WPCv {ZJNS*#ՙ`Q3gU.tN>#KtGuQ_af@k=p?Nuǽm 'ʻƠTX1#6>UI_W՗^q(zDIUA EOЁvN=";E*,ag ćuw 2'bp(]]ptKЋ|\ӈ(7Dgv tޭ H yQ_"GwrD |?HM[wnŀ' ;S'\i&Ka\.0Bd; 9kq6!yp#l.6U6}o F JqbD5Ý+C)2U`@;󈃣e-ގNk*!n.d4c[thZ U@n@@1BFDR FP_GPHIKaMeOOmPmPmPz Q 006] 0<f] 0] 0>`^ 0v^ 0`_ 0`t_ 0`_ 0`4` B` 0`` 08a 0Ia B*b 02Eb 0wb D5sc D-c 0:c 0Yd Ahde D5e Bf D5+f B`f D5}f Bf D5f Bg D1!g D5Rg D5g B*g D5g B*h D5Eh B*zh D5h B7h B7i 0_Gi 0 i 0jj 0l DOm D/m 0n D/o 0o 06p 0p 0:q 0^r 0<sr 1erU6sU>JsU*s 1us 72't 0cYtU4tttttttttHP-Hall LaserJet 4200 PCL0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(Nh$  WUSUS.,8Wdd86Times New Roman RegularG0s ˄|.3|x Umailto:Jason_Hawkins@fd.org(O$ WPCgI513%)+- $$Page of & r )  WXXUSUS.,  , ,W.O:\Hawkins\2004_Clients\Chewning_Kathy\Supplemental_Objection_PSR.wpdO:\Hawkins\2004_Clients\Chewning_Kathy\Supplemental_Objection_PSR.wpd/  (3$ Nh!  WXXUSUS.,8WdXXd8  (3$ Nh!  WXXUSUS.,8WdXXd8    r ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    2    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697*4. WPCgI513%)+- $$(5(2;2$ Nh!  WXXUSUS.,8WdXXd8  =Wdd=tW    0  (%$  1   h ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    3    _Ԁ_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,490(2000). E ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    27    _Ԁ[_PSR_Ԁp.942]. | ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    1    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.___,2004WL1402697(June24,2004). o ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    4    _ԀWash._Rev.Code_ԀAnn.9A.40.030(3)and9A.20.021(1)(b). X ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    7    _ԀWash._Rev.Code_ԀAnn.9A.94A.120(2). U ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    8    _ԀWash._Rev.Code_ԀAnn.9A.94A.390.  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    11    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*10(quoting4W.Blackstone,Commentaries  ontheLawsofEngland343(1769). _ ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    9    _ԀWash._Rev.Code_ԀAnn.9.94A.390(2)(h)(iii). [ ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    6    _ԀWash._Rev.Code_ԀAnn.9A.94A.310(3)(b).*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   U ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    5    _ԀWash._Rev.Code_ԀAnn.9A.94A.320.*A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5    ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    10    _Ԁ(emphasisinoriginal)_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697*4(citationsomitted).  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    12    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁ_v._ԀWashington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*4, n.9.  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    17    _Ԁ _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,2004WL1402697at* 10(OConnor,J.,dissenting).  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    18    _Ԁ _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,2004WL1402697at*16(OConnor,J.,dissenting)(citing18U.S.C.3553&28  U.S.C.991etseq.,inadditiontostatutesinninestates).(A Z(Times New Roman  y ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    19    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*16.  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    20    _ _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*17, citingWash.Rev.CodeAnn.  9.94A.370(2)(2000)(codifying realfactsdoctrine)).  