T he Hon. C ur t i s L. C ol l i er , C hi efU ni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Judg e f or t he East er n Di st r i ct of T ennesse e, * s i tti n g b y d e s i g n a ti o n .

NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0046n .06 Fi led : Jan uar

y 15, 2008 06- 2457 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t,
v. JAHMAL W HIT FIELD, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE EASTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: D AU GH TREY and CO LE, Ci rc uitJu dg es; C OLLIE R, D is tr ict J udg e. *
PER CURIAM. T he d efend ant , Jahm al W hitf ield, w as i n d ic t e d on three co unt s: bei ng a felon in poss ess ion of a fire ar m in v iol ati on of 18 U .S.C . § 922( g )( 1) , pos ses si on w it h intentto dis tr ibu te marijua na in v iol ati on of 21 U .S.C . § 841( a) (1 ), and poss ess ion of coc ain e bas e in v iol ati on of 21 U.S .C . § 844( a)

. Mo ments before h is tr ial beg an and after the j ur y had been s e a te d , th e d e fendant made a pro se moti on for new co unsel arg uin g that his appoi nted couns el w as unprepared. The cour t den ied the moti on. After the g ov er nment rest ed, the d efendant ag ain address ed th e c our t, re q uest ing thathe b e all ow ed to tel ephone a w it ness w ho had not s how n up. The jud g e decli ned to inter ru pt t he p ro ce e d in gs. T h e ju ry su b se que n tl y co n vict e d W h itf ie ld on al l th re e co u n ts . At s e n te n cin g,06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 2 - th e di st ric t c o u rtca lcu la te d th e guid e lin e s ra n ge a t 2 4 t o 30 m o n th s b u t reje ct e d th is ra n ge as inad equate , base d on conside ration of the ot her facto rs listed in 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53(a ). Ins tead, the cour

t s entenc ed th e defendant to 60 months on eac h of coun ts one and two, t o b e se rve d co n c u rr e n t ly, a n d 1 2 m o n t h s o n c o u n tt h re e , a ls o t o b e se rve d co n c u rr e n t ly. The defendant no w

appeal s h is co nv icti on, cont endi ng , firs t, that the dis tr ict cour t abu sed its discretion b y

den y ing his mo tion fo r new coun sel and by den y ing his request to secure his w it ness . He als o appea ls hi s s entenc e, arg uin g that the cour t v iol ated Fede ra l Rul e of Cr iminal Procedu re 32( h) by fail ing to g iv e the defendant noti ce that the c our t w as cont em platin g an u pward v arian c e a nd, secon d, th at his sen ten ce is substa ntively unreason abl e. For

the re asons se t outbel ow , w e aff ir m the c onv icti ons but, based on t he dis tr ict c our

t’ s n oncompl ian ce w it h R ule 32( h) , w e v acat e the d e f endant’ s s entenc e and re mand for a new

se ntenc ing hear ing

. I. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
The dr ug -t ra ff ic ki ng cha rge s in thi s c ase arose from the sei z ure of cont ra band dur ing the ex ecut ion of

a search w ar ra nt atthe Det ro itresi dence w here the defendant w as li v ing w it h a w oman named Ang ela Johns on. Among othe r it ems s eiz ed by pol ic e i n the ki tch en of t he apar

tment w ere a film cont ain er w it h 3.9 g ra ms of c oca in e ba se , a l arg er pla sti c b ag g ie cont ain ing l oose marijua na, 1 3 s mall e r b a ggi es cont ain ing amounts of marijua na th at ap peared to be p ack ag ed for re -s ale ( for a total w eig ht of 26.51 grams of marijua na) , and a di g it al sc ale

. The pol ic e al so re cov ered $557 i n c ash from a nig ht s tand06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 3 - in the b edroom w here W hitfield and Johns on w ere found , a l oaded . 25 c ali ber handg un und er a couch cushion in the liv ing room , and a Martin rifle prop ped up against a wa ll in the d ini ng room. W hitfield w as ind icted a nd th e case w ent t o tr ial

