Throug hout the lower c ourt docke t the appellant is ref err ed to alternatively as W ithers and * Wit herson. The Honor able Robert Holmes Be ll, United States District J udg e for the Western District ** of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0786n.06 No. 09-5884 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee , ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE v. ) UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT ) CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN ) DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE AR TH UR

WI TH ERS , )

* ) De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

Be fore : MARTI

N and SI L ER, Circuit J udg es; BE L L , District J udg e. ** SILE R , Ci rc uit J ud g e . D e fe nd ant A rt hur Wi the rs on

ple a de d guil ty

to b e inga

fe lon in possession o f a f

irea rm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). At sentenc ing, the district court applied a two-point

e nh anc e me nt f

or ob str uc tio n o f j us tic e un de r U SSG § 3 C1. 1, ba se d o n a le tte r With e rs on se nt to h is

cou s in to p a y a w it

n e s s to te s ti f

y f a ls e ly a t Wi th e r s o n ’ s s u

p p r e s s io n h e ar in g . T h e d istrict court sentenc ed Witherson to 104 months’ incar cer ation, a sente nce in the middle of the Guidelines ra

ng e. Wit herson c halleng es the obstruc tion of justice enhanc ement and the rea sonablene ss of his sentence

. We AF F IRM

.No. 09-5884

United States v. W

itherson

But see Hudson v. Mic higan , 5 47 U. S. 5 86 , 5 99 (2 00 6) (h old ingthat th e e xclu sio na ry ru le 1 does not apply

to knock and a

nnounce violations).

- 2 - I. I n 2007, the Memphis Police Depa rtment executed a sear ch war rant at a residenc e wher e four individuals were pr esent. I nside, office rs saw Wit herson throw a bagcontaining cra ck and L ortab pills ont o a cof

fee table and r

un toward the re ar w ith a pistol i n his hand. Off icer s rec overe d the pis tol and va ri ou s d ru g ite ms a

nd arr e ste d Withe rs on

on dr ugand fi re arm s c ha

rg e s. Whil e Witherson was in ja il a waiting trial, office rs rec overe d a letter written by

Wit herson to his cousin “Bookie .” I t instructed “B ookie” to g et in touch with “B o Bo,” who was pr esent at the

sear ch wa rra nt execution a

nd was then incar cer ated. I n a section entitled, “What He Ne ed to Say ,” the le t t e r s e t o u t i n d e t a i l h o w B o B o w a s t o t e s t i f y a t W i t h e r s o n ’ s s u

p p r e s s i o n h e ar i n g so tha t a kn oc k a nd ann ounc e vio la tio n w ou ld b e fo un d a nd the c a se dis mis se d. With e rs on ins tr uc te d B oo kie 1 to p ay B o B o a nd to “ [t]hr owhim so me thi ng to ma ke sure he do ri g ht. ” With e rs on wa rn e d B oo kie to “do eve ry

thing slick” and to not alar m Bo B o or “make him fee l threat[ened] in any way .” Wit herson a lso warne d Bookie , “Don’ t let him tape y ou, make sure y ou on another phone! I f y ou reach hi m s om eth in g send a bro ad do n’t let her get fol lo wed .” I n ad di ti on , W it hers on st ate d t hat Bo Bo “ don’t have to worry

about per jury beca use this is all about the warr ant.” With e rs on

ne ve r f ile d a mot ion to s up pr e ss, and

he ple a de d guil ty

to b e inga

fe lon in po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm . At Wit herson’ s sentencing , the district court a ddresse d the obstruct i o n of justice enh ancem ent bas ed o n t he l ett er. I t d ete rm in ed t he t est im on y th at W it hers on was so li cit in g fro m BoNo. 09-5884

