F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
December 6, 2006
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 05-6074
JESSE SHAW ,
Defendant-Appellant.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FO R TH E W ESTERN DISTRICT O F O K LAH O M A
(D.C. NO . CR-04-039-HE)
David P. Henry, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on briefs for D efendant-Appellant.
Timothy W . Ogilvie, Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the Untied States
Attorney, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on brief for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before KELLY, O’BRIEN, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges. *
T YM K O VIC H, Circuit Judge.
*
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel
has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material
assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Jesse Shaw was sentenced for bank robbery above the range set forth in the
United States Sentencing Guidelines because the district court believed the
Guidelines failed to account for his criminal history and role in assaulting a bank
employee. The question on appeal is whether this nonguideline sentence is
“reasonable” under 18 U .S.C . § 3553(a). For the reasons discussed below, we
conclude it is reasonable and affirm.
I. Background
On February 3, 2004, Jesse Shaw and RaVon Patterson robbed the M idFirst
B ank in Norman, O klahoma. Patterson jumped over the counter, pushing two
tellers and knocking one of them to the floor. Shaw went into bank manager
Charles Sweet’s office and punched him in the face, knocking out a front tooth
and loosening five or six more. They left with $568 and were quickly
apprehended.
Patterson was the first to plead guilty. The court denied his request to
continue sentencing until after the Supreme Court issued an opinion in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and he was sentenced on October 15,
2004, to 105 months in prison. The basis for this sentence w as the district court’s
mandatory application of the Guidelines and its conclusion that Shaw had
-2-
inflicted “serious bodily injury,” see USSG § 2B3.1(b)(3)(B), when he punched
Sw eet in the face. 1
Shaw subsequently pled guilty and was sentenced on February 28, 2005, by
which time the Supreme Court had issued its landmark Booker decision. In light
of Booker, the district court stated it would “give heavy weight to the guidelines
because they are, of course, the only systematic analysis that is really made of all
the factors that might apply in a particular case.” Vol. III, 6. A presentence
report (PSR ) recommended that the court find an offense level of 23 and a
criminal history category of III, yielding a guideline range of 57 to 71 months.
Shaw did not object to this calculation.
At sentencing, Shaw argued that a 71-month sentence would have no
greater effect than a 57-month sentence and that he hoped some rehabilitation
might happen in the prison where he would be sent. The government responded
by citing the high-end sentence imposed on Patterson and recommended that the
court similarly sentence Shaw at the high end of the guideline range. The court
also heard briefly from Sw eet, 2 who described how Shaw slugged him in the face,
1
In a contemporaneous order resolving Patterson’s appeal, we conclude
that Patterson waived his Sixth Amendment challenge to his sentence and that any
Booker error w as harmless. United States v. Patterson, 180 F.App’x 805 (10th
Cir. 2006).
2
Sw eet had previously testified in greater detail at Patterson’s sentencing
hearing, and the record reflects the judge considered that testimony.
-3-
knocking out a front tooth, damaging his bottom teeth, and knocking him to the
floor w ithout provocation.
After hearing from Sw eet, the court imposed a 105-month sentence. The
court first stated its understanding of how the Guidelines factored into the
analysis:
[A]s I mentioned earlier, the sentencing guidelines are now essentially
advisory rather than mandatory, but it has been my view that the
sentencing guideline should ordinarily be followed unless there is some
significant reason to do something differently. I’ve indicated that I will
give heavy weight to the guidelines because they are, of course, the
only systematic analysis that’s really m ade of all the factors that might
apply in a particular case. And I think in most instances they result in
an appropriate sentence. However, the Court does, of course, have the
authority now to sentence outside the guideline range if there’s a
compelling reason to do so.
Vol. III, 6–7.
The court continued to say that it found “a compelling reason to sentence
outside the guideline range.” Recognizing that Patterson’s sentence had been
enhanced based on the blow Shaw gave to Sweet, the court stated that this fact
“raises a significant question as to fairness if this defendant is sentenced at a
lesser amount than was his codefendant, who . . . wasn’t actually the hands-on
perpetrator of the violence that was involved here.” Vol. III, 7.
