F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
April 20, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 05-1231
RICHARD TERRELL, also known as
C-Bone,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. NO. 03-CR-619-MK)
Submitted on the briefs:
Richard N. Stuckey, Denver, Colorado, for the Defendant - Appellant.
William J. Leone, United States Attorney, Jerry N. Jones, Assistant United States
Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for the Plaintiff - Appellee.
Before HARTZ, Circuit Judge, HOLLOWAY, Senior Circuit Judge, and
O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Although Richard Terrell was sentenced below the applicable range
provided by the United States Sentencing Guidelines, he appeals his sentence,
contending that the district court erred by giving too much weight to the
Guidelines and not enough consideration to the other factors set forth in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, see United
States v. Chavez-Diaz, No. 05-2288, slip op. at 9-12 (10th Cir. April 18, 2006)
(holding that we have jurisdiction to review challenge to district court’s refusal to
depart downward further), and affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Terrell pleaded guilty to three counts of distributing phencyclidine
(PCP) and one count of distributing five or more grams of crack cocaine. The
plea agreement stated the parties’ understanding that a Guidelines calculation
would result in an offense level of 24 and a criminal history category of V,
placing the sentencing range at 92-115 months’ imprisonment. It further stated,
however, that Mr. Terrell’s prior criminal history was “substantially overstated”
by the Guidelines. R. Vol. I Doc. 127 at 11. In particular, it said, in a
recommendation not binding on the court, that (1) a more appropriate criminal
history category would be III, which would reduce the Guidelines range to 63-78
months’ imprisonment, and (2) the “most appropriate sentence” would be 63
months’ imprisonment. Id.
-2-
Mr. Terrell’s guilty plea was accepted by the district court on February 7,
2005. Later, however, a reweighing of the crack cocaine at issue revealed that it
weighed less than five grams. The parties jointly moved that Mr. Terrell be
allowed to withdraw his guilty plea to that charge and that it be dismissed. The
district court granted the motion on May 2, 2005.
Just as assumed in the plea agreement, the presentence report (PSR)
calculated an offense level of 24, criminal history category of V, and sentencing
range of 92-115 months’ imprisonment. (Dismissal of the cocaine charge did not
affect the calculation.) Mr. Terrell filed an objection to the PSR, contending that
it overrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history. At the sentencing
hearing neither party objected to the factual contents of the PSR, or its calculation
of the sentencing range, but the government stood by its recommendation of 63
months’ imprisonment. The district court then asked the government to explain
“what factors under Section 3553(a) justify a deviation from the calculation under
the Sentencing Guidelines.” R. Vol. II at 13. The government responded that
Mr. Terrell was cooperative at the time of his arrest, provided investigators with a
good deal of information, “appear[ed] to be one of the lower rungs on the ladder
of this organization,” and suffered from “self-induced health problems.” Id. at
15. It also reiterated its position that 63 months’ imprisonment was a fair
sentence. Likewise, Mr. Terrell’s counsel contended that 63 months’
-3-
imprisonment was an appropriate sentence under the § 3553(a) factors, stating
that “of particular importance is the determination that we made that the
defendant’s prior criminal history is substantially overstated.” Id. at 19.
The district court then described its approach to sentencing: “[T]he way I
interpret the statute 3553(a) is I make a determination first under the guidelines
and then I look at the other factors to see if a deviation from the recommendation
under the guidelines is appropriate.” Id. at 21. The district court stated that
Mr. Terrell’s counsel was “mixing” those two determinations, and asked him
whether he wanted to argue specifically that a criminal history category of V
“substantially overstates the likelihood of recidivism or the seriousness of the
prior convictions.” Id. at 21-22. See USSG § 4A1.3(b)(1) (court may depart
downward “[i]f reliable information indicates that the defendant’s criminal
history category substantially over-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s
criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes”).
Mr. Terrell’s counsel did so, though still phrasing much of his argument in terms
of § 3553(a).
After the parties’ arguments, the district court observed that there was no
factual dispute concerning the PSR or the Guidelines calculation, and then
discussed at length Mr. Terrell’s criminal history. It summed up:
[T]his is not a modest criminal history. This is a drumbeat of
criminal violations over an extended period of time. And this
-4-
criminal history category does not assign points for a number of
offenses. . . .
I cannot conclude based on this criminal history that it
substantially over-represents the seriousness of what has occurred,
nor that it overstates the likelihood of recidivism.
R. Vol. II at 34. Based on this determination, the court decided that a downward
departure under § 4A1.3(b)(1) was not warranted.
The district court then addressed “whether [the] recommendations under the
Sentencing Guidelines should govern the sentence to be imposed, or whether there
should be some deviation from the Sentencing Guidelines calculation in order to
take into account the other factors of 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a).” Id. at 35.
