## Facts

- A federal jury in the Eastern District of Washington convicted Antonio Feliciano Crawford of two counts of distributing heroin and crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
- At the initial sentencing, the district court found Crawford to be a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on prior felony convictions, which set the advisory Guidelines range at 210 to 262 months’ imprisonment.
- The district court sentenced Crawford to 210 months’ imprisonment (the bottom of the range), six years of supervised release, a $1,000 fine, and a $100 special assessment, citing his extended involvement in drug distribution and his criminal history and associations.
- After Blakely and Booker, the Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under the post-Booker advisory-Guidelines framework (via Ameline).
- On remand, after a new sentencing hearing with updated arguments about the advisory nature of the Guidelines and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the district court again imposed 210 months.
- Crawford appealed again, and the Ninth Circuit held the appeal pending Supreme Court guidance, including Rita v. United States, which approved an appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether, in light of Rita (and the post-Booker reasonableness framework), the court of appeals could treat Crawford’s within-Guidelines sentence as reasonable and affirm it under § 3553(a).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by declining to vary downward based on objections to the crack/powder cocaine disparity, particularly after Kimbrough recognized sentencing courts’ discretion to disagree with the crack Guidelines on policy grounds.
3. Whether Crawford was properly classified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, including whether a prior California drug conviction qualified as a “controlled substance offense” under the modified categorical approach using Shepard-approved records.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the 210-month sentence.
- The court held that the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, considered the § 3553(a) factors, and provided an adequate explanation tied to Crawford’s conduct and history.
- Applying the post-Booker standard of review and Rita’s approval of an appellate presumption of reasonableness for a within-Guidelines sentence, the court concluded the bottom-of-the-range sentence was reasonable.
- The court rejected Crawford’s crack/powder disparity argument as a basis for reversal, reasoning that his offense level and range were driven by the career-offender guideline rather than the crack quantity guideline, and the district court was not required to vary.
- The court upheld the career-offender designation, concluding the district court properly relied on permissible judicial records (including plea-related documents) under the modified categorical approach to determine that the prior California conviction qualified as a predicate controlled-substance offense.

## Legal Principles

- After Booker, a sentencing court must calculate the Guidelines range, treat the Guidelines as advisory, and impose a sentence after considering the § 3553(a) factors; appellate review is for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
- Under Rita, a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within the properly calculated Guidelines range, while still reviewing the record for an individualized § 3553(a) assessment.
- Kimbrough permits (but does not require) a district court to vary from the crack Guidelines based on disagreement with the crack/powder disparity; the decision to vary remains discretionary.
- When the applicable range is set by the career-offender guideline, challenges aimed at the crack drug-quantity guideline generally do not change the operative range, which limits the force of a disparity-based argument on appeal.
- Career-offender predicates may be evaluated under the modified categorical approach, and courts may consult Shepard-approved documents (such as a plea agreement or plea colloquy materials) to determine whether a prior conviction matches the Guidelines definition of a “controlled substance offense.”

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Crawford’s 210-month, within-Guidelines sentence, holding that the district court properly applied the advisory Guidelines and § 3553(a), that any crack/powder disparity argument did not justify reversal where the range was set by the career-offender guideline, and that Crawford’s prior California conviction qualified as a predicate offense under the modified categorical approach.


United States v. Crawford, 520 F.3d 1072 (2008)