Furthermore, the court observed, the difference in the guideline range was
precipitated by differences in the guideline calculation of their criminal history
-4-
category, but that technical computation did not adequately capture the
seriousness of Shaw’s record:
The differences in the guideline ranges between these two defendants
was principally due, or I think exclusively due, to the difference in the
criminal history calculation that applies to them. And in particular, the
difference was that . . . [M r. Patterson] got additional criminal history
points to reflect the fact that certain offenses . . . he had committed
occurred while he was on parole or within two years of his release from
incarceration.
M r. Shaw here did not technically meet those same standards, but as I
examine the underlying facts, there is virtually no significant difference
at all in terms of the background of the criminal history. In particular,
I recall here with respect to M r. Shaw that he committed this offense
approximately ten days after he left formal supervision as a part of the
supervised release process from his prior offense.
So there are some fairly significant differences here in terms of the
criminal history points and the criminal history category that are based
on some— virtually no differences in terms of the underlying conduct
and underlying circumstances.
Vol. III, 8.
The court further noted its concern that Shaw’s record “seems to reflect a
prompt reentry into criminal activity after release from [his] prior incarceration or
supervision, that appears to occur fairly quickly fairly consistently, and as was the
case here involving violence as well.” Vol. III, 8–9. Recognizing “the objectives
of sentencing relating to protection of the public and achieving an appropriate
deterrent effect with respect to this defendant,” Vol. III, 9, the court imposed a
105-month sentence, identical to Patterson’s. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C).
Consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), the court reduced its rationale to writing:
-5-
“Although [Patterson’s] criminal history category was higher due to certain
offenses being committed while on probation or within two years of release from
incarceration, there was little or no significant difference in the underlying
history of criminal conduct.” Vol. I, Doc. 106, 1.
Shaw filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3231 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
II. Analysis
On appeal, Shaw argues only that his sentence w as unreasonable because
the district court increased the sentence 34 months above the applicable guideline
range to reach a sentence comparable to Patterson’s. In light of the factors stated
in § 3553(a), the evidence established at sentencing, and the reasons stated by the
district court, we disagree.
A. Reasonableness Review
Our appellate review after Booker is for reasonableness. United States v.
Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1053 (10th Cir. 2006). W e have described this standard of
review as “a two-step approach.” Id. at 1055. “First, we must determine whether
the district court considered the applicable Guidelines range, reviewing its legal
conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.” Id. Second, we will
consider whether the actual sentence imposed “is unreasonable in light of the
other sentencing factors laid out in § 3553(a),” including the calculated guideline
range. Id.
-6-
Here, Shaw does not challenge the district court’s calculation of the
guideline range, so we move directly to the second step. Although a guideline
sentence w ould have been entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness,
id. at 1054, the decision here involved a nonguideline sentence, so it was not
entitled to such a presumption. In United States v. Cage, 451 F.3d 585 (10th Cir.
2006), we considered how much deference to give sentences outside the
applicable guideline range: “we should only treat the actual sentence as being a
reasonable application of § 3553(a) factors if the facts of the case are dramatic
enough to justify such a divergence from the . . . guideline range.” Id. at 594–95.
Although Cage dealt with a below-guideline sentence, we noted, “The same rules
of appellate review must apply to district court sentencing decisions that are
above an advisory guidelines range as to those below an advisory guidelines
range.” Id. at 595 n.5.
Since Booker, we have stated that “‘because we must review all sentences
for reasonableness in light of the factors specified in § 3553(a), we necessarily
must scrutinize, as part of that review, the district court’s refusal to depart from
the advisory sentencing range.’” United States v. Chavez-Diaz, 444 F.3d 1223,
1229 (10th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Vaughn, 433 F.3d 917, 923–24
(7th Cir. 2006)). W e must similarly scrutinize a district court’s decision to depart
from the advisory range. W e review the decision to impose a nonguideline
sentence as well as the length of the sentence by examining the sentencing factors
-7-
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Cage, 451 F.3d at 594–95. W ith these
principles as background, we turn to Shaw’s sentence.
B. Shaw’s Sentence
As noted above, Shaw does not challenge the guideline calculation, arguing
only that a 34-month increase in his sentence above the applicable guideline range
is unreasonable. W hile conceding that perhaps “an additional 6 months or so”
might be reasonable, Aplt. Br. at 10, Shaw challenges the district court’s decision
to sentence at the same level as his codefendant, who had a different criminal
history and was therefore eligible for a higher guideline range.
