a n d e v e ry th in g , an d w a tch h e r e y e s b u lg e o u t. R . V ol . I I I , at16–17. Fr i ght ened bythi s tur n i n the conve r s at i on, M s . A s oon l eft t he apa r t m ent . She t es t i fi ed thatM r . A l l en w as , bythi s poi nti n the eve ni ng, n a k e d . O vert he cour s e of the nextfew day s , the tw o had a br i ef meet i ng atthe adu l tentert ai nm ent es t abli shm ent and co nv ers ed b yt el eph on e. D uri ng these c o n v e rsa tio n s M r. A llen re a ffirm e d h is d e sire to h a v e M s. A a ss ist h im in se x u a llya ss a u lti n g a n d m u rd e rin g a y o u n g g irl. A lar m e d b yth e lev e l o f d e tail in M r . A l l en’ s des cr i pt i ons and per s uaded thathi s des i r es w entbey ond the br avado typ ic a lly d e m o n s tr a te d b ym e n w h o s h a re d th e irs e x u a l fa n ta s ie s w ith h e r, M s . A c o n ta c te d th e F B I a n d re p o rt e d w h a t h a d ta k e n p la c e . T h e F B I c o n d u c ted a b a c k g ro u n d c h e c k o n M r. A llen a n d d isc o v e re d th a t in 1987 he had be en arr es t ed byO kl ahoma aut hor i t i es forki dnapi ng and r api ng a fiftee n -y ea r-old g ir l, a c ri m e tha t ult im atelyled to a c o n v ict ion fo r rap e. M r. A llen ’s p re se n ten c e re p o rt p ro v id e s th e fo llo w in g d e tails: A ccor di ng t o t he I nform at i on and the A ffi davi ti n thi s cas e, the defe ndantputa kni fe t o t he 15[- ] y ear [- ] ol d femal e vi ct i m ’ s thr oat-4-

and pul l ed heri nt o hi s apart m ent . H e then for ced he ri nt o the bedr oom w her e he va gi nal l yr aped he r . C ount1 w as r educe d fr om R ape I t o R ape I I as partof a pl ea a gr eementand a s econd c ountof ki dnappi ng w as di s m i s s ed. R . V ol . V , at9. T hi s hi s t or y , combi ned w i th M s . A ’ s des cr i pt i ons of her i nt er act i ons w i t h M r . A l l en, pr om pt ed the B ur eau t o comm ence a compr ehens i ve in v e s tig a tio n o f

M r. A lle n . F o r si x to eig h t w ee k s, b eg inn ing in ea rl yJu n e 2 0 0 5 , the F B I surv eil led M r. A llen tw e n ty -fo u r h o u rs a d a y , se v e n d a y s a w e e k . T h e su rv e ill a n c e fa iled to u n c o v e r a n yn e fa rio u s a c tiv ityb yM r. A llen , o th e r th a n h is c o n v e rsa tio n s w ith M s . A . A s t he i nves t i gat i on r ol l ed on w i th nothi ng t o s how fori t , and r es our ce c o n s t r a i n t s m o u n t e d , t h e B u r e a u s c a l e d b a c k t h i s s u r v e i l l a n c e t o fo u rt o fi v e d a ys a w eek. T h e F B I also p rov ided M s. A w ith a tap e re co rde r an d ask ed h er to rec o rd al l fur t herconver s at i ons w i t h M r . A l l en. O n J une 2, 2005, M s . A r ecor ded a conver s at i on s he had w i t h M r . A l l en att he adul tent er t ai nm entes t abl i s hm ent w her e s he w as empl oy ed. M r . A l l en r ei t er at ed hi s r eques tforM s . A ’ s as s i s t ance i n a ki dnapi ng, and t ol d hert hathe w oul d l i ke t o t ar getanotherdance ratt he bar w h o h a d tw o y o u n g e r d a u g h ter s. M r. A llen a lso to ld M s. A th a t h e h a d re c e n tly had s exual i nt er cour s e w i t h a thi r t een- y ear - ol d gi r l . T her e w as no otherevi dence th a t th is to o k p la c e in re a lity.-5-

In th e e a rlym o rn in g h o u rs o f Ju n e 4 , M s. A a g a in m e t M r. A llen a t h is apart m ent , and r ecor ded the ens ui ng conver s at i on. M r . A l l en ca m e t o the door naked a nd es cor t ed hert o hi s bedr oom . T heyr ecl i ned on hi s bed, and M r . A l l en agai n began di s cus s i ng ki dnapi ng and murde r i ng a pr e- t een gi r l . A s the di s tr i ct cour tdes cr i bed the conve r s at i on: D efe ndant ’ s r ecor ded w or ds fur therdet ai l hi s pl an, i ncl udi ng: w hen ( “verys oon t oo, butw e j us thave t o be ca r eful ”) ; the vi ct i m ’ s age (“ e ig h t to ten ” b e c a u se h e “ w o u ld w a n t th e m to k n o w w h a t’s g o in g to happen” ) ; t he ki dnapi ng ( “have ‘ em for a coupl e of da y s ”) ; the ki l l i ng ( “don’ tw anti tt o be qui ck; ” a guns hotw oul d be “j us tt oo fa st;” stra n g u latio n “ d o e sn ’t h a v e to ” b e fa st); th e p lac e (“ h a v e to pi ck” one ) ; and di s pos al of the body( “one of the mostthoughtabout d e ta ils o f

th e w h o le th in g ;” “ a s lo n g a s n o b o d ye v e r s a y s a n yth in g . .

. it ’l l nev er b e fo u n d ”). R . V ol . I , D oc. 34, at3–4. T ow ar d the end of thi s conver s at i on, M r . A l l en bega n m as turbat i ng and M s . A as ked hi m i f he w as “[j ] us tgett i n [s i c] turned on bythe t hought . ” A dd. t o B r . of A ppel l ee, E x. 1, at5; R . V ol . I I I , at24–25. T he re c o rd in g d o e s n o t c le a rl yre p ro d u c e h is re s p o n s e . M s. A test ifi ed that at so m e p o int i n the d ay s fo ll o w ing this en co u n ter, M r. A l l en l efthera phone mes s age t o the effec tthati f s he r efus ed t o engage i n or al s ex w i t h hi m , he di d notw anthercal l i ng hi m anym or e. T he FB I , bynow con cerned thather further i nv olvem ent w i th M r. A l l en p osed a safetyri sk, al so instructed M s. A to ce ase co m m u n icati n g w ith M r. A ll en . W ith M s. A ’s p a rt ic ip a tio n a t a n e n d , th e F B I c o n tin u e d its in te n s iv e s u rv e illa n c e o f M r. A lle n .-6-

T h at su rve il lanc e fail ed to rev ea l anyfu rth er a tt em p ts on M r. A ll en ’s pa rtto ca rry o u t th e a c ts h e h a d d e s c ri b e d to M s . A . A ts om e poi nti n J une, t he FB I cont act ed the O kl ahoma C i tyPol i ce D e p a rtm e n t (“ O C P D ” ) to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re w e re a n yu n so lv e d c h ild a b d u c tio n c a se s in th e a re a th a t m ig h t b e lin k e d to M r. A llen . O n e , in fa c t, did exi s t . O n A pr i l 2, 2005, a t en- y ear - ol d gi r l ent er ed the vi deo- game ar ea of an O kl ahoma C i t yW al - M artw hi l e herm otherchec ked out . A m an appr oache d the gi r l and as ked i f s he l i ked men i n m as ks . W hen the gi r l expr es s ed conf us i on, t he ma n a s k e d wh e t h e rs h e l i k e d p r o fe s s i o n a l wr e s t l e r s . T h e g i r l l o o k e d t o wa r d two n e a rb yW a l-M a rt e m p lo y e e s, a n d th e m a n sa id : “D o n ’t lo o k a t th e m ; th e y ’ll k ill y ou. ” R . V ol . I I I , at63. A tt hi s poi nt , the mot hernot i ced the i nt er act i on and a p p ro a c h e d h e r d a u g h te r. T h e m a n im m e d ia te ly f le d th e s to re . A ft erl earni ng of thi s i nci dent , and af t eres t abl i s hi ng thr ough s ur vei l l ance th a t M r. A llen d id v isit th is W a l-M a rt, th e F B I p ro v id e d th e O C P D w ith h is p ictu re. T h e O C P D arran g ed tw o p h o to array s, o n lyo n e o f w h ich c o n tai n ed M r. A l l en’ s pi ctur e, and as ked the mot heri f anyof the men i n the phot ogr aphs rese m b led th e m an fro m the W al-M art i n cide n t. W h en the m o ther c am e to M r. A l l en’ s pi ctur e, w hi ch w as cont ai ned i n the s econd a rr ays he vi ew ed, s he i m m edi at el yi dent i fi ed hi m as t he man w ho w as t al ki ng w i th herdaught er , s t at i ng: “That ’ s hi m . T hat ’ s t he guy . ” R . V ol . I I I , at68. I n r es pons e t o a fol l ow - up ques t i on fr om the pol i ce s he s ai d “s he w as 80- per cents ur e” thatM r . A l l en w as-7-

th e m a n f

ro m th e in c id e n t. Id. T hes e fa ct s , combi ned w i th w hatthe FB I al r eady k n e w a b o u t M r. A lle n , s e rv e d to in c re a s e th e B u re a u ’s c o n c e rn a b o u t h im . I n ear l yJ ul y2005, t he FB I obs erved M r . A l l en movi ng outof hi s apart m ent compl ex. U pon i nt ervi ew i ng t he compl ex’ s m anage m ent , the FB I l earned that M r. A llen h a d b e e n e v icte d d u e to su sp icio n th a t h e w a s p e d d lin g d ru g s f ro m h is ap artm en t. O n Ju ly4 , 2 0 0 5 , the F B I i n tr o d u ce d an u n d erc o v er a g en t i n to M r. A ll en ’s ne w ap artm en t com p lex. T h e a g en t i n it ial lytr ied to p iqu e M r. A ll en ’s in ter e st in p a rticip a tin g in se x u a l in ter c o u rse w ith m in o rs, b u t n o n e o f h is at t empt s w er e s ucce s s ful . A tt he evi dent i aryhear i ng, the FB I agenti n char ge of t he A l l en invest i gati on t est i fi ed as fo l l ow s: Q . A nd t hatagentt r i ed t o engage M r . A l l en i nt o tr avel i ng t o T exas t o have s ex w i t h m i nor s ; i s thattrue? A . T he— t he age nts poke t o M r . A l l en and t ol d hi m thathe w as par t i ci pat i ng i n s ex w i t h m i nor s outof s t at e. Q . O k a y . D id M r. A llen e v e r m a k e a n ym o tio n s to g o to T e x a s to e n g a g e i n s u c h a c t i v i t y? A . N o. Q . A nd w as anyt hi ng w i t h thatunder coveragentand chi l d s exual a b u s e , d i d i te v e rc o me t o f ru i t i o n [ ?] A . N o. W hen theyt al ked, M r . A l l en w oul d as k hi m how w as y our w eeke nd, and theyw oul d— theyw oul d t al k about