United States v. W

itherson

- 3 - Bo was not tru e . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th at t h e tw o - le v e l e n h an c e me n t f o r o b s tr u c ti o nof justice was a

ppropriate

. Despite the a

pplicability of the obstruction of justice enha

nceme nt, the district court g rante d a thre e-le vel re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty . I t also eliminated a four- level enha nceme nt in the p r e s e n te n c e r e p o rt f o r p o s s e s s io no f

th e f ir e ar m i nc o n n e c ti o nw it

h th e a p p ar e n t d r ug distribution. These adjustments resulted in an of fense l ev el o f 23. B ased on c riminal history cate g ory VI , Wit herson’ s Guidelines ra ng e wa s 92 to 115 months. After extensively consideringthe 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (a ) fa ctors and the ir application to W itherson’s ca se, the district cour t sentence d Wit herson to 104 months’ incar cer ation. II. We reviewthe impositi on of an obstruc tion of justice enhanc ement under the s tandar ds from Un ite d S tat es v . B ag

ge tt , 3 4 2 F. 3 d

5 3 6 , 5 4 0 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . Ca me

jo , 333 F.3d 669, 674-75 (6th Cir. 2003)). Adefe ndant’s off ense le vel is increa sed by two levels if: (A) the defe ndant wi l l fully obstructed or

impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administ ration of justice with respe ct to the investig ation, prosec ution, or sent encingof the instant offe nse of c onviction, and (B ) the obstruc tive conduct re la te d to (i ) t

he de fe nd ant’ s off

e ns e of c on vic tio n an d an y re le va nt c on du c t; o r ( ii) a close ly related offe nse. USS G § 3C1 .1 . T he c omm e nta ry ’s “ no n- e xha

us tiv e ” lis t of

e xamp le s o f c ov e re d c on du c t in c lud e s: (a ) thr e a te nin g , int imi datin g , or oth e rw ise un lawf ull y inf lue nc inga co -d e fe nd ant, witness, or juror, dire ctly or indirec tly , or attempting to do so; [ or] (b) c o mm itti n g , s u

b o r n in g , o r a tt e mp ti n g to s u b o r n p e r ju r y , in c lu d in g d

u r in g the c ours e of a c ivi l pr oc e e din g if

su c h p e rj ur

y pe rt a ins to c on du c t th a t f or ms the ba sis of the off ense of conviction.No. 09-5884

United States v. W

itherson

- 4 - USSG § 3C1.1, comment. (n. 4). The obs tr u c ti o n o f ju s ti ce e nhance ment is appropriate when the defe ndant sent letters se eking to influence a witness’s testimony

. See U nited States v. Bingham , 81 F.3d 617, 632 ( 6th Cir. 1996) (u p h o ld in g an e n h an c e me n t w h e r e th e d e f e n d an t s e n t le tt e r s to h is g ir lf r ie n d d ic tating how she sh ou ld t e sti fy

). I t is a lso a

pp ro pr iate wh e n th e de fe nd ant u se d a n in te rm e dia

ry to atte mpt

to influence a witness’s testimony

. S e e U n i t e d S t a t es v . Mo ss , 9 F. 3 d 543, 553-54 (6th Cir. 1993) (upholding an enha

nceme nt where , afte r ar

raig nment, the def

endant a sked a co-conspira tor to offe r another co-c onspirator “ $25,000 in gold c oins to chang e his testimony or to ref use to testify ”). Wit herson’ s letter constituted an attempt to unlawfully influence a witness bec ause he was

a tte mpt ingto h a ve B o B o p a id to tes tif y fa lse ly

. USS G § 3C1. 1, c omm e nt. (n . 4 ). Th e le tte r o n it s fac e indicates that the elicited testimony was not tr ue. Wit nesses do not nee d to be paid to tell the truth; evasive mea sures to avoid detection would only be necessar y if the testimony

was fa lse; and witnesses only

need to wor

ry about per jury when not telling the truth. A compar ison of the events descr ibed in the letter to the events de scribed in the pr esente nce

re po rt , to wh ic h Withe rs on did no t ob je c t, c on fi rm s th a t th e e lic ite d te sti mony wa s fa lse

. De sp ite t h e o b vious falsehood of the proposed testimony , Wit herson c ontended at oral ar g ument that the dis tr ic t c ourt wa s re qu ir e d to ho ld a he ari ng to de te rm ine the ve ra c ity of the e ve nts de sc ri be d in his let t er , p u rsuant to United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 2 20 (2 00 5) . Withe rs on did no t make thi s argument in the district c ourt or in his brie f, and w e dec line to consider it now. See U nited States v. Be nder , 265 F.3d 464, 475 ( 6th Cir. 2001).No. 09-5884