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    21    _ _Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*17(_Breyer_,J.,dissenting).  H ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    15    _ԀBriefforUnitedStatesasAmicusCuriae2729. F ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    25    _Ԁ[_PSR_Ԁp.8,40]. F ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    26    _Ԁ[_PSR_Ԁp.8,41].  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    22    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*29(_Breyer_,J.,dissenting).  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    23    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*29(Breyer,J.,dissenting).  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    24    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S.at___,2004WL1402697at*29(Breyer,J.,dissenting). [ ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    14    _ԀBriefforUnitedStatesasAmicusCuriae2526(citationomitted). E ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    28    _Ԁ[_PSR_Ԁp.942]. p ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    13    _ԀItisimportanttonotethatonJune28,2004,in_Dilts_Ԁv.Oregon,___U.S.___,2004WL540530(_U.S.Or_.  June28,2004)(no.039412),theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtvacatedthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtofOregon t inStatev._Dilts_,336Or.158,82P.3d593(Or.2003),wheretheOregonSupremeCourtrejectedtheclaimthatthe 8 Defendantssentencewasincreasedabovethestatutorymaximumonthebasisofanaggravatingfactfoundbythetrial L courtthathisassaultwasraciallymotivatedthatwasnotallegedintheindictmentandthatthestatedidnotprove  beyondareasonabledoubt.Inthe_Dilts_casethestatutorymaximumwasfive(5)yearsandthepartiesttstipulatedthat  defendant'scriminalhistoryandhiscurrentcrimeofconvictionmadehimsubjecttoapenaltyrangeofbetween15and H  18months'imprisonmentundertheOregonsentencingguidelines#tt#.ttHowever,undertheguidelines,asentencingjudge  \ mayimposeasentencethatisanupwardordownwarddeparturefromthepresumptivesentenceforacrimeonfinding   "substantialandcompellingreasons"thatjustifyimposingsuchadeparture.OAR2130080001.SeealsoOAR213    0030001(8)(defining"_durational_Ԁdeparture"as"asentencewhichisinconsistentwiththepresumptivesentenceasto X   termofincarceration...").#tt#ttԀAtdefendant'ssentencing,thestatearguedthatthetrialcourtshouldimposeanupward  l  _durational_Ԁdeparturefromthatpresumptivesentence,basedontheaggravatingfactorthatdefendant'scrimewas  0  motivated,atleastinpart,bythevictim'sraceorcolor.#ttK#ttThetrialcourtagreedandfoundthatdefendant'soffensewas   motivatedinpartbythevictim'srace.Basedonthataggravatingfactor,thetrialcourtimposedanupwarddeparture h  sentenceof36monthsinprisonandanadditional36monthperiodofpostprisonsupervision.#tt # ,|  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5   d(&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5&0 d d,*CITE,dl*CODEK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS\\\\)!dxdx)!dxdx42Emphasis64Hyperlink    hd&Draw Object =8C HKKKKLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5jjjj)!dxdx  dllll)!dxdxP Pdnnnn)!dxdx dpppp)!dxdx dll)! dxdx````)!dxdxtttt)!dxdx&P d dvvvv)!dxdx&p d Pdxxxx)!dxdx&p Pd dz{z{)!dxdx3+0 d d d3+0 d d d<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7d(X7\\G"Thin Right/Left!dxdx`)1dxd<:zTop of For7(X7  ?