— the age ntm ade up a s t or yaboutt he w eeke nd and s tuff. H e s eemed i nt er es t [ed] and a s k e d , y o u k n o w , “ W a tc h o u t; b e c a re f u l,” a n d th a t k in d o f

s tu ff. B u t, o ther tha n that, n o , sir . R . V ol . I I I , at55–56. A t th is po int, the F B I shifted the fo cu s o f it s inv esti g ati o n to M r. A ll en ’s s u s p e c t e d i l l i c i t - n a r c o t i c s a c t i v i t y. O n J ul y7, 2005, t he under coveragenthad a-8-

len g th yc o n v e rsa tio n w ith M r. A llen , w h e re in M r. A llen d isc u ss e d h ig h -q u a lity m ethamphet ami ne pr oduct i on and hi s per s onal us e of the s ubs t ance . T he age nt asked a bo ut purchasi ng som e, and M r. A l l en st at ed thathe co uld sel l him atl east a quart er - ounce for$365. 00. M r . A l l en l at eri nform ed the age ntthatthe pr oduct i on pr oces s had fa l t er ed and he coul d notdel i veron the pr om i s e. B e tw e e n Ju ly9 a n d Ju ly2 8 , M r. A llen a n d th e u n d e rc o v e r a g e n t en g a g e d in n u m e ro u s d isc u ss io n s a b o u t m e th a m p h e tam in e , an d M r. A llen re p e a ted ly pr om i s ed and then fa i l ed t o s uppl ythe age ntw i th the drug. O n J ul y29, the age nt pur s ued a ne w s t r at egyand i nform ed M r . A l l en thathe coul d pr ovi de fourounces of hi gh qual i t ym ethamphet ami ne. M r . A l l en w as w i l l i ng, and, i n a s er i es of em ail s o n A u g u st 2, he an d the a g en t w o rke d o u t an a rran g em en t byw h ich M r. A l l en w oul d r ece i ve fourounces of m ethamphet ami ne ata val ue of $3, 600. 00, w oul d s el l t hem qui ckl yt o r epaythe debt , and w oul d, i n the meant i m e, pl edge t i t l e t o hi s m ot or cy cl e as col l at er al . O n A ugus t5, M r . A l l en pr ovi ded the age nt w i t h t he t i t l e t o hi s m ot or cy cl e. H e al s o s how ed the age nts ever al s m al l baggi es of hi gh qual i t ym ethamphet ami ne and a s ked i f the nar cot i cs he w oul d be r ece i vi ng w er e of s i m i l arqual i t y . T he age ntr es ponded affi rm at i vel yand, l at er t hatday , pr ovi ded M r . A l l en w i t h the pr om i s ed nar cot i cs . A s M r . A l l en i ns pect ed th e d ru g s , F B I a g e n ts e n te re d h is a p a rt m e n t a n d a rr e s te d h im . D ur i ng a s ubs equents ear ch of M r . A l l en’ s apart m ent , the FB I di s cover ed a s e to f s c a l e s c o n t a i n i n g a wh i t e p o wd e rr e s i d u e , a s yr i n g e fi l l e d wi th a n u n k n o wn-9-

cl earl i qui d, fourempt ys yr i nges , s ever al baggi es cont ai ni ng r es i due, and a met al me a s u r i n g s p o o n c o n t a i n i n g wh i t e r e s i d u e . On h i s c o mp u t e r ’ s h a r d d r i v e th e F BI di s cover ed fi l es cont ai ni ng phot ogr aphs of m i s s i ng- chi l dr en pos t er s and s ever al s t or i es M r . A l l en had w r i t t en aboutr api ng y oung gi r l s . O ne of the s t or i es i nvol ved M s . A and anotherdance ratthe adul tent er t ai nm entes t abl i s hm entand h a d a p l o t l i n e s i mi l a rt o t h e s c e n e s h e h a d d e s c r i b e d t o M s . A. B. G ui l t y P l e a a nd Se nt e nc i ng O n S e p tem b e r 6 , 2 0 0 5 , a fe d e ra l g ra n d ju ryc h a rg e d M r. A llen w ith a sin g le c o u n t o f p o ss e ss io n o f

fif tyo r m o re g ra m s o f

m e th a m p h e tam in e w ith in ten t to di s t r i but e, a vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . O n O ct ober5, 2005, M r . A l l en, wi t h o u te n t e r i n g i n t o a p l e a a g r e e me n t , p l e a d e d g u i l tyt o t h i s s i n g l e c o u n t . He agr eed onl yt o t he fol l ow i ng fac t s : “O n 8- 5- 05 I acc ept ed del i veryof over50 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne fr om an under coveragent . I pos s es s ed the m e th a m p h e ta m in e w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te . T h is o c c u rr e d in O k la h o m a C ity[ ,] O K . ” R . V ol . I , D oc. 20, at10. A pr obat i on offi cerpr epar ed a pr es ent ence r eport( “PSR ”) i n D ece m ber 2005. T he “O ffe ns e C onduct ” s ect i on of the r eportdet ai l ed the por t i on of the i nv est i gati on rel at i ng t o the narcot i cs charge. A no ther sect i on , enti t l ed “O ffen se B ehavi orN otPar tof R el evantC onduct , ” det ai l ed the por t i on of the i nves t i gat i on r el at i ng t o pot ent i al s exual abus e and mur der . T he r eportadvi s ed thatM r . A l l en s houl d be hel d acc ount abl e forpos s es s i on of 120 gr ams of met hamphet ami ne, and-10-

cal cul at ed hi s t ot al offe ns e l evel at29, a s cor e w hi ch i ncl uded a thr ee- poi nt r educt i on foracc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty . M r . A l l en r ece i ved fi ve cr i m i nal h ist o ryp o ints— three p o ints fo r th e 1 9 8 7 rap e c o n v ict ion an d tw o p o ints fo r a 2004 convi ct i on fordr i vi ng underthe i nfl uence of drugs — w hi ch tr ans l at ed i nt o a C ri m inal H ist o ryC ateg o ryo f III. W ith o u t th e statuto rym an d atorym inim u m , M r. A llen ’s G u id e lin e s ra n g e w o u ld h a v e b e e n 1 0 8 to 1 3 5 m o n th s. T a k in g in to acc ountt he s t atut or ym andat or y - m i ni m um s ent ence of t en y ear s i m pr i s onm ent under21 U . S. C . § 841( b) ( 1) ( A ) , how ever , M r . A l l en’ s advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange w as 120 t o 135 m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent . A tthe cl os e of the r eport , the pr obat i on offi cers t at ed thathe “ha s no i nform at i on conce rni ng the offens e orthe offender wh i c h wo u l d wa r r a n ta d e p a r tu r e f r o m th e p r e s c r i b e d s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s . ” R. V ol . V , at15. T he off i cerdi d r ecomm end, how ever , i m pos i ng condi t i ons upon s u p e rv is e d re le a s e re la tin g to th e tr e a tm e n t a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f s e x o ffe n d e rs . T he governm ents ubs equent l yr eques t ed thatthe courtcons i deran above G ui del i nes s ent ence “bas ed upon otherunchar ged conduc ts o s ever e i n natur e that a gr eat ers ent ence i s w arr ant ed i n or dert o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es o f th e d e fe n d a n t.” R . V o l. I, D o c . 2 4 , at 1 . T h e g o v e rn m e n t re c o u n ted th e d e tails of the W al - M arti nci dentand M r . A l l en’ s conver s at i ons w i th M s . A , and c h a ra c ter ize d th e d ru g p ro se c u tio n a s “ q u ite s im p ly , the fa ste st w a yto tak e th is danger ous m an off

t he s t r eet . ” Id. at2. T he governm entnot ed that“[u] nderthe G u idelines , § 4 A 1 . 3 p erm it s a d ep arture if th e c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ryT he governm ent ’ s cal cul at i ons w er e notcorr ect . I terr oneous l yas s um ed 1 t hatM r . A l l en qual i fi ed foran i ni t i al C r i m i nal H i s t or yC at egoryof I I i ns t ead of I I I . T hus , acc ount i ng fort he pr i orfel oni es of att empt ed abduc t i on and s ol i ci t at i on of m ur der , i f thati s w hatt heyw er e— eac h of w hi ch mer i t s t hr ee addi t i onal cr i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s — w oul d qual i fyM r . A l l en fora s ent enci ng range h i gh er than t he o ne recom m end ed b yt he g ov ernm ent i n it s m oti on . T hat i s, i f w e add thes e s i x poi nt s t o t he thr ee poi nt s fort he 1987 r ape c onvi ct i on and the t w o poi nt s fort he 2004 dr i vi ng undert he i nfl uence convi ct i on, t he r es ul ti s a t ot al o f e leve n p o ints. T h is w o u ld q u ali fyM r. A ll en fo r a C ri m inal H ist o ryC ateg o ry o f V a n d a s e n te n c in g ra n g e o f 1 4 0 to 1 7 5 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. See U . S. S en tenc ing G u idelines M an u al, C h . 5 , P t. A (20 0 4 ). -11- sign ifi ca n tl yu n d errep rese n ts th e se ri o u sn ess o f th e d efen d an t’ s crim inal h ist o ry ort he l i kel i hood t hatt he defendantw i l l comm i tfur thercr i m es , ” and thus re q u e s te d th a t th e c o u rt d e p a rt u p w a rd tw o c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ri e s . Id. a t 4

– 5 . T he governm entr eas oned thati f M r . A l l en had be en convi ct ed of s ol i ci t at i on of m u rde r (th e c o n d u ct w ith M s. A ) an d att em p ted a b d u cti o n (th e W al-M art incid en t) h e w o u ld h av e a C ri m inal H ist o ryC ateg o ryo f IV an d q u ali fyfo r a s ent enci ng r ange of 121 t o 151 m onths i m pr i s onm ent . T he governm entur ged a 1 s ent ence att he t op of thatr ange, 151 m onths . A l t ernat i vel y , t he governm ent asked the cou rtt o si m plyexerci se i t s B oo ker di s cr et i on and i m pos e a s ent ence of 1 5 1 m o n th s . M r . A l l e n o pp os e d thi s mot i on a nd obj e c t e d t o tho s e po rt i on s of t he PSR t hatdes cr i bed hi s i nt er act i ons w i th M s . A and t o the r ecomm endat i on fors ex o ffe n d e r t re a tm e n t u p o n s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . O n F e b ru a ry1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , the d istric t co u rt h e ld a n e v id e n tiary he a rin g to res olve M r. A l l en’s obj ect i on s. T he g ov ernm ent pr esent ed the t est i m on yof M s.-12-

A , of the FB I agenti n char ge of the A l l en i nves t i gat i on, and of the O C PD offi cer w ho arr ang ed the ph oto arrayrel at i ng t o the W al -M arti ncident . M r. A l l en crosse x a mi n e d t h e s e wi tn e s s e s b u t d i d n o t p r e s e n t a n y wi tn e s s e s o f h i s o wn . Th e F BI agentnot ed thatt he O kl ahoma C ountydi s tr i ctatt or neyw as cons i der i ng pr os ecut i ng M r . A l l en “fors ol i ci t at i on of m ur derand anyotherchar ge s t emm i ng fr om t hi s i nves t i gat i on. ” R . V ol . I I I , at51–52. A f ter th is h e a rin g , the d istric t co u rt, i n a w ritten o rd e r, h e ld th a t th e fa c ts sta ted in th e P S R h a d b e e n p ro v e n b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e a n d w o u ld b e c o n side red in se n tenc ing M r. A ll en . T h e c o u rtex p lai n ed that thes e m att ers w er e “hi ghl ypert i nentt o t he i s s ue of D efe ndant ’ s s ent ence , part i cul ar l yi n vi ew of hi s pas tconvi ct i on of r api ng a fi ft een- y ear - ol d gi r l byput t i ng a kni fe t o her thro at an d p u ll ing h er into h is ap artm en t. ” R . V o l. I, D o c. 34 , at 1– 2 . T h e c o u rt further hel d thatt hese facts : r efl ectt he hi s t or yand cha r act er i s t i cs of D efe ndantand pert ai n t o the statu toryp u rpo ses o f se n tenc ing set fo rth in [ 1 8 U . S . C . ] § 3553( a) ( 2) , s uch as pr ot ect i on of the publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es by D efe ndantand det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct . T he C our tal s o fi nds th a t th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s p ro v id e n o p a rticu lar lya p p ro p ria te m echa ni s m foran upw ar d departur e undert hes e extr aor di naryand ex tr em e fac ts. T h e a p p li ca b le gu ideline ra n g e b ase d o n D efen d an t’ s o ffe n se a n d c rim in a l h isto ry(1 2 0