United States v. W

itherson

- 5 - The district cour

t did not err in concluding that Wit herson willfully attempted to obstruct or impede the a dminist ration of justice w ith respec t to the prosecution of his ca se. USSG § 3C1.1; Mo ss , 9 F.3d at 553-54. III

. With e rs on argue s that his se nte nc e is “ un re a so na bly ha rs h a nd un ne c e ssa

ri ly lon g ” be c a

us e the district court fa iled to consider a s miti g ating fac tors (1) his drug addiction’s eff ect on his cr iminal his tor y c a te g or y , ( 2) his e du c a tio na l and c are e r g oa ls, and (3 ) h is c ha

ri ta ble wo rk , c oo pe ratio n w ith the g overnme nt, and family situation. This court re views “a

district court’s sente ncing deter mination, under a defer ential abuse- of-discr etion standard, f or re asonable ness.” United St ates v. Bolds , 51 1 F .3 d 5 68 , 5 78 (6 th Cir. 2007) (interna l quotation marks omitted). “A sente nce is proc edurally rea sonable only

if the district court ‘( 1) properly calc ulated the applicable advisory Guidelines ra

ng e; (2) c onsidered the other § 3553(a ) fa ctors as w ell as the parties’ arg uments for a sentenc e outs ide t he Guidelines r ang e; and (3) adequa

tely articulated i ts rea soning for imposing the pa rticular se ntence chosen, inc luding

any re je c tio n o f t

he pa rt ie s’ argume nts f

o r a n o ut s i de -G uid e lin e s se nte nc e and any de c isi on to d e viate from the a dvisory

Guidelines ra

ng e.’” Uni t ed S t a tes v. Studabake r , 578 F.3d 423, 431 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Bolds , 511 F.3d at 581). “For a se nte nc e to b e su

bs tanti ve ly

re a so na ble , it mus t be pr op or

tio nate to t

he se ri ou sn e ss of the c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he of fe ns e and off

end er, and

su ff ic ie nt b ut n ot gre a te r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry , to comply with the purposes of § 3553( a).” Un ite d S tat es v . V owe ll , 516 F.3d 503, 512 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (citation and in t er n al q uotation marks omitted). A sentenc e within the Guidelines is af forde d aNo. 09-5884

United States v. W

itherson

- 6 - presumption of re asonable ness. Uni ted States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 389 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

. T h e d i s t r i c t c o u rtp r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t e d

t h e a d v i s o r

y G u i d e l i n e s r an g e a s 9 2 t o 1 1 5 m o n t h s . It listened to Wi therson’s arguments conce rning his c ooperation with the gove rnment, his volunteer work, a nd his desire to finish his edu ca t ion and be suc cessf ul in the rap music ar ea. It then pr oc e e de d to e xten siv e ly

ana ly ze t he fa c tor s und e r § 35 53 (a ) a nd ho w t he y a pp lie d s pe c if

ic a lly to With e rs on ’s c a se , c on c lud ingthat a se nte nc e of

10 4 mo nth s w a s a

pp ro pr ia te . I t a de qu a te ly articulated its re as o n i ng for this sentenc e and its re jection of Witherson’s re quest for a sentenc e betwee n 77 and 96 months. Acc ording ly , the sentenc e wa s proce durally rea sonable. Reg ardingthe asser

ted m i tigating f

actor s, the district court took into acc ount Wi therson’s

co o p er at i o n by

g ranting a thre e-le vel re duction for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty even thoug h he obstructed justice. The other “mitigating fac tors” asse rted by Wit herson a

re “ not ordinarily

rele vant in determining whether

a depa rture ma y be wa rra nted.” USSG § 5H1.2 (e ducation and voc ational skil ls ) ; § 5 H 1

. 4 ( a d d ic ti o n ) ; § 5 H 1

. 6 ( f a mi ly r e s p o n s ib il it ie s ) ; § 5 H 1

. 1 1 ( c h ar it a b le s e r v ic e )

. T he district court prope rly addre ssed Wit herson’ s contentions and conclude d that a sente nce w ithin the Guidelines wa s appropr iate. Wit herson has not rebutted the presumption of re asonable ness af forde d to his sentence. AF F IR M ED

.