The Honor able John Corbe tt O’ Mear a, United States District Court f or the Ea stern District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0448n.06 F iled: Jun e 26, 2007 No. 06-5262 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. DA RRELL N . W EST , Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE WE STE RN DI S TR IC T O F K

EN TU CKY

BEFORE: M ARTIN and B ATCHELDER, Circuit Jud ges; O’M EARA, Distr ict Judge. * JOHN CORBET T O’MEARA, Distr ict Judge. Def endant Da

rrel l N. W est, who wa s sentenc ed to the 120-month statutory minimum for his cra ck cocaine crimes, challeng es t he district
c ourt ’s se nte nc e on

re mand
. F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. On Oc tob e r 1 0, 20 03 , a

jur y c on vic te d We st o f ( 1) c on sp iracy to po sses s w ithint e nt t o distribute 5 gr ams or more of cr ack c ocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (2) aiding and abe tting possession with intent to di stribute 5 g rams or more of cr ack c ocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a) (1) a nd 18 U.S.C. § 2; and (3) possession of a fire arm duringand in re lation to a drug traff icking offe nse in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (A). T he district cour t sentenc ed W est to 140 months
o f i mp r i s o n m e n to n t h e dr

u g c h a r g e s a n d

6 0 m o n t h s o n t h e g u n c h a r g e , t o b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y.No. 06-5262

Un ite d S tat es v . W est Pag e 2 On appe al, this Court affirm ed W es t ’s conviction but re verse d and re manded f or re sentenc ing in lig ht of United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Upon r e-se ntencing , West asked the district c ourt to se ntence him to 120 months of imprisonment. West also reque sted a downw ard depar ture ba sed upon arguments reg arding his poor upbringing , his rec ent chang e in char acte r, the
su ff ic ie nc y of a le sse r s e nte nc e , a nd that hi s c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or y of I V w a s o ve rs ta te d. Wes t did no t se e k a

do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e ba se d u

po n h is c oo pe ratio n w iththe g ov e rn me nt. The district cour

t denied West’s reque st for a dow nwar d depar ture. Th e co u rt fo u nd an offe nse leve l of 26 and a criminal hi story cate g ory of I V, which r esulted in a Sentenc ing G uidelines rang e of 120 to 150 months. Be cause of a pr ior drug conviction, West was also subject to a te n-y ear statutory minimum sentenc e for his dr ug crimes pursuant to 21 U .S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B ). See also 21 U.S.C. § 851. I n im po sin g the se nte nc e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on sid e re d th e “ a dv iso ry se nte nc ingg uid e lin e s” and the f actor s set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) . The c ourt sentenc ed West to the statutory minimum of 120 months for West’s drug crimes, 20 months lower tha n the orig inal sentenc e. The court re
i mp o s e d t h e 6 0

- m o n t h s e n t e n c e f

o r t h e g u n c o u n t , w h i c h i s n o ta ti s s u e h e r e , t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y. West’s consecutive pr ison sentence s total 180 months. II. West contends that the district court e rre d by failing to t re at t he Sentenc ing G uidelines as
a dv iso ry a nd by fa ili ngto t a ke int o c on sid e ra tio n We st’ s c oo pe ratio n w iththe g ov e rn me nt. Wes t
a c kn ow le dg e s th a t he did

no t r a ise the se iss ue s b e low
. Th e re fo re , th is C ourt re vie ws the m f

or pla in
e rr or . F e d. R. C ri m. P . 5 2( b) . T o e sta bli shpla in e rr or , We st mus t sh ow :No. 06-5262

Un ite d S tat es v . W est Pag e 3 ( 1 ) [E ]r

r o r . ( 2 ) th a t is ‘ p la in ’
. . . a n d ( 3 ) th a t a f f e c ts s u b s ta n ti a l r ig h ts
. I f

all three con d it io n s a r e me t, a n a p p e ll a te c o u rt ma

y th e n e xe r c is e it s d is c r e ti o n to notice a fo rf e ite d e rr or , b ut o nly

if (4 ) t he e rr or se ri ou sly e ff e c ts the fa ir

ne ss, int e g ri ty , or

pu bli c re pu ta tio n o f j ud ic ia l pr oc e e din g s. Johnson v. U

nited States , 520 U.S. 461, 466-467 (1997) (interna l quotations and citations omitted). Despite West’s ar g ument t o the contra ry , the re cord is cle ar that district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as a dvisory and spec ifically ref

err ed to the m a s such. There is no sug g estion in the rec ord that the district cour t wanted to impose a lowe r sentenc e but fe l t const raine d by the Guidelines. The district c ourt noted that it considere d the Guideline r ang e alongwith the other § 3553(a) fac tors. J A at 308-13. The court did not hold the errone ous belief that the G uidelines are mandatory
. See B ooker , 543 U.S. at 245 (holding that the Guidelines a re “e ff ectively advisory ”); United States v. W

ebb, 403 F.3d 373, 381- 83 (6 Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (h o l d i n g that it is “errone ous for a th district court to sentenc e a de fenda nt based on the be lief that the Guide lines are mandatory”). Moreove r, any

such er ror would not have aff

ecte d West’s substantial rights, as the district court sente nced him to the statutory minimum
. See W

ebb, 403 F.3d at 38 2 -8 3 (h olding that treatm ent of Guide lines as mandator y was not plain er

ror whe re “ the re cord c ontains clea r and specific evidenc e that the dist rict court would not have sentence d [t he def endant] to a lower se ntence under a n advisory

Guidelines re g ime”). Absent a g overnme nt motion b as ed upon subst antial assistance , the district court had no authority to sentence below the statutory minimum in this case. 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( e ); Un ite d S tat es v . P e rry , 4 38 F .3 d 6 42 , 6 53 (6 Cir
. 20 06 ). Ac c or din g ly , We st th

c a nn ot s a tis fy

the pla in e rr or

te st w ithre sp e c t to his Booke r claim.No. 06-5262

Un ite d S tat es v . W est Pag e 4 Wes t a lso a rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in fa ili ngto l ow e r his se nte nc e a s a re su lt o f h is
c oo pe ratio n w iththe g ov e rn me nt. At his or ig ina l sen te nc ing , We st r e qu e ste d c on sid e ratio n f or his
c oo pe ratio n. Th e re wa s, ho we ve r, no ple a a g re e me nt b e tw e e n We st a nd the g ov e rn me nt, a s th is c a se proce eded to tria l. Furthe r, the gove rnment was unwilling to file a moti on for downw ard de parture beca use West had g one out of state to c ommit a new cr ime during the time he was suppose d to be cooper ating with the g overnme nt. Be cause there was no motion from the g overnme nt, the district court de clined to consider any cooper ation provided by

West. Upon re -sentenc ing, West did not ask for consideration of his c ooperation. Wit hout a motion from the g overnme nt or a showing by West that the gove rnment re fused to file a m otion for
un c on sti tut ion a l r e a so ns , th e dis tr ic t court ha d no au tho ri ty to de pa rt be low the statut or

y min imum. See P erry, 438 F.3d at 653. The g overnme nt made no such motion, and West makes no c laim that the Unit ed S tates refused to file a motion for an unconstitutional reason. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . M oo re , 22 5 F .3 d 6 37 , 6 41 (6 Cir
. 20 00 ). Th e re fo re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t pl a inl y

e rr by fa ili ngto th

c on sid e r We st’ s c oo pe ratio n w iththe g ov e rn me nt. We AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.