## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

No. 1 1- 11 37

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s
v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e * Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. Sco tt Hom er Mc Kin le y , *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

Su bm it te d: Ju ne 13 , 20 11 Fi le d: Aug us t 1 , 20 11

Befo re COLLOTON, CLEVE NGER, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

. 1

PER CURI AM.

Defen da nt Sco tt Hom er McKi nl ey ap pe al s hi s sen te nc e fo ll owi ng co nv ic ti on

o n a gu il ty pl ea of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 10 0 gr am s or m or e of he ro in an d

ox y co do ne

. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ),(b )(1 )(B) , 84 6. Alt ho ug h th e di st ric t co ur t’s 2

The Hon or ab le Raym on d C. Cl ev en ge r, III, Ci rcu it Ju dg e fo r th e Uni te d St at es 1 Co ur t o f App eal s fo r th e Fed eral Cir cu it , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.
The Hon or ab le Ann D. Mo nt go m ery, Dis tri ct J u d ge fo r th e Dis tri ct of 2 Mi nn es ot a.se nt en ce of 18 8 m on th s im pr is on m en t was be lo w th e ran ge se t fo rth in th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , Mr. McKi nl ey arg ue s th at th e reco rd di d no t su pp or t an y se nt en ce ab ov e th e st at ut or y

m in im um of 1 20 m on th s. We di sa gr ee, an d s o a ffi rm

.

In hi s ap pe al br ie f, Mr. McKi nl ey de sc rib es hi s pe rs on al hi st o r y o f dr ug ad di c ti on , il ln es s, an d ho m el es sn es s. W hi le we are sym pa th et ic to Mr. McKi nl ey ’s di ffi cu lt ie s, th e reco rd in di cat es th at th e di st ric t co ur t was aware o f t h e m a nd , we pr es um e, to ok th em in to acco un t in se nt en ci ng

. Uni te d St at es v. Mi le s, 49 9 F.3 d 90 6, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). W e n o t e p a r t i c u la rly th at Mr. McKi nl ey ’s se nt en ce of 18 8

m on th s is a su bs ta nt ia l do wnwar d va ria nc e fro m th e ran ge cal le d fo r in th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es , whi ch was 26 2 to 32 7 m on th s. It is well es ta bl is he d th at a se nt en ce wit hi n th e ad vi so ry gu id el in es wou ld ha ve be en pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le on ap pe al

. Ri ta

v. Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S. 33 8, 35 0- 51 (2 0 0 7 ) ; U n i t ed St at es v. Frau st o, 63 6 F.3 d 99 2, 9 97 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

The le ng th y se nt en ce reco m m en de d by th e gu id el in es was , as th e di st ric t co ur t

no te d, pa rtl y du e to Mr. McKi nl ey ’s cri m in al hi st or y

. Nev ert he le ss , th e di st ric t co ur t de te r mi n e d t h at a sh or te r se nt en ce was jus ti fie d. Giv en th at th e lo ng er se nt en ce cal le d fo r by th e gu i d e li ne s wou ld ha ve be en pr es um pt iv el y reas on ab le , an d Mr. McKi nl ey rece iv ed a le ss er se nt en ce th an th at , we de cl in e Mr. McKi nl ey ’s req ue st to fin d th at an ev en sh or te r se nt en ce was req ui red

. Uni te d St at es v. Fl y in g By , 51 1 F.3 d 77 3, 7 78 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

. W e se e n o b as is for fin di ng , as M r. McKi nl ey urg es , th at

no se nt en ce bu t th e st at ut or y m in im um co ul d po ss ib ly be ap pl ie d he re. W e th eref or e affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

-2

-