US v. Kelly - Sentencing Appeal

The case i s unani mously order ed submit ted wit hout oral argument * purs uant t o Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) (2) and 10t h Cir. R. 34. 1(G). This or der and judgment is not bindi ng precedent, exce pt under the doct ri nes of law of t he case, res judi cata, and col lat eral estoppel. The cour t gener all y disfavor s the ci t ati on of order s and j udgm ents; never thel ess, an order and judgment may be ci ted under the ter ms and condit ions of 10th Cir. R. 32. 1. FI LED Unite d State s Court o f Appeals Tenth Ci rcuit September 12, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED S TATES COURT OF APPEALS TE N T H C IR C U IT UNI TED S TAT ES OF AMERI CA, Plai nti ff - Appell ee, v. RONAL D DANI EL KE LLY, D e fe nd an t - A p p ellan t. No. 06-6284 (D.C. No. CR-03 -26 1- T) (W.D. O kla.) ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORS UCH, Circuit Judges. In 2004, Ronald Daniel K ell y appealed hi s sent ence r esult ing fr om a plea of guilty to p osses sion o f pseu d oep hed rine w ith intent to m an ufa cture methamphet amine, i n viol ati on of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1). Finding t hat t he dis tri ct court comm it ted noncons ti tut ional B ooker er ror, we remanded his case for res entenci ng. Unit ed Stat es v. K ell y, 159 F. A pp’x 864 (10t h Cir. 2005). A t t he Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 1

The tr anscr ipt fr om the M ay 26, 2004, sent encing hear ing i s not i ncluded 1 in t he recor d on appeal. Thus i n discus sing Danner’ s tes ti m ony, we refe r (c on tin u e d...) - 2 - res entenci ng heari ng, t he dis tri ct cour t i mposed the s ame sentence, and Kell y now appeal s. Exer cis ing j uris dict ion under 28 U. S.C. § 1291, w e AFFI RM. On D ecember 30, 2003, Kell y pl eaded gui lt y t o posses sion of pseudoephe drine wit h int ent t o manufactur e methamphet amine in vi olat ion of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1). N othi ng in t he chargi ng documents, plea a greement, or pe tition to e nter a g uilty plea ind ica ted the qu a ntity of p se ud o ep h ed rine K e lly posses sed at the t ime of his arres t. K ell y ’s Pr esent ence Report (“PSR ”) i ndicat ed that he possessed 2.592 kil ogram s of pseudo ephedrine, result ing in a base offense le v el o f 3 6. A f te r a t h r e e p o in t a d j u s tm e n t f o r a c c e p ta n c e o f re sp o n s ib ili ty, Kell y’ s offense l evel w as reduce d to 33. W it h three c ri m inal his tory poi nts fr om a prior co nv iction fo r first-degree m urde r, the PS R ca lculated a c riminal history catego ry of II. For an off ense lev el of 33 an d a crim inal history category of II, the rec om m e n de d G uid elin es ra ng e is 15 1 to 1 8 8 m o n ths’ im priso nm ent. K e lly ra ised o bjec tio ns to th e P S R an d, in p articu lar, con tes ted the qu a ntity of pseudoephe drine, cl aiming t hat he bel ieved he w as r eceivi ng les s than one kilogram o f the m etha m ph etam ine p recu rsor. O n M ay 26, 200 4, the district court hear d test imony from O ffi cer M ark Danner, a tas k force offi cer w it h the Drug Enforcement A dm ini st rat ion (“DEA ”) who w as i nvolved i n K ell y ’s ar rest, and concl uded that the quant it y li sted i n the PSR w as cor rect. The court s entence d 1 Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 2

