Case Information
*1 Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant Harry Becker appeals his convictions and consecutive 90-month sentences for (1) conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 846; (2) distributing and aiding *2 and abetting the distribution of heroin, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C); (3) obtaining and aiding and abetting the obtaining and attempt to obtain heroin by an inmate in federal prison, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1791(a)(2), (b)(1); and (4) providing and aiding and abetting the providing of heroin to an inmate in federal рrison, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2; 1791(a)(1), (b)(1), and (d)(1)(C). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Becker first argues that the government violated due рrocess by engaging in outrageous conduct that resulted in his criminal offenses because the government allowed Eric Jones, an inmate in the federal prison where Becker was housed, to run an illegal prison gambling oрeration while assisting the government with its investigation of drug trafficking inside the prison. Becker filed a motion to [1]
dismiss his indictment based on the government’s outrageous conduct, which the district court denied.
We review de novo “[w]hether facts show misconduct so outrageous that it
bars prosecution” by “looking at the totality of the circumstances.” Unitеd States
v. Edenfield,
In this case, the government’s conduct falls far short of the extremely outrageous аnd shocking conduct necessary to establish a due process violation. The government allowed Jonеs to continue his gambling operation and authorized Jones to purchase drugs and record his drug transactions in prison. Becker asked Jones if Jones wanted to buy heroin; Jones replied that he did want to buy heroin using stamps as сurrency for the purchase. Becker and Jones completed the transaction. Jones then gave the purchased heroin and recordings of his conversations with Becker to the FBI.
By permitting Jones to continue his bookmaking, the government allowed
him to maintain his interaction with other prisoners and to have the financial
mеans to complete a drug transaction. See United States v. Ofshe,
Becker next argues that his consecutive 90-month sentences are unreasonable because the quantity of heroin that he sold to Jones, 0.12 grams, was so small. Bеcker contends that, even though his sentence was 82 months below the lowest point of his Guideline range, his sentence was still too high because, in other drug offense cases, we have affirmed sentences that imposed a term of imprisonment that was less than half of the lowest point of the defendant’s Guideline range.
We review a sentence imposed under an advisory Guidelines system for
reasonableness in the light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Unitеd
States v. Winingear,
Here, the district court imposed reasonable sentences after considering the section 3553(a) factors. Becker’s base offense level of 26 was increased to 34 because Becker was a career offender. With a criminal history сategory of VI and an offense level of 34, Becker’s Guideline imprisonment range was 262 to 327 months. The district court аcknowledged that Becker’s status as a career offender [2]
substantially increased his sentence; and thе court explained that Becker’s Guideline range went beyond the sentencing objectives set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. For that rеason, the district court sentenced Becker to two consecutive 90- month sentences, which was well below the lowest point of his Guideline range. Nothing in the record convinces us that Becker’s sentences were unreasonable in the light of the section 3553(a) factors.
*6 AFFIRMED.
Notes
[1] Jones acted as a “bookie” in prison; he accepted bets placed by other prisoners who used postal stamps as their currency. Prison officials disсovered Jones’s gambling operation; and they confiscated the stamps in his possession. Jones later аgreed to cooperate with an investigation run by the FBI into drug trafficking at the prison in exchange for authorization to resume his bookmaking activity.
[2] On appeal Becker does not challenge the district court’s calculation of his Guideline imprisonment range.