Opinion ID: 169654
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The district court's explanation of the sentence

Text: Finally, Mr. Wilken briefly brings what we construe as a procedural challenge to the reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district court's stated reason for applying § 4B1.1's career offender provision and imposing a 235-month sentence was not supported by the record. Because Mr. Wilken did not object on this ground at the sentencing hearing, we review this claim only for plain error. See United States v. Lopez-Flores, 444 F.3d 1218, 1221 (10th Cir.2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 3043, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2007). Plain error occurs where there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 1222 (quotation omitted). At the end of the sentencing hearing, after pronouncing sentence, the court stated: Under these circumstances I find that you qualify as a career offender, not to mention you have endangered the lives of your children for years now. I don't see anything that has given you enough incentive to stop a very, very dangerous practice. Mr. Wilken focuses on the statement that he endangered the lives of [his] children, alleging that this statement is unsupported by the record. To the contrary, we find ample support in the record for this statement. The PSR describes a charge pending against Mr. Wilken at the time of his trial indicating that his two sons, aged 6 and 8, were found during a raid of his home along with methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Wilken's attorney conceded that due to his client's use of methamphetamine, his judgment was totally wrecked and his children's lives [were] wrecked. Indeed, during his own statements at the sentencing hearing, Mr. Wilken indicated that he was aware of the effects of his drug abuse on his children: I have never had any intention of hurting anybody or endangering my kids' lives. I guess I just didn't realize the power the drugs had over me. . . . There is [sic] a lot of things I would do over if I could. We also do not read the court's statement as providing endangerment of his children as the sole reason for the sentence imposed. The court stated, I don't see anything that has given you enough incentive to stop a very, very dangerous practice, emphasizing the recurring nature of Mr. Wilken's drug abuse and troubles with the law and noting that none of his previous sentences had apparently been sufficient to deter his behavior. This reasoning is well supported by Mr. Wilken's criminal history and is itself sufficient to explain the imposition of career offender status. See, e.g., Pruitt, 487 F.3d at 1310 (When a defendant faces a sentence for her fourth drug-related conviction, it is reasonable to infer that she is not easily deterred from engaging in unlawful conduct.). We therefore do not find the district court's statement of its reasons for imposing a 235-month sentence to constitute error, let alone plain error.