U.S. v. Rosales

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 120-month term of incarceration on drug distribution charge, even though defendant had argued that Dist. Ct. did not adequately explain its reason for rejecting his contention that he should not be sentenced as career offender. Instant sentence was below applicable guideline for non-career offender, and Dist. Ct. responded to defendant’s counsel’s question as to why it applied career offender guideline by stating that defendant’s criminal conduct justified application of career offender guideline. Moreover, record showed that defendant had engaged over period of years in escalating pattern of drug dealing that warranted application of career offender guideline. Ct. further noted that defendant’s argument was essentially challenge on wisdom of career offender guideline that Dist. Ct. was not required to address.