– 1 3 5 m o n th s) is g ro ss lyin a d e q u a te a n d d o e s n o t ac c u ra telyre flec t eith e r D e fe n d a n t’s c rim in a lityo r h is pr opens i t yforvi ol entcr i m e i nvol vi ng adul tand mi norvi ct i m s and s exual offe ns es . R ather , t hes e extr aor di naryand extr eme fact s l end t hemsel ves t o a di s t r i ctcourt ’ s author i tyt o devi at e r eas onabl yfr om t he advi s or ySent enci ng G ui del i nes t o s at i s fyt he goal s of s ent enci ng.T h e c o u rt is s u e d b o th a n o ra l ru lin g a n d a c o n te m p o ra n e o u s w ri tte n o rd e r. 2 T h e o r a l ru l i n g e s s e n t i a l l yc o n s t i tu t e s a p a r a p h r a s i n g o f th e wr i t t e n o r d e r , a n d we q u o te fro m the latt er. -13- R . V ol. I, D oc. 34 , at4– 5 (i nternal ci t at i on om i t t ed). T he d i stri ctcou rtal so r ej ect ed M r . A l l en’ s obj ect i ons t o the i ncl us i on of s ex- offe nderr el eas e condi t i ons a n d s ta te d th a t it w o u ld in c lu d e s u c h c o n d itio n s in h is s e n te n c e . S e n ten c in g o c c u rre d o n M a rc h 9 , 2 0 0 6 . A t th e h e a rin g , the g o v e rn m e n t, w ith o u t ex p lan a tio n , req u e ste d a lo n g e r se n ten c e th a n th e o n e it h a d p re v io u sly r ecomm ended t o t he courti n i t s m ot i on. I ns t ead of ar gui ng thatM r . A l l en’ s nondrug r el at ed conduc ts houl d be i ncorpor at ed i nt o hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , the g o v e rn m e n t n o w a rg u e d th a t th is c o n d u c t sh o u ld b e p u n ish e d in its o w n rig h t, e x p la in in g th a t a p p lic a tio n o f th e s e x u a l a b u s e p ro v is io n o f th e G u id e lin e s , § 2 A 3 . 1 , w o u ld resu ltin “a total offe n se lev el of 3 6 , w ith a C ri m inal H ist o ry C at egoryof thr ee, w hi ch w oul d r ecomm end a s ent enci ng gui del i ne r ange of 235 to 2 9 3 m o n ths.” R . V o l. IV , at 77 . M r. A ll en ’s co u n sel req u ested that the c o u rt “n o t dev iat e to a n ysu b stan ti al de g ree , ” n o ti n g that O k laho m a a u tho ri ti es w ere cons i der i ng pr os ecut i ng M r . A l l en forthe otheras pect s of the i nves t i gat i on and t hathi s “or i gi nal gui del i ne s ent ence began a ta l evel l es s than the t en- y ear m andat or ym i ni m um s t at ed i n t he pr es ent ence r eport . ” R . V ol . I V , at78–79. A fter h ea ri n g thes e a rgu m en ts, the d istri ct co u rtp ron o u n ce d M r. A ll en ’s s ent ence . T he courtconcl uded thatt he “a dvi s or ygui del i ne r ange of l es s t han 2 t w el ve y ear s i n pr i s on [w as ] vas t l yi nadequa t e t o s at i s fyt he s t atut orypurpos es of-14-

sent encing, ” R . V ol. I, D oc. 37 at1, and fou nd that the “u nu sual fact s of t his case pl ai nl yw arr antan exe r ci s e of the C our t ’ s ‘ br oad di s cr et i on t o cons i der i nform at i on conce r ni ng t he defendant ’ s l i fe a nd char act er i s t i cs , i ncl udi ng conduct on w hi ch he ha [s ] notbeen c onvi ct ed, ’ ” id . at3 ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Magal l anez , 4 0 8 F . 3 d 6 7 2 , 6 8 4 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 )). C it ing b o th M r. A ll en ’s i nt er act i ons w i t h M s . A and the W al - M ar ti nci dent , the courtr ei t er at ed thati thad fo u n d , b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e , tha t “in 2 0 0 5 D e fe n d a n t w a s a c tiv e ly pl anni ng and t aki ng s t eps t o acc om pl i s h a numberof vi ol ent , s exual cr i m es agai ns tfemal es and chi l dr en. ” Id. a t 3 . T h e c o u rt w a s c o n v in c e d o f “ th e se v e rity of [M r . A l l en’ s ] t hr eatt o t he comm uni ty , and found no ba s i s t o ques t i on the seriou sn ess o f [ h is] crim inal an d v iolen t i n tention s. In fac t, h is cri m inal h ist o ry confi r m [ed] hi s abi l i t yt o acton hi s vi ol ents exual des i r es . ” Id. at5–6. T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatbeca us e “the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes pr ovi de no part i cul ar l yappr opr i at e mechani s m foran upw ar d departur e under t hes e extr aor di naryfac t s , [i t ] m us tgo out s i de the gui del i ne r ange, ” t aki ng gui dance fr om t he § 3553( a) fac t or s and B ooker ’ s “s t andar d of r eas onabl enes s . ” Id. a t 3 . T u rn in g to th e se fa c to rs, th e c o u rt re a so n e d a s fo llo w s: T w o of the s t atut or yfac t or s . . . caus e gr ave c oncern: the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed ( 1) t o pr ot ectthe publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of D efe ndantand ( 2) t o pr ovi de ade quat e det err ence t o cr i m i nal conduct byot her s . D efe ndant ’ s degr ee of danger ous nes s and the natur e and se rio u sn e ss o f

h is th re a ten e d c o n d u c t d e m a n d a se v e re se n ten c e in or dert o s erve thes e dual purpos es . I n addi t i on, i n vi ew of the s i m i l ar i t ybetw een hi s pas tconvi ct i on of the vi ol entr ape of a fi ft een--15-

y ear - ol d gi r l and hi s r ece ntact i ons , the C our tfi nds a hi gh l i kel i hood o f re cidiv ism ; i n d ee d , the e v iden ce estab li sh ed n o t on lyD efen d an t’ s p ro p e n s ity b u t h is a c tu a l d e te rm in e d e ffo rt s to w a rd re c id iv is m . . . . D efe ndant ’ s pencha ntfort ar get i ng chi l dr en and i nfl i ct i ng cruel fea r a n d to rtu re a s a fo rm o f p e rso n a l sp o rt o r se x u a l p lea su re w a rra n ts even gr eat err epr obat i on. Id. at6. T he courti m pos ed a s ent ence of 360 m onths i m pr i s onm entas “r eas onabl e, nece s s ary , and mi ni m al l ys uffi ci entt o s at i s fythe i ncapa ci t at i ve and det err entgoal s of s ent enci ng. ” Id. at6–7. D e s p ite its e a rl ie r s ta te m e n t th a t th e G u id e lin e s p ro v id e d “ n o . . . m e c h a n is m ” to c o m p u te a n a p p ro p ri a te s e n te n c e , i d. at3, the court“r ecogni ze[ d] i t s dut yt o cons ul t[them], ” and thus “s ear ched the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes for gu i dan ce, ” proceed i ng as fol l ow s: Itap p ea rs th e m o st cl o selyan alog o u s b asis fo r an u p w ard d ep arture lies in § 5 K 2 .2 1 , en tit led “ D ism iss e d a n d U n c h a rg e d C o n d u c t.” T h is pr ovi s i on perm i t s a s ent enci ng courtt o departupw ar d “bas ed on con du ct(1) . . . un derl y i ng a po t enti al charge n ot purs ued i n the case a s p a rt o f

a p lea a g re e m e n t orf orany otherr eas on ; an d (2 ) th a t d id notent eri nt o t he det erm i nat i on of the appl i cabl e gui del i ne r ange. ” U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 5K 2. 21 ( emphasi s added) . T he fac t s s t at ed above , vi ew ed undera pr eponder ance of the evi dence s t andar d, es t abl i s h conductunder l y i ng a pot ent i al char ge of a t t empt ors ol i ci t at i on t o comm i taggr avat ed s exual abus e orfi r s t - degr ee m ur der . C ons i der i ng t he gui del i ne pr ovi s i ons fors uch offens es b ase d o n the c o n d u ct sh o w n b ythe e v iden ce an d D efen d an t’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yw oul d y i el d an advi s or ygui del i ne r ange of 360 m on t hs t o li fe, cal culat ed as fo l l ow s. Forcr i m i nal s exual abus e oratt empt t o comm i tcr i m i nal s exual abus e, t he appl i cabl e gui del i ne s ect i on i s 2A 3. 1. T he bas e l evel i s 30 an d the s p ec ifi c o ffen se c h ara cterist ics w o u ld w arran t i n cre ase s fo r: ( a) aggr avat ed conduc t( us i ng for ce a nd pl aci ng the vi ct i m i n fea rof death, s er i ous bodi l yi nj ur yordeath) , 4 l evel s ; ( b) the age of the v ictim (u n d e r tw e lv e y e a rs) , 4 lev e ls; (c ) life -th re a ten in g b o d ilyIn h is s ta te m e n t o f fa c ts , M r. A lle n a ls o a s s e rt s th a t th e “ d is tr ic t c o u rt . . . 3 i m pos ed condi t i on[s ] of s upervi s ed r el eas e j us tas i f [he ] had bee n convi ct ed of [ ] cr i m i nal s exual abus e. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at9–10. M r . A l l en does notr etur n t o t he iss u e in th e a rg u m e n t se c tio n o f h is b rie f

a n d p ro v id e s n o leg a l au th o rityin supp ortof it . T hu s, t o the ext ent this l on e ph ras e repr esent s an argum ent agai nst th e im p o s itio n o f

th e s e c o n d itio n s , w e d e c lin e to a d d re s s it. See Uni t ed Stat es v. B anks , 451 F. 3d 721, 728 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( “M r . B anks pr ovi des no l egal au tho ri tyto su p p o rtthis argu m en t; there fo re, w e d ec li n e to a d d ress it . ”). -16- inju ry to th e v ic tim , 4 le v e ls ; a n d (d ) a b d u c tio n o f th e v ic tim , 4 l evel s . T he adj us t ed offens e l evel underSect i on 2A 3. 1 i s 46. I f the vi ct i m w as m ur der ed, t he cr os s - r efe r ence r equi r es the appl i cat i on of S e c tio n 2 A 1 .1 if

a g re a te r o ffe n s e le v e l r e s u lts . S e c tio n 2 A 1 .1 pr ovi des a bas e offens e l evel of 43. H ow ever , Sect i on 2X 1. 1( b) ( 3) w oul d r equi r e a de cr eas e of 3 l evel s beca us e i tw as a s ol i ci t at i on r athert han a c om pl et ed offens e. T hus the t ot al offe ns e l evel for unchar ged conduc tw oul d be atl eas t40. W i th D efe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryof I I I , t he Sent enci ng T abl e y i el ds a r ecomm ended gui del i ne r ange foroffe ns e l evel 40 of 360 m onths t o l i fe. T hus v iew in g th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s a s a n o bjec tiv e m a rk e r, th is anal y s i s confi r m s t he r eas onabl enes s of the s ent ence det erm i ned by t he C our tbas ed s ol el yon the s ent enci ng fac t or s and i t s r eas oned ju d g m e n t a s a s e n te n c in g c o u rt . Id. at 7– 8 (om issi o n in o ri g inal). M r . A l l en appe al s hi s s ent ence on the gr ound of s ubs t ant i ve u n rea so n ab lene ss u n d er B ooker . H e al s o cont ends the s ent ence vi ol at es the E i gh t h A m end m ent. B ecause w e vaca t e t he sentence on reas on ableness gr ou nd s, 3 w e d o n o t re a c h h is E ig h th A m e n d m e n t ar g u m e n t. I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. A llen p lea d e d g u iltyto p o ss e ss io n w ith in ten t to d istrib u te m ethamphet ami ne. T he s t atut or ypuni s hm entr ange fort hi s cr i m e i s br oad: t en-17-

y ear s t o l i fe. I n l i ghtof hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory— w hi ch i ncl udes the for ci bl e r ape of a mi norfemal e— as w el l as a congr es s i onal l yi m pos ed mandat orym i ni m um bas ed o n d ru g q u a n tity, s ee 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 (b )(1 )(A )(v iii ), th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly c a lc u la te d a n a d v is o ry se n te n c in g ra n g e o f 1 2 0