(... conti nued) 1 excl usivel y to what was repor ted at the August 24, 2006, resent enci ng heari ng, the t rans cri pt of which i s incl uded in t he recor d. M cK ee pl eaded guil ty t o a singl e tel ephone count and rece ived a s entence 2 of 48 m o n ths’ im p riso n m en t. - 3 - K e lly to 15 1 m on th s’ im p riso nm e nt, w hich se nten c e K elly app ea led. W h ile h is appeal w as pendi ng, t he Supreme Court deci ded Unit ed Stat es v. B ooker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and w e subsequent l y r emanded his cas e for r esent encing for nonconst it uti onal Booker er ror. K el ly, 159 F. A pp’x at 865. At Kell y’ s res entenci ng heari ng, Danner t est ifi ed again, st ati ng that in 2003 the DEA rece ived i nformati on from a confi denti al i nformant t hat Kell y and Kell y’ s co-defe ndant, D avid McK ee, were i nteres ted i n purchas ing a l arge 2 qu a nt i t y o f p s eu do ep he d ri n e i n o rd e r t o ma nu fa c t ur e me t h amp h et a mi n e. On October 23, 2003, D anner, acti ng undercover, and t he confi denti al i nformant met with McK ee t o discus s a possi ble dea l. M cKee tol d them t hat Kell y w as an accompli shed methamphet amine “cook” who coul d produce hi gh yi elds of m eth am p h etam ine if D a nn e r an d th e in fo rm a nt su p p lied h im w ith pseudoephe drine. They arranged a nother m eeti ng with McK ee and Kell y for November 17, 2003. A t t hat meet ing, D anner t old Kell y that he could pr ovide fi ve cases of ps eudoephedri ne, wit h each cas e consi sti ng of 144 bott les, and each bott le cont ai ning 60 t ablet s w ei ghing 60 mil li grams. In res ponse, K ell y cl ai m ed he coul d produce t w o and one-hal f kil ograms of met hamphetamine fr om that Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 3

Kell y cont est ed the quant it y of pseudoephedr ine i n the PSR, r equested a 3 minor par ti cipant adj ustment, and ar gued that he should not rece ive t hree cr iminal histo ry po ints b ec au se his m urd er c o nv ictio n f ell ou tsid e o f th e 1 5 -year a pp lica ble time p eriod set in U.S.S.G. § 4A 1.2(e)(1). In B oo ke r, the Su p rem e C o urt “ rea ff irm [ed ] [th e] h o ldin g in A p p ren d i: 4 Any fac t (ot her t han a pri or convi cti on) which i s necess ary to suppor t a s entence exceedi ng the maxi m um author ized by the fa cts establ is hed by a pl ea of gui lt y or a j ury verdi ct must be admi tt ed by the defendant or pr oved to a j ury bey ond a reas onable doubt.” 543 U. S. at 244. - 4 - am o u nt o f p se ud o ep he drin e. A fe w m in u tes late r, D a nn er b ro u gh t the ca ses to Kell y, w hereupon Kel ly w as ar rest ed. Kell y r ais ed several argument s at t he res entenci ng heari ng, s om e of which reitera ted h is ob jec tion s to the P SR. D e term in ing tha t the ca se law o f th is circ uit 3 dir ectl y contr olled most of t hese is sues, and findi ng that the evi dence pr esent ed did no t su p po rt K e lly’s claim s, th e d istrict co u rt rejec ted h is arg u m en ts a nd ag a in sentenced K ell y t o 1 51 m onths’ imprisonment. Kelly now appeals. Kell y as sert s si x arguments as to why he shoul d be resent enced: (1) Kell y’ s counsel ’s s tat ement that Kell y t hought he was r eceivi ng a les ser amount of pseudoephe drine does not cons ti tute an a dmissi on by K ell y under Booker; (2) 4 Kell y’ s sent ence was unreas onable becaus e it w as di spropor ti onate t o the s entence r ec e i ve d b y h i s c o- d ef e nd an t; (3) I n d en y i n g Ke l l y ’ s r eq ue s t fo r a b el o w- G uideli nes sentence, the sentenci ng cou rt fai led to adequately explain it s reasons; (4) D anner’ s hears ay test imony regar ding the conf ident ial infor m ant viol ated Kell y’ s Sixt h A mendment ri ght t o confront ati on; (5) Facts that enhance a Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 4