%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7d(X7`)2dxd0KS.SampleK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ./012345 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  <  p`CG TimesTT  ;2$  WXXUSUS.,=Wdd=tW    16    _Ԁ_Blakely_Ԁ_v._ԀWashington,2004WL1402697at*16(OConnor,J.dissenting). Nh!  WXXUSUS.,8Wdd8  _@ INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @ FORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOFTEXAS  @GG#DALLASDIVISION  gvr$j~0VIp@@@5,$$ d gEY IIpUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA    Plaintiff,   v.0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#No.3:03CR434D p(#p(# KATHYCHEWNING,     Defendant.   gvr$j~0 Ip6@@@5,$$ d  gEIICL@ DEFENDANTSSUPPLEMENTALOBJECTIONTOTHEPRESENTENCEREPORT     ComesnowbeforetheCourttheDefendant,KathyChewning(hereinafter Ms. 0 Chewning),withherSupplementalObjectiontothePresentenceReportpreparedbythe  UnitedStatesProbationOfficeonMay6,2004. 0 1.0  Blakelyv.Washington(#(#   OnJune24,2004,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtissuedadecisioninBlakelyv. 0 Washington %  1      ׀thathasdramaticallychangedthelandscapeoftheUnitedStatesSentencing  Guidelinesandtheireffectonsentencinginfederalcourt.InBlakelyv.Washington,T %  2      ׀the 0 CourtfoundtheStateofWashingtonssentencingproceduredidnotcomplywiththeSixth  AmendmentandappliedtheruleexpressedinApprendiv.NewJersey: Otherthanthefact 0 ofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrimebeyondtheprescribed  ! statutorymaximummustbesubmittedtoajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt. %  3      ׀ 0"#   InBlakelytheCourthadbeforeitWashingtonsdeterminatesentencingschemewhich #% aremuchlikethefederalsentencingguidelines.RalphHowardBlakelypledguiltytosecond 0% ' degreekidnappingandallegationsofdomesticviolenceandafirearm,butnootherrelevant  facts.InWashingtonthestatutorymaximumforseconddegreekidnapping,aclassBfelony, 0 isten(10)yearsconfinement. %  4      ׀However,thereareotherprovisionsofstatelawthatthe  furtherlimittherangeofsentencesthejudgemayimpose.WashingtonsSentencingReform 0  Actspecifiedastandardrangeoffortynine(49)tofiftythree(53)monthsfortheoffense   ofseconddegreekidnapping'T %  5      ׀withafirearm.# %  6      ׀Thisstandardrangecanbeincreasedifthe 0   sentencingcourtfinds substantialandcompellingreasonsjustifyinganexceptional   sentencel %  7      ׀andtheActspecifiesanonexhaustivelistofaggravatingfactorsthatcanjustify 0  adeparture.  %  8           Atsentencing,thestatecourtupwardlydepartedthirtyseven(37)monthsbeyondthe 0  standardmaximumandsentencedBlakelytoninety(90)months.Thesentencingcourt  justifiedthesentencebasedonthefactualfindingthatBlakelyactedwith deliberate 0 cruelty,astatutorilyenumeratedgroundforupwarddepartureindomesticviolencecases." %  9      ׀  Blakelyappealedarguingthatthesentencingproceduredeprivedhimofhisfederal 0 constitutionalrighttohaveajurydeterminebeyondareasonabledoubtallfactslegally  essentialtohissentencebecausehehadneitheradmittedthefactssupportingthefindingin 0 hispleanorweretheyfoundbyajury.     AttheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,theStatearguedthatBlakelyssentencedidnot 0" violatetheruleannouncedinApprendibecausetherelevantstatutorymaximumwasnot $ fiftythree(53)months,buttheten(10)yearmaximumforclassBfeloniesandBlakelyonly 0!