– 1 3 5 m o n th s in p ri s o n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt th e n s e n te n c e d M r. A lle n to 3 6 0 m o n th s im p ri s o n m e n t. T hi s dr amat i c upw ar d var i ance w as bas ed on the fa ctt hat , dur i ng the cour s e of th is in v e stig a tio n , M r. A llen e x p re ss e d a c o n tin u e d d e sire to se x u a llya ss a u lt, r ape, t or tur e, and murde ry oung gi r l s , al ong w i th s om e evi dence t hathe mayhave t aken pr el i m i narys t eps t ow ar d act i ng upon thes e des i r es . R eas onabl e mi nds m ay d i ffe ro n j u s th o w t o i n t e rp r e tt h i s e v i d e n c e , a n d t h e i s s u e w a s n o tp u tt o a j u r y. T he defens e pr es ent ed a pl aus i bl e ar gum entt hatM r . A l l en w as , l i ke a tw i s t ed W al t erM i t t y , s i m pl yfant as i zi ng. B utt he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatM r . A l l en ac tuallyd esired an d p lann ed to co m m itthes e c ri m es a n d w as tak ing step s tow ard d o in g so . B a se d o n th e re c o rd in th is c a se , tha t co n c lu sio n w a s n o t cle a rly err oneous . A nd t he di s t r i ctcourt ’ s concl us i ons r egar di ng M r . A l l en’ s pr ocl i vi t i es u n d o u b t e d l yb e a ra l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g fa c t o r s s e tfo r th i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3553( a) , m os tes peci al l yt he nee d t o pr ot ectt he publ i c fr om fur thercr i m es of th e d e fe n d a n t. T h e q u esti o n p rese n ted is w h ethe r i t w as re aso n ab le fo r th e d istri ct co u rt effect i vel yt o s ent ence M r . A l l en as i f he ha d been tr i ed and c onvi ct ed of-18-

at t empt ed cr i m i nal s exual abus e ors ol i ci t at i on of m ur der , w hen hi s cr i m e of convi ct i on w as s al e of met hamphet ami ne. A . St andard of R evi ew U nderourdeci s i on i n Un itedS ta tes v . Kris tl , 4 3 7 F . 3 d 1 0 5 0 (10 th C ir . 2006) , w e fol l ow a tw o- s t ep appr oach i n r evi ew i ng a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s s ent enci ng deci s i on. Fi r s t , w e r evi ew t he court ’ s cal cul at i on of the defendant ’ s G ui del i nes s e n te n c e , if

c h a lle n g e d . Id. a t 1 0 5 4

– 5 5 . S e c o n d , if th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly d e te rm in e d th a t r a n g e , w e re v ie w th e a c tu a l s e n te n c e im p o s e d fo r r e a s o n a b le n e s s . Id. ; Uni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. 220, 261–62 ( 2005) . B eca us e M r . A l l en d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c a l c u l a t i o n o f h i s Gu i d e l i n e s r a n g e , we pr ocee d di r ect l yt o t he s econd s t ep of the Kris tlin q u ir y . W ith in -G u id e lin e s s e n te n c e s e njo ya p re s u m p tio n o f re a s o n a b le n e s s , Kris tl , 437 F. 3d at1054, w hi l e s ent ence s t hatfal l out s i de of thi s r ange a r e r evi ew ed on a “s l i di ng s cal e, ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Val t i er r a- R oj as , 4 6 8 F . 3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 9 (10 th C ir . 2006) . W e l ook t o t he “di s cr epanc ybetw een the advi s orygui del i nes r ange a nd t he ac tual s ent ence , ” C age , 451 F. 3d at594, “i n t erm s of b o th per cent age and abs ol ut e t i m e, ” Val t i er r a- R oj as , 468 F. 3d at1240. “The farthert he [s ent enci ng] cour tdi ver ges fr om t he advi s or ygui del i ne r ange, t he more compel l i ng the r eas ons fort he di ver gence m us tbe. ” Id. at 12 3 9 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In C age , th e d is tr ic t c o u rtim p o s e d a s e n te n c e o f s ix d a y s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n t, a d o w n w a rd v a ri a n c e f

ro m th e g u id e lin e s ra n g e o f fo rt y -s ix to fif

ty-s e v e n m o n th s .-19-

W e c h a ra c ter ize d th is v a ria n c e a s “ e x tre m e ” a n d “ re a so n a b le o n lyu n d e r d ra m a tic fac t s . ” C age , 451 F. 3d at594. I n Val t i er r a- R oj as , w e des cr i bed the “thi r ty - thr eem on t h/122% ” up w ard vari ance a s “not nearl yso extr em e, ” bu tnev ertheles s t r eat ed i tas a “s ubs t ant i al ” var i ance r equi r i ng “compel l i ng r eas ons . ” 468 F. 3d at 1 2 4 0 . T h e v a ria n c e h e re — 2 2 5 m o n th s, o r 1 6 7 %

— is m o re su b sta n tial th a n th a t in Val t i er r a- R oj as . W e re g a rd it as su fficie n tlye x tre m e th a t itc a n b e u p h e ld o n ly b a s e d u p o n a c o m p e llin g ju s tific a tio n . B . C onsi derat i on of t hi s Sent ence U nder t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s p ro v id e d “ n o . .

. m echan i sm ” t o co m pu t e an ap propri at e sent ence u nd er the “ex traor dinaryfact s” of thi s cas e. R . V ol . I , D oc. 37, at3. T hati s w hyi ti m pos ed an upw ar d var i ance i n the exerci se of i t s B ookerdis cret i on . W e beg i n o ur anal y si s of reasonab l eness w ith a d isc u ss io n o f

w h yth e G u id e lin e s w o u ld n o t p e rm it th e c o u rt to im p o se th is k in d o f se n ten c e ; w e c a n th e n c o n sid e r w h e th e r it w a s re a so n a b le fo r th e c o u rt, i n i t s exer ci s e of B oo ker di s cr et i on, t o di s r egar d the r el evantl i m i t i ng pr i nci pl es fou nd i n the G uidel i nes. 1. A t t em pt ed C ri m es V ers us Th reat ened F ut ure C ondu ct A s a fir st st ep , w e m u st co n side r ho w to interp ret th e e v iden ce o f M r. A l l en’ s non- drug- r el at ed conduc t , w hi ch cons i s t ed of di s cus s i ons w i th M s . A and a n e n c o u n t e rwi t h a c h i l d i n t h e Wa l - M a r t . T h e s e e v e n t s c a n b e v i e we d i n t wo d iffe ren t w ay s. F ir st, theym ayh av e b ee n ac tual att em p ted c ri m inal ac ti v ity . M r.-20-

A l l en’ s conver s at i ons w i t h M s . A m ayhave c ons t i tut ed the cr i m e of s ol i ci t at i on of m ur derand the W al - M arti nci dentm ayhave c ons t i tut ed the cr i m es of at t empt ed abduc t i on oratt empt ed s exual abus e of a chi l d. Por t i ons of the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s op inion su g g est th is at tem p ted-c ri m es p ersp ec ti v e. F o r ex am p le, the c o u rt out l i ned the “s t eps ” M r . A l l en had a l r eadyt aken “ t o acc om pl i s h a numberof vi ol ent , s exual cr i m es . ” Id. T he court ’ s s ent enci ng cal cul at i on w as bas ed on the cr i m e of c r i m i nal s exual abus e oratt empt , w i th a four - l evel enhanc ementfor aggr avat ed conduc t , a four - l evel enhanc ementforage of the vi ct i m , a four - l evel enhanc ementforl i fe- t hr eat eni ng bodi l yi nj ur yt o the vi ct i m , and a four - l evel e n h a n c e m e n t fo r a b d u c tio n o f th e v ic tim . Id. at 7–8. T he courtal s o cal cul at ed the s ent ence form ur der , w i t h a thr ee- poi ntdecr eas e i n offe ns e l evel beca us e the c o n d u c t w a s s o lic ita tio n ra th e r t h a n a c o m p le te d h o m ic id e . Id. a t 8 . A ll th is r eads as i f thes e cr i m es had al r eadybeen c om m i t t ed. A lt ern ati v ely , M r. A ll en ’s st atem en ts an d b eh av ior m ayraise a c o n ce rn abouthi s pot ent i al futur e cr i m i nal i ty . Por t i ons of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s expl anat i on s ugges tt hi s futur e- cr i m es per s pect i ve. Forexampl e, t he courtdi s cus s ed the “ser i ou sness of his thr eat enedconduct , ” i d. a t 6 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ), as w e ll as h is “pr opens i t y ” and “ pencha nt ” for“t ar get i ng chi l dr en and i nfl i ct i ng cruel fea rand t or tur e as a form of per s onal s por tors exual pl eas ur e. ” Id. T hi s di s t i nct i on has s i gni fi canc e undert he G ui del i nes beca us e of the differ ent w ay s i n w hich r el at ed co nd uct, pastcri m es, and futur e dan gerousn ess-21-

are treat ed. C on du ctrel at ed to the o ffen se of co nv i ct i on i s treat ed as an offense char act er i s t i c, w her eas pas tcr i m i nal convi ct i ons ar e gene r al l ytr eat ed as an o ffen d er c h ara cterist ic, an d take n into a cc o u n t byassig n ing a c ri m inal h ist o ry s c o re . See D o u g la s A . B e rm a n , C onceptual iz i ng B l akel y , 17 Fed. Sent ’ g R ep. 89, 89–90 ( 2004) ( di s t i ngui s hi ng betw een offens e cha r act er i s t i cs and offender charact eri st i cs) . F utur e dan gerousn ess al so i s an offend er charact eri st i c. B ecause e v a lu a tio n o f