W e note t hat K ell y does not chal lenge t hi s appell ate pr esumpti on of 5 rea so na blen e ss, w hich w a s rec en tly uph e ld in R ita v. U n ited S tate s, 1 27 S. C t. 245 6 (20 0 7). - 5 - sent ence must be pr oved bey ond a reas onable doubt; and (6) W hen appl ied ret roact ivel y, Kell y should r eceive t he benefi t of Booker’ s Sixt h A mendment in t e r p r e t a ti o n b u t n o t th e B o o k e r r e m ed y. W e revi ew sentenci ng deci sions for both pr ocedural and subst anti ve reas onablenes s in l ight of the fa ctor s in 18 U.S. C. § 3553(a). U nit ed Stat es v. A ten c io, 47 6 F.3d 10 9 9, 1 10 2 (10 th C ir. 20 0 7). M ore o ve r, w e ap ply an ap pe llate pres um pti on of reas onablenes s to wit hin- G uidel ines sent ences. Unit ed Stat es v. 5 G e in e r, _ _ _ F.3d _ _ _, 2 0 0 7 W L 2 3 5 8 6 7 8, a t * 2 (1 0 th C ir. A u g. 2 0, 2 0 0 7). B ec au se all o f th e issu e s raise d by K e lly a re c on tro lled b y esta blish ed circ u it preced en t and the do ctrine of law of the c ase, an d b ecau se the d istrict court proper ly consi dered t he fact ors i n § 3553(a), we deter m ine t hat Kel ly ’s s entence is reasonabl e. In K elly’s first ap pea l befo re this cou rt, we h eld that his co un sel’s stat em ent regarding t he q uantit y of pseudoeph edrine that he intended to possess const it uted an admi ssi on on K ell y ’s behal f, ci ti ng U nit ed Stat es v. Buonocore, 416 F.3d 1124, 1134 (10t h C ir. 2005). Kell y, 159 F. App’x at 868 n.4. U nder t he law of th e case do ctrine, our pre vious d ecision s on a rule of law sho uld g ov ern the s ame iss ues i n lat er st ages of t he same case. Rohrbaugh v. C elot ex Corp., 53 F.3d 1181, 1183 (10t h Cir. 1995) (“[W]hen a c ase i s appeal ed and remanded, the Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 5

Kell y ur ges us t o adopt t he posit ion advoca ted by Judge Sey mour i n her 6 concur rence i n B uonocore, 416 F.3d at 1137-38, that counsel ’s st atement s ar e not ad m issio ns f o r S ixth A m e n dm e n t pu rpo se s. T h is pa n el, ho w e v er, ca nn o t ov erru le the maj ori ty holdi ng of another panel of t his court. See I n re Smit h, 10 F. 3d 723, 724 (10 th C ir. 1993) (per cu riam). - 6 - de cisio n of the ap pe llate co urt e stab lish es th e law o f th e c ase an d ord ina rily w ill be fol lowed by bot h the t ri al cour t on r emand and the appel lat e court in any su b se q u en t a p p e al.”). A lth o ug h th is d oc tr ine is n ot a n “ in ex o ra b le c om m a nd,” Pit tsbur gh County R ural W ater D is t. N o. 7 v. City of McA les ter, 358 F.3d 694, 711 (10t h C ir. 2004), we det ermine t hat t he rul e in Buonocore appl ies to t his i ssue a n d t h u s c o u n s e l ’s s t a te m e n t c o n s t it u t e s a n a d m is s i o n o n b e h a l f o f K e lly. 6 As to Kell y ’s second a rgument, a dis pari ty in sent ences between co- defendant s does not provi de a basi s for r eli ef. See Unit ed Stat es v. D avis, 437 F.3d 989, 997 (10t h Cir. 2006). W ith r espect to hi s thi rd ar gum ent, when a dis tri ct cour t i mposes a wit hin-Guidel ines sent ence, 18 U.S. C. § 3553(c) requi res only t hat t he court provi de a general st atement of “the r easons for it s imposi ti on of t he part icul ar sent ence. ” § 3553(c); United St ates v. Ruiz- Terraza s, 477 F. 3d 1196, 1199 (10th Cir. 2007). In Ri ta v. U nit ed Stat es, the defendant reques ted a sen ten ce b elo w th e G u id elin es ra ng e, w hich th e d istric t co urt d en ied. 12 7 S. C t. at 2469. In uphol ding t he dis tri ct cour t’ s deci sion, the Supr eme C ourt noted t hat th e d is tric t ju d g e “ lis ten e d to e ac h a rg u m e n t [m ad e b y the d ef e n d an t],” “consi dered t he suppor ting evi dence, ” and concl uded that the Guidel ines range was “not ‘ inappr opriat e’” and a sent ence at t he bott om of the r ange w as Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 6