& receivedasentenceofninety(90)months.TheCourtsoundlyrejectedtheargumentand  held: 0 8  8`   DWWOurprecedentsmakeclear,however,thatthe statutory  maximumforApprendipurposesisthemaximumsentencea  judgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthe   juryverdictoradmittedbythedefendant.Inotherwords,the   relevant statutorymaximumisnotthemaximumsentencea   judgemayimposeafterfindingadditionalfacts,butthe    maximumhemayimposewithoutanyadditionalfindings.When   ajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejury'sverdictalonedoesnot   allow,thejuryhasnotfoundallthefacts whichthelawmakes   essentialtothepunishment,andthejudgeexceedshisproper   authority.#WDWs#@ %  10       ` x` x AAccordingly,theCourtremandedthecasetothesentencingcourtfindingthatBlakelywas  sentencedtoprisonformorethanthree(3)yearsbeyondwhatthelawallowedforthecrime 0 towhichheconfessed. TheFramerswouldnothavethoughtittoomuchtodemandthat,  beforedeprivingamanofthreemoreyearsofhisliberty,theStateshouldsufferthemodest 0 inconvenienceofsubmittingitsaccusationtotheunanimoussuffrageoftwelveofhisequals  andneighbours,ratherthanaloneemployeeoftheState.!T %  11       0 2.0  BlakelyAppliestotheUnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines(#(#   Infootnotenine(9)oftheCourtsopinion,themajoritynotesthattheUnitedStates 0 wasconcernedthatarulinginfavorofBlakelywouldcallthefederalguidelinesintoserious   doubt. TheUnitedStates,asamicuscuriae,urgesustoaffirm.Itnotesdifferencesbetween 0!" WashingtonssentencingregimeandtheFederalSentencingGuidelinesbutquestions "$ whetherthosedifferencesareconstitutionallysignificant....TheFederalGuidelinesarenot 0$& beforeus,andweexpressnoopiniononthem.A %  12       %!(   AfurtherlookatthebriefoftheSolicitorGeneraloftheUnitedStates,thetop  governmentlawyerfortheSupremeCourt,revealsthereasoningthataholdingsuchasthe 0 CourtcameupwithinBlakelywouldjeopardizetheFederalSentencingGuidelines.The  SolicitorGeneralwrites: 0  8  8`    AholdingthatApprendiappliestothedeparture   determinationinthiscasewouldraisethequestionwhether    Apprendialsoappliestodeparturedeterminationsinother    guidelinessystems.R %  13      ׀Evenmoresubstantialquestionswould   ariseiftheCourtrulesthatApprendiappliesherebasedon   petitioner'stheorythatthestatutorymaximumforpurposesof   Apprendiisthepunishmentthatwouldbeimposedwithoutany   findingsoffactotherthanthe"'factsreflectedinthejury   verdictalone'ortheguiltypleaalone."Ifthe"factsreflectedin  thejuryverdictalone"aretheelementsoftheoffense,  petitioner'stheorywouldmandatetheapplicationofApprendi  toanyfacts,otherthantheoffenseelements,thatincreasethe  defendant'spunishment.` x` x 8  8`    Sucharulewouldhaveprofoundconsequencesforthe  federalGuidelines.Asexplainedmorefullybelow,factsother  thantheelementsoftheoffenseenterintoalmostallofthe  calculationsundertheGuidelines,beginningwiththemostbasic  calculationsfordeterminingtheoffender'spresumptive  sentencingrange.Adecisioninfavorofpetitionercouldthus  raiseaseriousquestionaboutwhetherApprendiappliesto  myriadfactualdeterminationsundertheGuidelines.N %  14      V"` x` x WhiletheGovernmentdidoffersomepossibledistinctionsbetweenWashingtons 0 sentencingguidelinesandthefederalsentencingguidelines,HT %  15      ׀itwasclearlyoftheviewthat  arulinginfavorofBlakelycouldwellinvalidatethefederalguidelinessystem.Indeed,the 0  dissentersnotedthat:    8  8`    ThestructureoftheFederalGuidelineslikewisedoesnot, 0   astheGovernmenthalfheartedlysuggests,provideanygrounds 0  fordistinction.Washingtonsschemeisalmostidenticaltothe 0  upwarddepartureregimeestablishedby18U.S.C.3553(b) 0  andimplementedinUSSG5K2.0.Ifanythingthestructural 0  differencesthatdoexistmaketheFederalGuidelinesmore 0  vulnerabletoattack. %  16      0` x` x +  Asalludedtoabove,itwasnotonlytheGovernmentthathadaviewthattheruling 