f u tu re d a n g e ro u sn e ss c o u ld o th e rw ise v e e r in to sp e c u latio n , it g e n e ra llyis e v a lu a ted o n th e b a sis o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s re c id iv ism , w h ich tak e s in to ac co u n t pri o r co n v ict ion s an d p ri o r s i m i laradul tm i s conduct . U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual §§ 4A 1. 1, 4A . 3. ( a) ( 2) ( E ) . T o pr edi cat e a s ent ence on evi dence t hata defendanti s l i kel yt o comm i ta part i cul arcr i m e i n the futur e— bas ed notupon pas tors i m i l arcr i m es , butupon expr es s i ons of des i r e— t akes us i nt o unchart ed w at er s . Fort he mostpart , w e r egar d the di s tr i ct cour t ’ s or deras r el y i ng on unchar ged, att empt ed cr i m i nal act i vi ty . T ow ar d the end of the opi ni on, w e cons i derthe pr opr i etyof bas i ng a s ent ence on thr eat ened, butas y etnotexec ut ed, cr i m es . E i therw ay , r el i ance on thi s pas tort hr eat ened f u tu re c o n d u c t is p ro b le m a tic . 2. O ffens e C haract eri s t i cs A s J us t i ce Bre y erexpl ai ned i n B ooker , “C o n g re ss ’ b a sic sta tu to ryg o a l— a s y s t em t hatdi m i ni s hed s ent enci ng di s par i ty— depends fori t s s ucce s s upon j udi ci al effor t s t o det erm i ne, and t o bas e puni s hm entupon, t he re a l co n d u c t that-22-

un derl i es the cri m e of c on vict i on . ” 54 3 U . S . at25 1. A ccordi ng l y , the fir st fun dam ental el em ent of t he G uidel i nes cal culat i on i s the assi gn m ent of a base offe ns e l evel , w hi ch i s cal cul at ed byacc ount i ng for“al l act s and omi s s i ons comm i t t ed . . . byt he defendant. . . thatoccurr ed dur i ng the comm i s s i on of the offe ns e of c onvi ct i on, i n pr epar at i on forthatoffe ns e, ori n the cour s e of at t empt i ng t o avoi d det ect i on orr es pons i bi l i tyforthatoffe ns e. ” U . S. Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s M a n u a l § 1 B 1 .3 (a )(1 ) (2 0 0 4 ). K n o w n a s re lev a n t co n d u c t, th is compri s es m or e, oft en much m or e, than the offens e of c onvi ct i on i t s el f, and may in c lu d e u n c h a rg e d a n d e v e n a c q u itte d c o n d u c t. See Magal lanez , 4 0 8 F .3 d a t 6 8 4 . A s s tate d in th e c o m m e n tar yto th e G u id e lin e s, “ [ c ]o n d u c t th a t is n o t fo rm a lly char ged ori s notan el ementof the offens e of c onvi ct i on m ayent eri nt o the d e te rm in a tio n o f

th e a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e s e n te n c in g ra n g e .” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .3 cmt . backgr ound. B utt hough r el evantconducti ncl udes m or e than j us tthe con du ctfor w hich a defen dan tw as conv i ct ed, i thas l i m i t s: the co nd uct m ust re la te to th e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. A s ch , 207 F. 3d 1 2 3 8 , 1 2 4 3 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ); Un itedS ta tes v . C u sto d io , 3 9 F .3 d 1 1 2 1 , 1 1 2 6 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); Un itedS ta tes v . O rtiz , 4 3 1 F .3 d 1 0 3 5 , 1 0 4 0 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. L eon ard , 2 8 9 F .3 d 9 8 4 , 9 8 7

– 8 8 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. McG ahee , 2 5 7 F .3 d 5 2 0 , 5 3 2 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); United S tates v. C ross , 121 F. 3d 2 3 4 , 2 3 8

– 3 9 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); Un itedS ta tes v . K im , 8 9 6 F . 2 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 2

– 8 4 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ).-23-

T h e re late d n e ss p rin c ip le is f u n d a m e n tal b e c a u se o f o u r c o m m itm e n t to s ent enci ng bas ed on the s er i ous nes s of the actualoff ense p ro v e n o r a d m itte d . See 18 U . S . C . § 3 55 3(a) (1) (“the n ature and ci rcum st ances of the o f f ense ” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); i d. § 3553( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( “the nee d forthe s ent ence i m pos ed . . . t o r efl ectt he ser i ou sness of

the of f ens e . . .” ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ); W illia m W . W ilk in s , J r. & Jo h n R . S teer, R el evantC onduct : The C or ners t one of the Feder alSent enci ng G ui del i nes , 41 S. C . L . R ev. 495, 497–99 ( 1990) . T hi s i s notunr el at ed t o the Si xt h A m endmentpr i nci pl es under l y i ng B ooker . M o st c rim e s in c lu d e w ith in th e ir a m b it a b ro a d ra n g e o f c o n d u c t. D e p e n d in g u p o n th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f its c o m m iss io n th e sa m e “ c rim e ” w ill h a v e a d iffe re n t im p a c t, reflec t v a ry in g lev e ls o f c u lpab il ity , o r po rt en d u n li k e c o n seq u en ce s. W h en a se n tenc ing co u rt c o n sid e rs c o n d u c t re late d to th e o ffe n se o f c o n v ictio n , the o bjec tiv e is to det erm i ne the s er i ous nes s of the verycr i m e found byt he j ur yoradmi t t ed byt he defe ndant . I f the cons i der ed conduc thas nothi ng t o do w i th the offens e of convi ct i on, t he courti s effect i vel ys ent enci ng a defendantfora cr i m e thatw as n e v e r p ro v e d to th e ju ry , o r a d m itt e d b yth e d e fe n d a n t. T o a llo w th is w o u ld empow ert he governm entt o obt ai n puni s hm entforanynum berof unr el at ed cr i m es , bas ed on benc h t r i al r athert han j uryt r i al . T he r el at ednes s pr i nci pl e thus keeps t he s y s t em from str ay i ng t oo farbey ond the Si xth A m endmentl i ne. I n as s es s i ng w hetherconducti s s uffi ci ent l yr el at ed t o the offens e of convi ct i on, cour t s as k “w hethert her e i s a s tr ong r el at i ons hi p betw een the-24-

unchar ged conduc tand the convi ct ed offens e, focus i ng on w hetherthe governm enthas demonstr at ed a s i gni fi cants i m i l ar i ty , r egul ar i ty , and t empora l pr oxi m i t y . ” O rtiz , 4 3 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 4 0 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ); see also Uni t ed Stat es v. R oeder er , 1 1 F .3 d 9 7 3 , 9 7 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). F o r e x a m p le, th is C our thas found thatdrugs pos s es s ed fora defendant ’ s per s onal us e w er e r el at ed t o t he defendant ’ s drug m anufa ctur i ng and di s tr i but i on offe ns es beca us e the quant i t yof drugs t he defendantper s onal l ycons um ed w as r el evantt o the t ot al a m o u n t o f

illic it n a rc o tic s s h e re c e iv e d d u ri n g th e d ru g c o n s p ir a c y . A s ch , 207 F. 3d at1244. O n t he otherhand, w e have al s o hel d thatcert ai n form s of overbi l l i ng w er e notr el at ed t o a doct or ’ s offe ns e of bi l l i ng fors ervi ces he di d not p e rfo rm . C u sto d io , 39 F. 3d at1126. T he C u sto d io C our texpl ai ned thatt he governm enthad notpr oven the overbi l l i ng pr act i ces w er e “the s ame t ype of conduct ” orpartof “the s ame sc heme orpl an” a s t he offens e of c onvi ct i on, and not ed thati f the overbi l l i ng had bee n char ged, t he defendantm i ghthave ha d v ia b le d e fe n s e s , s u c h a s m is ta k e o r m is u n d e rs ta n d in g . Id. In a p a rticu lar ly s t r i ki ng cas e, t he Si xt h C i r cui tr ever s ed a § 1B1. 3 enhanc ementw her e the d e fe n d a n t p le d g u ilty to d is tr ib u tio n o f c o c a in e . C ross , 121 F. 3d at240–41. T he di s t r i ctcourtappl i ed an upw ar d enhanc ementbas ed on evi dence t hatt he d e fe n d a n t h a d p a rticip a ted in th e g ru e so m e to rtu re o f a fo rm e r c o n fe d e ra te s us pect ed of s t eal i ng drugs . B eca us e the appe l l at e courtconcl uded thatt her e w as-25-

a n in su fficie n t co n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e to rtu re a n d th e d e fe n d a n t’s c o c a in e sa le, it re v e rs e d th e e n h a n c e d s e n te n c e . C ross , 1 2 1 F .3 d a t 2 3 8

– 4 1 . I n t hi s cas e, t he di s t r i ctcour tcorr ect l yconcl uded— and the governm ent does notcont es t

— t hatt he horr i fi c s exual abus e orm ur derthatM r . A l l en ei ther con t em plat ed o r t oo k st eps t ow ard com m i t t i ng w as not r el evan tcon du ctbecau se i twa s c o mp l e t e l yu n r e l a t e d t o h i s s a l e o f me th a mp h e t a mi n e . Al th o u g h th e two form s of cr i m i nal i t yoccurr ed dur i ng the s ame t i m e fr ame, ther e i s no other connec t i on betw een them. T he W al - M ar ti nci dentand M r . A l l en’ s di s cus s i ons w i t h M s . A di d notoccuri n pr epar at i on forthe met hamphet ami ne s al e, dur i ng t he e x e c u tio n o f

th e s a le , o r i n th e c o u rs e o f a v o id in g re s p o n s ib ility fo r t h e s a le . See U . S. S. G . § 1B 1. 3( a) ( 1) . T hi s cas e thus bear s a cl os e r es embl ance t o C ross , exce ptt hati n C ross t he t or tur e ac tual l yoccurr ed, and the t or tur e and the drug offe ns e w er e m or e ar guabl y connec t ed. W e conc l ude thatM r . A l l en’ s unchar ged act i vi t i es , w hethert hr eat ened oratt empt ed, di d notcons t i tut e r el evantconduct under§ 1B 1. 3 of the G ui del i ne. T o the ext entt hatt he di s tr i ctcourtus ed the u n c h a rg e d c o n d u c t in th is c a se a s a n o ffe n se c h a ra c ter istic, w h ich is n o t cle a r, it v io la te d a b a s ic s tru c tu ra l n o rm o f th e G u id e lin e s s y s te m . 3. C ri m i nal H i s t ory T he s econd f

undament al el ementof the G ui del i nes cal cul us i s bas ed on an o ffen d e r c h a ra c ter istic , namel ycr i m i nal hi s t ory . I n thi s cont ext , pr i oract s t hat ar e notr el at ed t o t he offens e of c onvi ct i on m aybe cons i der ed bec aus e a-26-

