United States v. Pool

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER CHAD POOL, a/k/a
Christopher C. Poole, a/k/a Cityboy,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-6131
(D.C. No. 5:18-CR-00217-G-1)
(W.D. Okla.)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
**

_________________________________
On March 8, 2019, Defendant pleaded guilty to: (1) possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (2) possession of a
machinegun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o); (3) possession of an unregistered
firearm silencer, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d); (4) possession of an unregistered
firearm made from a rifle, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d); and (5) being a felon in

*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law
of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its
persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
submitted without oral argument.
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

April 2, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 19-6131 Document: 010110328256 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 1

2

possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Thereafter, the United
States Probation Office prepared a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). The
PSR classified Defendant as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and an armed
career criminal under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4. Based on an offense level of 34 and a criminal
history category of VI, the PSR calculated an advisory guideline range of 188 to 235
months’ imprisonment. The district court departed downward pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§.5G1.3 in order to account for the time Defendant spent in official custody that would
not be credited toward the sentence imposed. Following the downward departure,
Defendant’s guideline range was 180 to 223 months’ imprisonment. The district court
then varied upward and sentenced Defendant to 240 months’ imprisonment.
Defendant now appeals and argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
Counsel for Defendant filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw as counsel. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Defendant did not file a response to the
Anders brief. The Government declined to submit a brief. Exercising jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal
as wholly frivolous.
* * *
We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of
discretion and will reverse only if the sentence imposed is “arbitrary, capricious,
whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable.” United States v. DeRusse, 859 F.3d 1232,
1236 (10th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240, 1249 (10th Cir.
2012)). “[I]n many cases there will be a range of possible outcomes the facts and law
Appellate Case: 19-6131 Document: 010110328256 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 2

3

at issue can fairly support; rather than pick and choose among them ourselves, we will
defer to the district court’s judgment so long as it falls within the realm of these
rationally available choices.” Id. (citing United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d 1049,
1053 (10th Cir. 2007)).
Upon review of the record and counsel’s Anders brief, we find there is no non-
frivolous basis for Defendant to argue the district court abused its discretion in varying
upward. The district court explained it varied upward “in recognition of the need to
protect the public from further crimes, and given [Defendant’s] extensive criminal
history, the stockpile of firearms found at his residence and the threats of violence
against law enforcement officers and their families at the time of his initial arrest.”
ROA Vol. 4 at 60. Thus, the variance was based upon the district court’s assessment
of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors including the need to protect the public from further
crimes, Defendant’s criminal history, and the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of the offense and promote respect for the law. We see no basis to reverse
the district court’s reasoned judgment.
* * *
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and this appeal is
DISMISSED.
Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 19-6131 Document: 010110328256 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 3