Although announcing that it would give “heavy weight” to the Guidelines
“because they were designed to meet the objectives of 3553(a),” the district court
stated that a variance from the Guidelines would be appropriate if they did not
adequately take into consideration pertinent circumstances. Id. The court noted
the government’s contentions that (1) the case had been difficult for Mr. Terrell
because of the actions of his prior counsel, (2) Mr. Terrell had provided law
enforcement with a large amount of information, and (3) the uncertainty in federal
sentencing law during the time the parties were negotiating the plea agreement
“created ambiguity as to what the Government’s obligation in all fairness to the
defendant was in the negotiations.” Id. at 36. The district court also
acknowledged Mr. Terrell’s arguments “about the nature and circumstances of the
-5-
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant,” including his drug
addiction, medical problems, and associated need for treatment. Id. at 37. It then
concluded:
[C]onsidering all of the factors under 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a), I
believe an appropriate sentence is not 63 months, as agreed to by the
parties, nor is it 92 months at the bottom of the range that the
Sentencing Guidelines would apply. It is instead 78 months, which is
at the top of the guideline range that the parties believed and thought
would be applicable at the time that they entered into their plea
agreement.
Id. at 38-39. Neither party objected to the sentence.
II. DISCUSSION
In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a five-justice majority of
the Supreme Court held that mandatory application of the United States
Sentencing Guidelines violated the Sixth Amendment. A different five-justice
majority, however, injected new life into the Guidelines by making them advisory,
striking down 28 U.S.C. § 3553(b)(1) (court “shall” impose a sentence within the
Guidelines range), and 28 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (de novo appellate review), id. at 245,
but stating that “[s]ection 3553(a) remains in effect, and sets forth numerous
factors that guide sentencing.” Id. at 261. One of those factors is “the sentencing
range established [by] . . . the guidelines.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4). Thus, the
Court counseled that district courts “must consult those Guidelines and take them
into account when sentencing.” Booker, 543 U.S. at 264. The issue in this case is
-6-
whether a district court errs in giving the Guidelines “heavy weight” in
sentencing. We hold that it does not.
This court recently joined a number of other circuits in holding that a
sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.
United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006). But see United
States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514 (1st Cir. 2006) (en banc) (speaking in
terms of presumption is not helpful); United States v. Fernandez, ___ F.3d ___
2006 WL 851670 (2d Cir. April 3, 2006) (refusing to establish a presumption).
The Guidelines continue to be the “starting point” for district courts and for this
court’s reasonableness review on appeal. United States v. John H. Sitting Bear,
436 F.3d 929, 935 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even after
Booker, deference to the Guidelines is essential “to promote uniformity in
sentencing so as to prevent vastly divergent sentences for offenders with similar
criminal histories and offenses.” Kristl, 437 F.3d at 1054 (internal quotation
marks omitted); see also Booker, 543 U.S. at 253 (“Congress’ basic goal in
passing the Sentencing Act was to move the sentencing system in the direction of
increased uniformity.”).
A presumption of reasonableness attaches to a sentence within the
Guidelines not because they are still mandatory; they are not. Rather, it is
because the Guidelines “represent at this point eighteen years’ worth of careful
-7-
consideration of the proper sentence for federal offenses.” United States v.
Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 607 (7th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Wilson,
350 F. Supp. 2d 910, 915 (D. Utah 2005) (“It would be startling to discover that
while Congress had created an expert agency, approved the agency’s members,
directed the agency to promulgate Guidelines, allowed those Guidelines to go into
effect, and adjusted those Guidelines over a period of fifteen years, that the
resulting Guidelines did not well serve the underlying congressional purposes [of
sentencing].”). The Guidelines, rather than being at odds with the § 3553(a)
factors, are instead the expert attempt of an experienced body to weigh those
factors in a variety of situations. The continuing importance of the Guidelines in
fashioning reasonable sentences, and the presumption of reasonableness of a
Guidelines sentence, simply reflect that the Guidelines are generally an accurate
application of the factors listed in § 3553(a).
Accordingly, we cannot say that a district court errs when it gives a high
degree of weight to the Guidelines in its sentencing decisions. In a recent remand
for resentencing, we rejected the argument “that giving the Guidelines a high
level of deference on remand would violate [a defendant’s] Sixth Amendment
rights by de facto making the Guidelines mandatory. . . . [Booker] indicates that
trial courts must accord deference to the Guidelines. . . . Thus, we decline
-8-
Defendant’s invitation to dilute the influence of the Guidelines upon remand of
his sentence.” United States v. Crockett, 435 F.3d 1305, 1318 (10th Cir. 2006).
To be sure, district courts must consider all the factors listed in § 3553(a).
And even when the sentence is within the Guidelines range, the defendant or the
government can rebut the presumption of reasonableness “by demonstrating that
the sentence is unreasonable when viewed against the other factors delineated in
§ 3553(a).” Kristl, 437 F.3d at 1054. But just as we presume on appeal that a
sentence within the applicable Guidelines range is reasonable, so are district
courts free to make the same presumption—so long as they also consider the other
factors listed in § 3553(a).
We therefore conclude that the district court in this case did not err in
giving “heavy weight” to the Guidelines calculation. The district court
thoughtfully considered the other factors listed in § 3553(a) and, in fact,
concluded that a sentence below the advisory range was the most appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
-9-