“defendant ’ s pr i orr ecor d of pas tcr i m i nal conducti s di r ect l yr el evantt o” the purpos es of s ent enci ng s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) ( 2) . U . S. S. G . § 4A i ntr o. cmt . “A defe ndantw i t h a r ecor d of pr i orcr i m i nal behavi ori s m or e cul pabl e than a fi r s toffe nderand thus des ervi ng of gr eat erpuni s hm ent . ” Id. C r i m i nal hi s t or ypoi nt s ar e as s i gned forpr i orcr i m es onl yw hen the d e fe n d a n t w a s p re v io u s ly trie d a n d c o n v ic te d o f th e o ffe n s e . See U . S. S. G . §§ 4A 1. 1, 4A 1. 2. E ach of t he cr i m i nal hi s t orycat egor i es i s defi ned ac cor di ng t o t he d e fe n d a n t’s “ p rio r se n ten c e ,” w h ich in tu rn is d e fin e d a s “ a n yse n ten c e p re v io u sly i m pos ed upon adj udi cat i on of gui l t. . . forconductnotpartof the i ns t ant offe ns e. ” Id. § 4A 1. 2( a) ( 1) . T hi s l i m i t at i on, l i ke the r el at ednes s rul e forr el evant conduct , has Si xt h A m endmenti m pl i cat i ons : cr i m i nal hi s t orypoi nt s ar e as s i gned o n lyo n th e b a sis o f

p rio r c o n v ictio n s b ya ju ryo r p lea s o f g u iltyo r n o lo c o n ten d e re . A se n ten c in g ju d g e c a n n o t im p o se a d d iti o n a l p u n ish m e n t p u rsu a n t to cr i m i nal hi s t or yw i t houta “j ur y. . . s t and[i ng] betw een the i ndi vi dual and the pow erof the governm ent . ” B ooker , 543 U . S. at237. M r . A l l en’ s non- drug r el at ed conduc tt her efor e coul d notcountt ow ar d hi s cr i m i nal hi s t oryw i thout v io latin g a se c o n d f

u n d a m e n tal s tru c tu ra l fe a tu re o f th e G u id e lin e s, w h ich lim its c rim in a l h isto ryto m isc o n d u c t th a t w a s fo rm a llya dju d ica ted , w ith S ix th A m e n d m e n t s a fe g u a rd s .S ect i on 5K 2. 0 is no tapp l i cable t o d epartures pursuantt o o ther guidel i nes, 4 su ch as u n d errep rese n tat ion o f c ri m inal h ist o ry . U . S . S . G . § 5 K 2 . 0 cm t. n . 2 (B ). N e ith e r c rim in a l h isto ryn o r u n d e rre p re se n tatio n o f c rim in a l h isto ryis lim ited to cr i m es r el at ed t o t he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on. -27- 4. U pw ard D epart ures U nder t he G ui del i nes N orcoul d t he di s t r i ctcourthave de part ed upw ar d undert he G ui del i nes on th e b a sis o f

th e se fa c ts. U n d e r § 5 K 2 .0 , a c o u rt c a n d e p a rt f ro m “ th e a p p lica b le gui del i ne r ange ba s ed on offens e cha r act er i s t i cs oroffe nderchar act er i s t i cs of a ki nd, ort o a degr ee, notadequa t el yt aken i nt o cons i der at i on i n det erm i ni ng that r ange. ” U . S. S. G . § 5K 2. 0 cmt . n. 2( A ) . B utl i ke enha ncement s forunchar ged 4 conductunder§ 1B 1. 3, w hen a § 5K 2. 0 departur e i s bas ed on ‘ “ac t s of m isc o n d u c t n o t re su lti n g in c o n v ictio n ’” th o se a c ts m u st s til l “‘ re late m eani ngful l yt o t he offens e of c onvi ct i on. ’ ” Uni t ed Stat es v. Neal , 249 F. 3d 1251, 1260 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . A m ira u lt , 224 F. 3d 9, 12 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); se e a lso Un itedS ta tes v . Ha gg e rty , 4 F . 3 d 9 0 1 , 9 0 3 n . 2 (10 th C ir . 1993) ( “[I ] f w e w er e pr es ent ed w i th a ca s e w her e a di s tr i ctcourtdepart ed bas ed u p o n a totall yirrelev an t ci rcu m stan ce , w e w o u ld n o t ho ld su ch a d ep arture author i zed mer el ybeca us e the ci r cumst ance w as of a ki nd om i t t ed byt he G u id e lin e s.” ); C ross , 1 2 1 F .3 d a t 2 4 0 ; K im , 896 F. 2d at684. Sect i on 5K 2. 0 w as t her efor e unava i l abl e i n t hi s cas e. T h e G u id e lin e s a lso re c o g n ize th a t th e c rim in a l h isto rysc o rin g sy ste m w ill so m eti m es u n d errep rese n t ( o r ov errep rese n t) the s eriou sn ess o f a n o ffen d er’s-28-

c rim in a l p a st. S e c tio n 4 A 1 .3 (a )(1 ) th e re fo re p ro v id e s th a t “[ i]f re liab le in fo rm a tio n in d ica tes th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o rysu b sta n tially under - r epr es ent s t he s er i ous nes s of the defendant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t oryorthe l i kel i hood t hatt he defendantw i l l comm i tothercr i m es , an upw ar d departur e may be w arr ant ed. ” O ne mi ghtar gue thatM r . A l l en’ s s t at ement s and beha vi ordur i ng t hi s i nves t i gat i on r enderhi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , and i n par t i cul arhi s pas tconvi ct i on fo r fo rc ib le r a p e o f

a fif tee n -y e a r-o ld g irl, m o re o m in o u s, a n d th u s th a t a departur e w oul d be w arr ant ed underthi s s ect i on. T hat , pr es um abl y , i s w hythe governm enti ni t i al l ypr opos ed t o t he courtan upw ar d departur e of tw o cr i m i nal his t orycat ego ri es. B u t th e re a re p ro b lem s w ith th is a p p ro a c h . In th e 2 0 0 4 G u id e lin e s M a n u a l, § 4 A 1 .3 (a )(2 ) re a d s a s fo llo w s: T he i nform at i on des cr i bed i n s ubs ect i on ( a) m ayi ncl ude i nform at i on conce r ni ng t he fol l ow i ng: ( A ) Pr i ors ent ence ( s ) notus ed i n comput i ng the cr i m i nal h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y ( e. g. , s ent ence s forfor ei gn and tr i bal o ffen ses). ( B ) Pr i ors ent ence ( s ) of s ubs t ant i al l ym or e than one y ear i m pos ed as a r es ul tof i ndepende ntcr i m es comm i t t ed on differ ent occasi on s. ( C ) Pr i ors i m i l arm i s conductes t abl i s hed bya ci vi l adj udi cat i on o r bya fail u re to c o m p lyw ith an ad m inistrati v e o rde r. ( D ) W hethert he defendantw as pendi ng tr i al ors ent enci ng on anotherchar ge att he t i m e of the i ns t antoffe ns e. ( E ) Pr i ors i m i l aradul tcr i m i nal conductnotr es ul t i ng i n a cr i m i nal convi ct i on.It m a yb e sig n ifica n t th a t, pr io r to 2 0 0 3 , the G u id e lin e s M a n u a l ex p re ss ly 5 s t at ed thata di s t r i ctcour tw as “notl i m i t ed t o” the i nform at i on i n the fi ve cat egor i es l i s t ed above . T he Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on dr opped thes e w or ds fr om t he M anual i n 2003 w hen i ts ubs t ant i al l yamended §4A 1. 3 t o comportw i th the P R O T E C T A c t, w h ich d ire c ted th e S e n ten c in g C o m m iss io n to “ su b sta n tially r educe [] ” the i nci dence of dow nw ar d departur es . Pub. L . 108- 21. N othi ng i n t he c o m m e n tar yre g a rd in g th is a m e n d m e n t su g g e sts th a t th e c h a n g e w a s m e a n t to t r ans form t he l i s ti nt o an exha us t i ve one, U . S. S. G . A pp. C , V ol . I I , A m . 365, but th e c h a n g e in lan g u a g e m ig h t b e re a d th a t w a y . B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt in th is cas e di d notj us t i fyt he s ent ence as a depa r tur e undert hi s pr ovi s i on, w e nee d not re s o lv e th a t is s u e to d a y . -29- U . S. Sent enci ng G ui del i nes M anual § 4A 1. 3( a) ( 2) ( 2004) . I tdoes notappea rt hat M r . A l l en’ s unchar ged conduct fal l s i nt o any of thes e cat egor i es . A l l pr i or 5 c o n v i c t i o n s m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d , b u to n l y s i m i lara d u lt crim in a l co n d u c t. H is p e rv e rse se x u a l d e sire s a n d p u tativ e a c ts in f u rth e ra n c e o f

th e m a re d istin c tly di s s i m i l arfr om t he cr i m e of c onvi ct i on. M o re o v e r, ev e n a ss u m in g p rio r m isc o n d u c t o u tsid e th e c a teg o rie s liste d in § 4 A 1 . 3 c o u l d b e t h e b a s i s fo ra d e p a r tu r e fo ru n d e rr e p r e s e n t e d c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, s uch mi s conductw oul d s t i l l have t o be cons i der ed and w ei ghed i n a manner s i m i l art o t hatempl oy ed foract s of pr i orm i s conductal r eadycont empl at ed byt he G u id e lin e s, th a t is, as in c re a sin g th e d e fe n d a n t’s c rim in a l h isto rysc o re , n o t h is o ffe n s e le v e l. See U . S . S en tenc ing G u idelines M an u al § 4 A 1 . 3 (a)(4) (2 0 0 4 ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Thorton , 922 F. 2d 1490, 1494 ( 10th C i r . 1991) ( “[T] he di s tr i ct cour terr ed i n det erm i ni ng t he degr ee of upw ar d departur e bec aus e i ti gnor ed the d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n o ffe n s e le v e l a n d c ri m in a l h is to ry c a te g o ry d e p a rt u re s . T hor t on’ s pr i orunchar ged cr i m i nal conductr efl ect s on the ade quacyof her-30-

c rim in a l h isto ryc a teg o ry , n o t th e b a se o ffe n se lev e l.”); Un itedS ta tes v . Witt ig , 2 0 6 F . A p p ’x 7 6 3 , 7 7 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (un p u b li sh ed ) (“[W ]e u n d erstan d w h yM r. W itt ig ’s [ c u rre n t] se n ten c e sh o u ld re flec t th e c rim in a l h isto rye sta b lish e d b yh is con vict i on s i n the [pri or] W est ar cas e; bu tw e fai l t o u nd ers t and w hytho se co n v ict ion s are o therw ise relev an t t o the p rese n t case . ”). H a d M r. A lle n ’s n o n -d ru g -r e la te d c o n d u c t b e e n w o rt h yo f a § 4 A 1 .3 departur e, as t he governm enti ni t i al l yur ged, the di s tr i ctcour tcoul d have a dded t w o fel oni es t o hi s r ecor d ( as s um i ng, as di d the s ent enci ng j udge, thatatt empt ed s exual abus e and s ol i ci t at i on of m ur derw er e the cr i m es t o be cons i der ed) . A s s et o u t in th e m a rg in a b o v e , s ee s upr a not e 1, thi s w oul d have a dded s i x cr i m i nal h ist o ryp o ints t o M r. A ll en ’s sco re, qu ali fied h im fo r a c ri m inal h ist o ryca tego ry o f V , an d resu lt ed in a G u idelines sen tenc ing ran g e o f 1 4 0 to 1 7 5 m o n ths. M r. A llen ’s a c tu a l 3 6 0 m o n th se n ten c e o b v io u slyfa r e x c e e d s th e ra n g e th a t w o u ld have be en appl i cabl e eve n i f a de partur e w er e w arr ant ed. C . E x er cise o f B ookerD i s cre t i on T he fa ctt hatM r . A l l en’ s s ent ence coul d nothave be en j us t i fi ed undert he G u idelines d o es n o t, o f c o u rse, m ea n that itis un rea so n ab le. T h e d istri ct co u rt did not purportt o h ew t o the G uidel i nes i n set t i ng M r. A l l en’s s entence, and as a r es ul tof the B ookerdeci s i on, w as notr equi r ed t o do s o. W e do notques t i on, for exampl e, t hata s ent enci ng cour tm ayvaryupw ar d ordow nw ar d bas ed on the cour t ’ s ow n eval uat i on of the defendant ’ s l i kel i hood of r eci di vi s m or-31-

r eform — t hough w e not e thatcourt s of appe al s have r egar ded extr eme var i ance s o n th e b a s is o f

s u c h fa c to rs u n re a s o n a b le . See, e. g. , Uni t ed Stat es v. Pyl es , ___ F. 3d ___, 2007 W L 1063616, at*1–2, 7 ( 4th C i r . A pr . 11, 2007) ( fi ndi ng s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o varydow nw ar d fr om an advi s or yr ange of