K e lly as se rts th a t th e S u p re m e C ou rt h a s n o t a d d re ss ed th is iss u e h e a d on. 7 This ar gument, how ever, does not m ean t hat t his panel may overrul e M agall anez, see In re Sm ith, 10 F.3d at 72 4, and w e also no te that the C ou rt den ied certiorari in that case. See M agallan ez v. Un ited States, 54 6 U.S. 955 (20 0 5). - 7 - “a pp ro pria te.” Id. T h e C o u rt he ld th at “[w ]h e re a m atter is as c o nc ep tua lly si m ple as in t he case at hand and t he recor d m akes cl ear t hat t he sent encing j udge consi dered t he evidence and argument s, we do not bel ieve t he l aw requi res t he jud ge to w rite m o re e xten siv e ly.” Id. In th e p re sen t ca se, K elly, spe ak ing on h is ow n beh alf at the resen tenc ing h earing, presen ted reaso ns as to w hy a do w nw ard departure was w arranted i n his case. The distri ct court list ened to his ar gu ments, but concl uded, w it h refer ence to t he § 3553(a) fact ors, that a sent ence of 151 m onths’ im prison m en t was a pp rop riate. Given that the d istri ct co urt’s ex plan a tion o f its d ec ision co n tain ed m o re d etail th an th at w h ich th e C o u rt up he ld in R ita, w e co n clu de tha t the distric t co urt’s e x plan a tion w a s su ff icie nt. In U n ited States v. B ustam an te, 454 F.3d 12 00, 120 2-03 (10th C ir. 20 06), w e he ld th at a s en ten cin g co urt’s r elian c e o n h ea rsa y testim on y do es n o t vio late th e d e f en d a n t’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts, a n d th u s K elly’s f o u rth a rg u m e n t fa ils. In r esponse t o his fift h argument, w e have pr eviousl y held t hat dr ug quanti ty may be proven by a pr eponderance of the evi dence, U nit ed Stat es v. M agal lanez, 408 F.3 d 67 2, 6 8 4-8 5 (10 th C ir. 2 00 5), a d ec ision w h ich w e cited in ru ling on this same i ssue i n K ell y ’s fi rst appeal. See Kel ly, 159 F. A pp’x at 868. I n addit ion, 7 Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 7

we deter m ine t hat t he di str ict court di d not commit clear err or i n findi ng that the ev id e n ce s up p o rte d th e q ua n tity o f p s eu d o e p he d rin e a ttrib u te d to K e lly. Finally, K elly argues th at beca use h is crime w as com m itted bef ore B ook er, the Booker remedy m aking t he Guidel ines advi sor y cannot be appl ied retroact ively to his case wit ho ut violat ing his Fift h A m endm ent due process ri ghts. Kell y as sert s, how ever, that he is enti tled t o the bene fit of the Booker holdi ng, t hat fac ts aff ecti ng his s entence m ust be admitt ed by him or pr oved be yond a rea son a ble d o u bt. In his p re vio us a p pe al, w e he ld th at th is arg u m en t is without merit in l ight of our deci si on in United St at es v. Rines, 419 F. 3d 1104, 1106 (10th C ir. 20 05). We again con clude that t his argument is merit less. Accordi ngly, we AFF IRM the sen ten c ing de cisio n of the d istrict co u rt. ENTERE D FOR THE COURT C arlos F. L uce ro Circui t J udge Appellate Case: 06-6284 Document: 010130747 Date Filed: 09/12/2007 Page: 8