Under § 3553(a) a district court must consider whether the sentence will
create “unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records
who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” § 3553(a)(6). “W hile similar
offenders engaged in similar conduct should be sentenced equivalently, disparate
sentences are allowed where the disparity is explicable by the facts on the
record.” United States v. Goddard, 929 F.2d 546, 550 (10th Cir. 1991) (citation
omitted). Ordinarily, the disparity between co-defendants’ sentences is not
grounds for relief. United States v. Davis, 437 F.3d 989, 997 (10th Cir. 2006).
But where the court concludes that the Guidelines inadequately reflect a
defendant’s criminal history or the seriousness of the offense, a deviation may be
appropriate. According to Shaw, by applying the guideline range for his criminal
-8-
history, he would be eligible for a sentence of only 57 to 71 months, and not the
higher range, 84 to 105 months, for which his codefendant was eligible.
Consistent with Shaw’s claim, the district court recognized that the
guideline calculation of Shaw ’s and Patterson’s respective criminal history
categories suggested they had different records. However, while the Guidelines
suggested dissimilar records, the court concluded that, as a matter of fact, their
records were quite similar and that the Guidelines had not adequately accounted
for that similarity. The court noted the difference in the guideline calculation was
based on the fact that Patterson had committed the bank robbery “while he was on
parole or within two years of his release from incarceration,” Vol III, 8, whereas
Shaw missed this benchmark by only ten days. The court concluded, “there is
virtually no significant difference at all in terms of the background of the criminal
history.” Id. Given this substantial similarity, the court concluded that the
advisory guideline range did not properly account for all of the § 3553(a) factors
relevant to his sentencing decision. 3 Despite this substantial similarity, Shaw
nonetheless argues that the district court should have imposed a lower sentence.
W e disagree.
3
Prior to United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a district court
would have responded to this underrepresentation by applying USSG § 4A1.3
(authorizing departures from the calculated range based on an inadequate criminal
history category). Shaw has not argued on appeal that the district court erred by
failing to apply the standards in § 4A1.3, so it is not clear how that section would
have affected Shaw’s sentence.
-9-
The district court concluded that Shaw’s conduct reflected “a prompt
reentry into criminal activity after release from [his] prior incarceration or
supervision, that appears to occur fairly quickly fairly consistently.” Id. This
observation implicated “objectives of sentencing relating to protection of the
public and achieving an appropriate deterrent effect with respect to this
defendant,” id., 9, as additional rationales for a nonguideline sentence. See
§ 3553(a)(2)(B), (C).
Secondly, the district court concluded that Shaw ’s conduct was more
serious than his codefendant’s because Shaw was the one who actually assaulted
the bank manager. See § 3553(a)(1) (“the nature and circumstances of the
offense”). The Guidelines do not explicitly distinguish between principals and
accessories for purposes of the “serious bodily injury” enhancement at issue here.
USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). But § 3553(a)(2)(A) does authorize a sentencing court
to impose a nonguideline sentence if the court concludes the guideline range does
not adequately “reflect the seriousness of the offense.” W hile an adjustment
based on a factor that was already built into the guideline calculation may
challenge the overall uniformity of sentences under § 3556(a)(6), any tension
between subsection (a)(2)(A) and subsection (a)(6) can be resolved by the district
court in light of all the facts before it, as long as it does so reasonably. See Cage,
451 F.3d at 595 (“The problem with the sentencing decision, however, is not in
-10-
the consideration of these factors; it is in the weight the district court placed on
them.”).
Here, the question is whether the district court’s upward deviation from the
Guidelines was reasonable. The Guidelines recognize the usual calculation may
be inadequate if “reliable information indicates that the defendant’s criminal
history substantially under-represents the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal
history.” U SSG § 4A1.3. M oreover, “the criminal history score is unlikely to
take into account all the variation in the seriousness of criminal history that may
occur.” Id., cmt., Background. Given the district court’s careful explanation of
its reasoning as to why Shaw’s initial guideline calculation underestimated his
culpability— including his primary involvement in the bank manager’s injuries
and his prompt reentry into crime after ending probation— we conclude that there
was substantial justification for the court’s “divergence from the . . . guideline
range.” Cage, 451 F.3d at 595.
W e therefore conclude Shaw ’s sentence w as reasonable under § 3553(a).
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence.
-11-