63–78 m ont hs and i m pos e no pr i s on t i m e bas ed on the d e fe n d a n t’s “ su b sta n tial re h a b ili tatio n ” ); Un itedS ta tes v . G a ra te , ___ F. 3d ___, 2007 W L 967317, at*2–3 ( 8t h C i r . A pr . 3, 2007) ( concl udi ng thatthe di s tr i ct cour tgave “ undue w ei ght ” t o defe ndant ’ s age a nd t o a s tudys how i ng that y oungerperpetr at or s comm i tcr i m i nal act s due t o cul tur al and envi r onm ent al influen ce s); Un itedS ta tes v . P e rr in , 478 F. 3d 672, 678 ( 5th C i r . 2007) ( vaca t i ng a d o w n w a rd v a ria n c e a n d fin d in g th e d e fe n d a n t’s “ c o n triti o n a n d h is comm ence m entof couns el i ng” t o be “i nappr opr i at e gr ounds fori m pos i ng a nongui del i nes s ent ence , beca us e theyar e al r eadyacc ount ed fori n the r educt i on for a c c e p tan c e o f

re sp o n sib ili ty ” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. Kane , 4 7 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 7 , 1 2 8 1 (8 th C i r . 2006) ( vaca t i ng a 90- m ont h dow nw ar d var i ance and fi ndi ng thatthe d e fe n d a n t’s “ re h a b ili tativ e e ffo rts a re n o t ex tra o rd in a rya n d d o n o t su p p o rt a s e n te n c e re d u c tio n ” ). S e e a ls o Un i t e dS ta t e s v . S i n d i ma , 478 F. 3d 467, 473 ( 2d C i r . 2007) ( overtur ni ng an upw ar d var i ance , bas ed pr i m ar i l yon the nee d for d e ter re n c e , b e c a u se th e G u id e lin e s a lre a d ya c c o u n ted fo r th is fa c to r); Uni t ed Stat es v. Tucker , 4 7 3 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 4

– 6 5 (4 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ( s a m e ).-32-

W e re co g n ize tha t, af

ter B ooker , se n ten c in g c o u rts h a v e so m e latitu d e to cons i derevi dence and conduc tbey ond w hatw oul d have be en perm i s s i bl e under § § 1 B 1 . 3 , 4 A 1 . 3 , an d 5 K 2 . 0 in the co u rse o f d eterm ining w h ethe r th e d efen d an t’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yadequa t el yr efl ect s hi s danger ous nes s t o the comm uni ty . For exampl e, t hi s C our thas uphel d as r eas onabl e an upw ar d var i ance bas ed on evidence o f pastm i scond uct ( such as p oli ce records i n co nn ect i on w i th arr est s) th a t d id n o t r e s u lt in c o n v ic tio n . See Uni t ed Stat es v. Mat eo , 471 F. 3d 1162, 1 1 6 6

– 6 8 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); s ee ge ner al l y Magal lanez , 408 F. 3d at684 ( not i ng t hat “[n] o l i m i t at i on” s houl d “be pl ace d on the i nform at i on conce rni ng the backgr ound, char act er , and conduc tof a pe r s on . . . forthe purpos e of i m pos i ng an ap p rop ri ate se n tenc e.”). T he ques t i on pos ed byt hi s cas e, how ever , i s notw hethercons i der at i on of M r . A l l en’ s unr el at ed, unadj udi cat ed, and di s s i m i l aract i ons w as i m pr oper , but w h e th e r t h e w e ig h t g iv e n to th o s e a c tio n s w a s e x c e s s iv e . See Cage , 451 F. 3d at 595 ( “The pr obl em w i t h t he s ent enci ng deci s i on . . . i s noti n the cons i der at i on of thes e fac tors; i t i s in the w eigh t th e d istri ct co u rtp lace d o n them . ”); Uni t ed Stat es v. Mor al es - Ur i be , 470 F. 3d 1282, 1286 ( 8th C i r . 2006) ( not i ng that“w hi l e the d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d a p p ro p ria te fa c to rs in im p o sin g th e se n ten c e , [it] c o m m itte d a c le a r e rr o r o f ju d g m e n t in w e ig h in g th e s e fa c to rs ” ). Itm igh t w ell h av e b ee n rea so n ab le fo r th e d istri ct co u rtto co n side r M r. A l l en’ s unchar ged conduc tas a fa ct orbear i ng on offe nderchar act er i s t i cs , on-33-

anal ogyt o departur es under§ 4A 1. 3. A s not ed above , thatw oul d l ead t o a s ent enci ng r ange of

140 t o 175 m onths . T hi s i s es s ent i al l ythe appr oach ur ged by t h e g o v e r n me n ti n i t s wr i t t e n mo t i o n t o i mp o s e a n a b o v e - g u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e . R. V ol . I , D oc. 24. A l t hough t hi s w oul d s tr et ch the ca t egor i es of i nform at i on bear i ng on underr epr es ent at i on of cr i m i nal hi s t orybey ond thos e l i s t ed i n § 4A 1. 3, i tw oul d r emai n fai t hful t o t he funda m ent al ar chi t ectur e of the G ui del i nes and m i ghtt her efor e fa l l w i t hi n t he r eal m of B ooker di s cr et i on. I ns t ead, how ever , t he di s t r i ctcourtes s ent i al l yabandone d cons i der at i on of the advi s orygui del i nes r ange and s ubs t i tut ed a c al cul at i on bas ed expl i ci t l yon unr el at ed conduc tw i th w hi ch M r . A l l en had notbeen c har ged orconvi ct ed. T h e d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that “the n ature an d seriou sn ess o f [ M r. A l l en’ s ] t hr eat ened c onduct ” nec es s i t at ed a 360- m onth s ent ence . R . V ol . I , D oc. 3 7 , at 6 . T h e c o u rt “ c o n firm [ e d ]” th e n e c e ss ityo f th is p u n ish m e n t b ylo o k in g to t he s ent ence M r . A l l en w oul d have r ece i ved i f he w er e ac tual l ychar ged for a d d itio n a l c ri m e s in a fe d e ra l c o u rt a n d w e re c o n v ic te d b ya ju ry o f h is p e e rs . Id. at8. A s w e expl ai ned above , t he courtatt i m es s eemed t o be cont empl at i ng cr i m es i tfel tw er e al r eadycompl et ed and a tt i m es s eemed t o be for eca s t i ng w hat M r. A ll en m igh t do in the fu ture. W h iche v er itis, w e thin k the d istri ct co u rt s t r ay ed fr om t he path of r eas onabl enes s . E ven i f i ti s r eas onabl e t o concl ude that a defendantw ho comm i t t ed uncha r ged cr i m es orw ho pr es ent s a s er i ous r i s k of comm i t t i ng futur e cr i m es des erves gr eat erpuni s hm entt han a s i m i l ar l y - s i tuat edWo lfe in v o lv e d a p o st- B ookerr evi ew of a pr e- B ookerd e p a rtu re ; b u t in 6 li g h t of the a d v isorych ara cter o f th e G u idelines af ter B ooker , t hi s C our ts t at ed that itw as “ info rm ed b y , an d m u st t ak e a cc o u n t of, the fac t th at th e d istri ct co u rt w o u ld h av e e n h an ce d d iscreti o n u p o n rem an d af ter B ooker . ’ ” 435 F. 3d at1296 ( quot i ng Un itedS ta tes v . Se rr a ta , 425 F. 3d 886, 912 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ) . T he pr i nci pl es r el i ed on i n Wo lfe th u s re m a in a p p lica b le to o u r re v iew o f a p o stB ookers e n te n c in g d e c is io n . -34- d e fe n d a n t w h o c o m m itt e d n o su c h o th e r c rim e s a n d p re se n ts n o su c h risk , itis qui t e anothert hi ng t o concl ude thatthe pr operm eas ur e of thati ncr eas e i s the se n ten c e th a t w o u ld b e im p o se d h a d th e d e fe n d a n t actual l y bee n convi ct ed of th o s e u n c h a rg e d , u n re la te d c ri m e s . I n Un itedS ta tes v . Wo lfe , 4 3 5 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), the d istri ct co u rt s ent ence d a defendantconvi ct ed of i nvol unt arym ans l aught eras i f he ha d been c o n v ic te d o f

s e c o n d -d e g re e m a n s la u g h te r w ith m a lic e a fo re th o u g h t. Id. at1294, 1304. T hi s C our thel d t hata “di s tr i ctcourtcannots i m pl ydepartupw ar d ‘ bas ed in a c tu a lityo n th e c o n ten tio n th a t th e o ffe n se o f c o n v ictio n is m o re p ro p e rly char act er i zed a s another , cl os el yr el at ed offens e. ’ ” Id. at1304 n. 12 ( quot i ng Uni t ed Stat es v. Hans on , 264 F. 3d 988, 995 ( 2001) ) . T hi s cas e i nvol ves an eve n 6 m or e extr eme r echa r act er i zat i on of the offens e: fr om m ethamphet ami ne d istrib u tio n to a ttem p ted se x u a l ab u se o f a c h ild o r so licita tio n o f m u rd e r. If

it w as err ori n Wo lfe fort he s ent enci ng j udge t o el evat e a c onvi ct i on of m ansl aug hterfrom on e deg ree t o an otherfor pu rposes of sent encing, i tfoll ow s a fo rtio ri th a t a s e n ten c in g ju d g e m a yn o t se n ten c e a d e fe n d a n t fo r a n e n tirely-35-

di ffe r ent , and fa rm or e s er i ous , cr i m e. A s w e pr evi ous l yr ecogni zed w hen the G u i d e l i n e s w e r e s t i l l m a n d a t o r y: T o al l ow upw ar d departur e on the gr ounds thata s econd- degr ee m ur derw as pr emedi t at ed w oul d perm i tthe s ent enci ng courtt o tr eat t he offens e of c onvi ct i on ( her e, a murde rthatw as notpr emedi t at ed) as m er el yes t abl i s hi ng a fl ooroffe ns e l evel . “[E] ach s ent enci ng c o u rt c o u ld d e p a rt u p w a rd b a s e d u p o n th e ‘r e a l o ffe n s e ’ [ i.e ., a p r e m e d i t a t e d m u r d e r ] w h e n e v e rth e c o u r tw i s h e d . ” T h o m a s W. H ut chi s on, D avi d Y el l en, Pet erB . H offman & D ebor ah Y oung, Feder alSent enci ng Law & Prac t i ce § 2 A 1 .2 c o m m e n t. ( f ) ( 2 0 0 0 ) . . .