0 inBlakelycouldhavefarreachingeffectsontheUnitedStatesSentencingGuidelines,but  alsofour(4)dissentingmembersoftheCourt.Theleaddissent,authoredbyJustice 0 OConnorandjoinedinpartbyChiefJusticeRehnquistandJusticesKennedyandBreyer,  predictedthatthe practicalconsequencesoftodaysdecisionmaybedisastrous....Bl %  17      ׀ 0 JusticeOConnorexplainedthat Washingtonssentencingsystemisbynomeansunique  since [n]umerousotherStateshaveenactedguidelines,ashastheFederalGovernment.C %  18      ׀ 0 JusticeOConnorwarnedthat [t]odaysdecisioncastsconstitutionaldoubtoverthemall ! and,insodoing,threatensanuntoldnumberofcriminaljudgements.JusticeOConnor 0!# chidedthemajorityfor ignor[ing]thehavocitisabouttowreakontrialcourtsacrossthe "% country.E %  19      ׀    JusticeOConnorconcludedbyexplainingthat theextraordinarysentence 0 provisionstruckdowntodayisasinoffensivetotheholdingofApprendiasaregimeof  guideddiscretioncouldpossiblybebecause theStatesrealfactsdoctrineprecludes 0  reliancebysentencingcourtsuponfactsthatwouldconstitutetheelementsofadifferentor   aggravatedoffense.FT %  20      ׀InJusticeOConnorsview, IftheWashingtonschemedoesnot 0   comportwiththeConstitution,itishardtoimagineaguidelinesschemethatwould.G %  21           JusticeBreyeralsodissented.Inconcludinghisdissent,heobserved, Untilnow,I 0  wouldhavethoughttheCourtmighthavelimitedApprendisothatitsunderlyingprinciple   wouldnotundosentencingreformefforts.Todayscasedispelsthatillusion.K4 %  22      ׀TheCourts 0  opinion,JusticeBreyerconcluded,would ataminimum...set[]asidenumerousstate  effortsinthatdirection.PerhapstheCourtwilldistinguishtheFederalSentencing 0 Guidelines,butIamuncertainhow.L %  23      ׀Asaresult,thoughtJusticeBreyer,  8  thiscaseaffectstensofthousandsofcriminalprosecutions,includingfederal 0 prosecutions.Federalprosecutorswillproceedwiththoseprosecutionssubject 0 totheriskthatalldefendantsinthosecaseswillhavetobesentenced,perhaps 0 tried,anew.ML  %  24      0       ItisabundantlyclearthattherecanbenoreasonableargumentmadethattheCourts 0 decisioninBlakelydoesnotapplytothefederalsentencingguidelines.Iwouldaskthecourt ! tofaithfullyfollowthelogicandprincipleoftheSupremeCourt,andsincethisisitsmost 0 # recentpronouncementifitscontrarytoeitherearlierFifthCircuitdecisionsorSupremeCourt  decisions,thiscourtmustfollowitinpreferencetothoseearlierstatements. 0 3.0  Objections(#(#   PursuanttoUSSG2K2.1(a)(5),thebaseoffenselevelinthiscaseiseighteen(18).I %  25      ׀ 0  Thereisnoargumentthatthebaseoffenseleveldoesnotapplybecausetheindictment   specificallychargedMs.Chewningwithviolationsof26U.S.C.5845(a)&(f),5812, 0   5861(d)&(e),&5871andshepledguiltytotheindictmentandstipulatedtothosefactsin   thefactualresume.Noristhereanargumentthattwo(2)additionallevelsshouldnotbe 0  addedpursuanttoUSSG2K2.1(b)(3)JT %  26      ׀becauseadestructivedeviceisdefinedin26   U.S.C.5485(f)intheindictmentandMs.Chewningpledguiltytotheindictmentand 0  stipulatedtothatfactinthefactualresume.Accordingly,Ms.Chewningadjustedoffense  levelistwenty(20)andpursuanttoBlakelyv.Washingtonthatoffenselevelprovidesthe 0 relevantstatutorymaximumof3341monthsbaseduponaCriminalHistoryCategoryofI.  AnysentenceabovethisstatutorymaximumviolatesMs.ChewningsSixthAmendment 0 rights.    3.10 ` 0 ` (#` (#ObjectionOne0 (# (#   Onpagenine(9),paragraphfortyfour(44)ofthePSRitsetsforthatwo(2)level   upwardadjustmentpursuanttoUSSG3B1.1(c)forMs.Chewningsroleintheoffense. 