. Such a r es ul tw oul d al l ow s ubs t ant i al l ydi ffe r ents ent ence s forthe s ame cr i m e, a r es ul ti ncons i s t entw i th the a pr i m arygoal of the G u i d e l i n e s — r e d u c i n g u n w a rr a n t e d s e n t e n c i n g d i s p a r i ty. Hans on , 2 6 4 F .3 d a t 9 9 6 . T h is p rin c ip le s til l h a s fo rc e in th e p o st- B oo ker w or l d, n o t ju st b e c a u se it p re se rv e s a p o licyju d g m e n t in h e re n t in th e G u id e lin e s— itse lf a n im p o rta n t fa c to r u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 3 (a )(5 )(A )— b u t als o b e c a u se it res p e c ts t he Si xt h A m endmentval ues under l y i ng both B oo ker and the s tructur al s afe guar ds o f th e G u id e lin e s . T h ere rem ains the p o ssibil itythat the d istri ct co u rtb ase d M r. A ll en ’s s ent ence noton evi dence t hathe ac tual l ycomm i t t ed the cr i m es of s ol i ci t at i on of m u rd e r a n d a ttem p ted c rim in a l se x u a l ab u se , b u t o n th e p ro sp e c t th a t h e w o u ld comm i tt hes e cr i m es w hen he gotthe oppor tuni ty . M ovi egoer s w i l l r ecogni ze the s cena r i o fr om M i nor i t yR epor t , a fi l m thatdepi ct s a w or l d i n w hi ch w oul d- be c rim in a ls a re a p p re h e n d e d a n d p u n ish e d fo r c rim e s th e ya re p re d icte d to c o m m it,M ino ri tyR ep o rt(T w en ti eth C en turyF o x an d D rea m w o rks P ictu res 2 0 0 2 ). 7 -36- b e fo re th e y h a v e th e c h a n c e a c tu a lly to c o m m it th e m . H o w e v e r e ffe c tiv e th is 7 appr oach maybe i n t he w or l d of s ci ence fi ct i on, w e thi nk i tvi ol at es t he C on st i tuti on ’s basi c gu arant ee t hat a defend ant s hall no tbe p un i shed for “C ri m es” u n le s s tr ie d b e fo re a n d c o n v ic te d b ya n im p a rt ia l ju ry. See U .S . C o n s t. a rt . II I, § 2 (“ T h e T ri a l o f

a ll C ri m e s , e x c e p t in c a s e s o f Im p e a c h m e n t, s h a ll b e b yJ u ry . . .

. ”) ; U . S. C ons t . amend. V I ( “I n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , t he ac cus ed s hal l enj oy t he r i ghtt o a s peedyand publ i c tr i al , byan i m part i al j ur y. . . . ”) . I tm aybe tem p ti n g to d ep art fro m that p ri n ciple w h ere , as h ere , the c o n tem p lat ed d ee d s are h o rri fic b ey o n d m ea su re, bu t i t r em ains a fac t th at th e o n lycrim e fo r w h ich M r. A l l en w as char ged orconvi ct ed w as di s tr i but i on of a c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . If th e g o v e rn m e n t, fe d e ra l o r sta te, b e liev e s M r. A llen c o m m itt e d a c rim e in hi s deal i ngs w i t h M s . A oratt he W al - M ar t , i ti s fr ee t o br i ng a pr os ecut i on for t hatconduct . I n s uch a pr ocee di ng, M r . A l l en w oul d be ent i t l ed t o putt he governm entt o i t s pr oof. D es pi t e the w i de l at i tude B ookergrant ed d i stri ctcou rt s, w e d o n o t b e lie v e it s a n c tio n s a n e n d -r u n a ro u n d th is f u n d a m e n ta l p ro c e s s . B ooker ’s p re c u rs o r, B la ke ly , w arned aga i ns tt he uncons t i tut i onal i tyof j us ts uch a s y s t e m: T h o se w h o w o u ld rejec t Appr endia r e r e s i g n e d t o o n e o f t wo a ltern a tiv e s. T h e first is th a t th e ju ryn e e d o n lyfin d w h a tev e r fa c ts t he legi sl ature cho oses t o label el em ents of the cri m e, and t hat tho se i tl abels sent encing factors

— no m at t er how m uch t heym ayi ncrease th e p u n is h m e n t— m a yb e fo u n d b yth e ju d g e . This w ould m ean, f or-37-

exampl e, thata j udge could s ent ence a m an f orcom m i t t i ng m ur der even if the jury convict ed h i m on l y of i l l ega l l

y po sses si ngthe fi rearm us ed t o com m i ti t

— orof m aki ng an i l l egallane change w hi l e f l eei ng th e d e a th sc e n e . No t ev e n Ap p re n d i’s c ritics w o u lda dv o c a te th is a b s u r dr e s u lt. T he j ur ycoul d notfunct i on as ci r cui tbr eake ri n the St at e’ s m achi neryof j us t i ce i f i tw er e r el egat ed t o m aki ng a det erm i nat i on t hatt he defendantats om e poi ntdi d s om ethi ng w r ong, a me r e p r e l i mi n a r yt o a j u d i c i a l i n q u i s i t i o n i n t o th e fa c t s o f th e c r i me t he St at e a c tu a lly s eeks t o puni s h. B l akel y v. Was hi ngt on , 542 U . S. 296, 306- 307 ( 2004) ( fi r s temphasi s added a nd i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s cas e pr es ent s pr eci s el ythe s cena r i o the B la ke ly C our tl abel ed as t oo “abs ur d” t o cont empl at e: thata j udge coul d s ent ence a man forat t empt ed s exual abus e ors ol i ci t at i on of m ur der , even though he w as convi ct ed onl yof di s t r i but i on of m ethamphet ami ne. W e do notbel i eve thatthe C o u rt’s r e m e d ial d e c isio n in B oo ker d ep arts so d ram ati ca ll yfro m the C o u rt ’s i nt erpr et at i on of the Si xt h A m endmenti n B la ke ly thatw hatw as abs ur d i n B la ke ly is no w a re aso n ab le pra cti ce af ter B ooker . If th is c a se h a d a rise n u n d e r th e m a n d a to ryG u id e lin e s, it w o u ld b e e a syto decide. T he S entenci ng C om m i ssi on , act i ng un der the au tho ri tyof C on gress , i ncorpor at ed s afe guar ds t o ens ur e thatj udi ci al fac t - fi ndi ng underthe G ui del i nes w oul d nots t r ayt oo farfr om t he ac tual offe ns es forw hi ch the defendantw as convi ct ed— w hethert he offens e of c onvi ct i on orthe pas toffe ns es thatm ake up t he cr i m i nal hi s t or ycal cul at i on. Pr om i nentamong t hes e s afe guar ds w er e the r el at ednes s pr i nci pl e, t he pr i nci pl e thatcr i m i nal hi s t or ym us tbe bas ed on pr i or convi ct i ons , and the pr i nci pl e thatdepartur es bas ed upon pr edi ct i ng the l i kel i hood-38-

th a t an o ffe n d e r w ill c o m m it o th e r c rim e s m u st b e b a se d u p o n sp e c ific fa c to rs — p ri o r c ri m in a l c o n v ic tio n s a n d s im ila r u n c o n v ic te d c ri m in a l c o n d u c t. U ndert hi s s y s t em, t he di s t r i ctcourtcoul d nothave s etas i de the s ent enci ng r ange s p e c i fi e d fo ra p e r s o n w h o c o m m i t s M r . A l l e n ’ s o ffe n s e w i th h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, a n d re p lac e d it w ith th e se n ten c e a p p ro p ria te to a p e rso n c o n v icte d o f c rim e s w ith w hi ch M r . A l l en has neverbeen c har ged, w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur ym i ghtfi nd he nevercomm i t t ed, and w hi ch have no l ogi cal connec t i on orr el at i on t o hi s drug di s t r i but i on offe ns e. M a n yc o n stitu tio n a lists, in c lu d in g th e fiv e -Ju stic e m ajo rityin th e first h a lf of B ooker , b e liev e d th a t ev e n th e c a re f u llyc a b in e d p ra c tice o f ju d icia l fa c tfi ndi ng al l ow ed undert he mandat oryG ui del i nes w as i ncons i s t entw i th w hatthey cal l ed “Si xt h A m endments ubs t ance . ” B ooker , 543 U . S. at237. I f thei rappr oach w er e pur s ued t o i t s l ogi cal end, t he out come of t hi s cas e w oul d l i kew i s e be cert ai n and s ur e. M r . A l l en w as convi ct ed bas ed on a pl ea of gui l tyi n w hi ch he a d m itte d o n ly to th e d is tr ib u tio n o f a c e rt a in q u a n tity o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e . U ndera s t r i ctSi xt h A m endmentr egi m e, s uch as thatadvoca t ed bythe r emedi al di s s ent er s i n B ooker , M r . A l l en’ s unchar ged, non- drug- r el at ed conduc tcoul d not be co nsi dered fo r s entenci ng pu rposes. T h is case is no t so e asy , h o w ev er, un d er B ooker . T o so m e e x ten t— w ith in t he bounds of r eas onabl enes s — di s tr i ctcourt s ar e now fr ee t o s ent ence i n w ay s not p e rm itte d u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s , a n d w ith o u t b e n e fit o f ju ry fa c t- fin d in g .-39-

S e n ten c in g c o u rts a re e m p o w e re d to im p o se len g th ier se n ten c e s w h e n n e e d e d to p ro te c t th e p u b lic f

ro m f u rt h e r c ri m e s o f

th e d e fe n d a n t, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3553( a) ( 2) ( C ) . B utw e s houl d notfor getthatthe purpos e of B ookerw a s n o t to l i ber at e s ent enci ng cour t s fr om s t atut orycons tr ai nt s . I tw as t o br i ng our s ent enci ng s y s t em cl os ert o t he norm s of the Si xth A m endment . I f w e affi r m the s ent ence i n t hi s cas e as a l egi t i m at e exe r ci s e of B ookerd isc re tio n , w e w o u ld m o v e in th e o p p o sit e d ir ec ti o n . E v en m o re tha n w as so u n d er the m an d atory G u id e lin e s s y ste m , w h e re th e se n ten c in g ju d g e w a s lim ited to e n h a n c e m e n ts bas ed on conduc tr el at ed t o t he offens e of c onvi ct i on and pr evi ous convi ct i ons , or t o departur es bas ed on pr evi ous convi ct i ons and adul tm i s conducts i m i l art o the offe ns e, t he j ur yw oul d be “r el egat ed t o m aki ng a det erm i nat i on thatthe defe ndantats om e poi ntdi d s om ethi ng w r ong, a mer e pr el i m i naryt o a j udi ci al i nqui s i t i on i nt o t he fa ct s of the cr i m e the St at e a c tu a lly s eeks t o puni s h. ” B la ke ly , 542 U . S. at307. I f thati s w hatt he Supr eme C our ti nt ended bythe B ooker d e c i s i o n , i ts h o u l d s a ys o ; we wi l l n o tl e a p t o th a ti n t e rp r e t a t i o n o n o u ro wn a u t h o r i t y. I n a ca s e i nvol vi ng a var i ance of thi s m agni tude, w e hol d that , w hat ever l at i tude a s ent enci ng cour tm ayhave t o adj us ta defendant ’ s s ent ence i n an exer ci s e of B ookerdi s cr et i on, i tm aynotdi s car d the advi s oryG ui del i ne r ange a nd i m pos e s ent ence , i ns t ead, on t he bas i s of evi dence of the defendant ’ s unchar ged, unr el at ed mi s conduct , w hetheractual l ycomm i t t ed orcont empl at ed forthe futur e.-40-

W e ar e conf

i dentt haton r emand, the di s tr i ctcour tcan fas hi on a s ent ence that r efl ect s M r . A l l en’ s actual cr i m e, thatt akes i nt o acc ounthi s danger ous nes s t o t he comm uni t y , and thati s s uffi ci ent , butnotgr eat erthan nec es s ary , t o achi eve the p u rp o s e s o f

s e n te n c in g . I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e VAC ATE t he s ent enci ng or derof the di s tr i ctcourtand RE M AND for re s e n te n c in g .