0" SpecificallythePSRstates, Thedefendantwastheprimarycontactpersoninthisoffense. $ Itwasthedefendantwhoarrangedthemajorityofthetransactionswiththeweapons.She 0!& initiatedmostofthetelephonecallstotheCSandwouldarrangethetimeandlocationfor "( theexchange.Therefore,sheservedasanorganizerofthecriminalactivity,and2levelsare 0$* added,pursuanttoUSSG3B1.1(c). %!,   Ms.Chewningobjectstothistwo(2)levelenhancementpursuanttoBlakelyv. 0'". Washington.Ms.Chewningwasnotprovidedwithnoticeofthispotentialenhancementin  theindictment,nordidajuryfindthisfactbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordidsheadmitto 0 thesefactsinherpleaofguilty.Accordingly,thistwolevelenhancementincreasedMs.  Chewningsrelevantstatutorymaximumof3341monthswhichneithertheSixth 0  AmendmentorBlakelyallows.     3.20 ` 0 ` (#` (#ObjectionTwo0   (# (#   Onpagenine(9)paragraphfortytwo(42)ofthePresentenceReport,Ms.Chewning   receivesatwo(2)levelenhancementpursuanttoUSSG2K2.1(b)(4)duetotheallegation 0  thatthehandgrenadehadbeenstolen. %  27      ׀TheonlyallegationinthePresentenceReportis   that, ThehandgrenadehadbeenstolenfromtheU.S.military.Therefore,2levelsare 0  added.OT %  28          Again,Ms.Chewningobjectstothistwo(2)levelenhancementpursuanttoBlakely 0 v.Washington.Ms.Chewningwasnotprovidedwithnoticeofthispotentialenhancement  intheindictment,nordidajuryfindthisfactbeyondareasonabledoubt,nordidsheadmit 0 tothesefactsinherpleaofguilty.Accordingly,thistwolevelenhancementincreasedMs.  Chewningsrelevantstatutorymaximumof3341monthswhichneithertheSixth 0 AmendmentorBlakelyallows.   4.0  RevisedSentencingGuidelineRange0"(#(#   PursuanttothesesupplementalobjectionsunderBlakelyv.Washington,Ms. $ Chewningsnewguidelinerangeshouldbecalculatedasfollows: 0!&  '#- Ї  BaseOffenseLevel0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#USSG2K2.1(a)(5)0 (#(#0x (# (#18x(#x(#   DestructiveDevice0  0h(#(#0h(#h(#USSG2K2.1(b)(3)0 (#(#0x (# (#+2x(#x(#    ` OffenseLevel0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#0p(#p(#0 (#(#0x (# (#20x(#x(#   AcceptanceofResponsibility0  USSG3E1.1(a)&(b)0 (#(#0x (# (#3x(#x(#    ` OffenseLevel0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#0p(#p(#0 (#(#0x (# (#17x(#x(#   DownwardDepartureMotion0  USSG5K1.10(#(#0 (#(#0x (# (#2 x(#x(# Q   ` TotalOffenseLevel0 h 0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#0p(#p(#0 (#(#0x (# (#15 x(#x(# Withatotaloffenseleveloffifteen(15)andaCriminalHistoryCategoryofI,Ms. 0  Chewningsappropriateguidelinerangeiseighteen(18)totwentyfour(24)months.     Respectfullysubmittedthis1stdayofJuly,2004. 0     `     h     IRAR.KIRKENDOLL      `     h     FederalPublicDefender      `     h     _______________________________     `     h     JASOND.HAWKINS     `     h     AssistantFederalPublicDefender     `     h     FederalPublicDefendersOffice     `     h     525GriffinStreet,Suite629     `     h     Dallas,Texas75202     `     h     214.767.2746     `     h     214.767.2886facsimile     `     h     4  O  5  Jason_Hawkins@fd.org6\O\  7 6&]     `     h     TexasBarNo.00795763  yW@CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE    I,JasonD.Hawkins,herebycertifythatonJuly1,2004,acopyoftheforegoing 0  motionwashanddeliveredtotheUnitedStatesAttorneysOffice,attentionMikeGill,at !  1100CommerceStreet,3rdFloor,Dallas,Texas,75202andtotheUnitedStatesProbation 0#" Office,attentionJulianaMoore,1100CommerceStreet,13thFloor,Dallas,Texas75202. $ $    `     h     _______________________________ '#(    `     h     JASOND.HAWKINS ($)    `     h     AssistantFederalPublicDefender