. Mi nutes before tr ial beg an, t he defendant i nformed t he c our t t hat he no lon g er w anted to be re present ed by hi s “ present coun sel,” citing “dif

f iculties” between th e tw o a n d “ fa il ure to co mm unica te over the last coup le of

mon ths.” T he d istrict judge asked whethe r W hitf ield ha d “ano the r lawy er here

. . . to s tep i n and tak e hi s p lac e,” to w hic h the defendant re spond ed i n the neg ati v e. The c r ux o f t he c om pl ai nt ap pe ared to be th at th e l awy er “ ha [d ] no t g oti n to uc h w i th a ny o f my
w it ness es or

anythi ng of that nature.” The dis tr ict j udg e c oncl uded t hat t he defendant w as “s tal li ng ” a n d d e n i e d re l i e f, a ft e r re v i e w i n g tw o l e t t e rs t h a t t h e d e fe n d a n t h a d s e n t t o the court at some p o i n tp r i o r t o t r i a l a n d d e t e r mi n i n g t h a ti n n e i t h e r l e t t e r d i d t h e d e fe n d ant menti on di ss ati sfacti on w it h hi s a ttor ney or a req uestt o r e p lace hi s a ttor ney . The defe n d a n t as ser

ted t hat s omethi ng had been s aid dur ing a he ar ing three day s e ar li er b e fo re th e m a gist ra te ju d ge a b o u t h is d iss a ti sfa ct io n w it h h is la wy e r, b u t th e di st ric t ju d ge poi nted out t hat W hitfield had appeared i n hi s c our t on sev eral occ asi ons and had not raised th e issue, causing the jud ge to conclud e tha t the d e f e n d a n t ’s lastminu te request
w as onl y for o ne pur pose, i. e. , “to dela y the pro ceed ings.”
After the g ov er nment re ste d it s cas e, the dis tr ict jud g e inq uired w hether the defendant woul d be present ing any proof a nd lea rn ed that alt houg h W hitfield propose d to06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 4 - cal l Ang ela Jo hnson as a w it ness , she had not been subpoena ed and w as not p re sentand av ail abl e to tes ti fy. The de fendant as ked to be al low ed to co ntact her by tel eph one, but
w hen t he judg e asked about his pur pose in cal li ng her as a w it ness , t he defendant re pli ed, “B ecaus e i t ’ s h e r

h o u s e , y o u r

H o n o r , a n d t h i s i s w h e re t h e i n c i d e n to c c u r re d a t

. ” The record is othe rw ise devoid of any i ndica tion a bou t the natu re or substa nce o f John son’s prop osed testim ony. Af ter f urthe r discussion con cerning Jo hnso n’s abse nce, t he d istrict judge orde red the resum ption of trial w ithou t ma king an explici t ruling on th e de fend ant ’s re q uestto tel ephone Johns on. T he d efend anttestif ied in his own de fense , adm itting th at th e ma rijuana and crack coc ain e w ere hi s b ut de ny ing tha t h e w as inv olv ed i n s ell ing the dr ug s, cl aimi ng i nst ead that they w ere there sol ely

for his personal use. He al so maint ain ed that the guns w ere not his , t hat h e had nev er

se en th e r ifle before a nd had no i dea w here i t c ame from, and t hat the pistol w as Angela Jo hnso n’s. T h e j u ry conclud ed o the rw ise and convicted W hitf ield on al l three c ounts of the i ndi ctment

. At the sente ncing hea ring, neith er side objecte d to the prese nte nce rep ort, in w hich the d efendant’ s o ffense lev el w as cal cul ated at 15 and his cr imi nal his tor y at III , resul ti ng in a g uid eli nes ra ng e of 24- 30 mo n th s fo r co unts one and tw o and not more tha n 12 months for c ount three. The repor t di d notrecommend a v ar ian ce. W hitfield ’s att or ney a sk e d th e co u rtto se n te n ce atth e lo w e n d of th e ran ge. In res p o n se , t h e ju d ge announc ed th at “ for th e reason s t hat w il l be s tated i n a w ri tten Opi nio n tha t w il l be i ss ued06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 5 - this afterno on, ” he had co nclud ed th at th e guideline s “are inade quate for sente ncing in this cas e.” The cour

t then oral ly

imposed a s entenc e of 60 mont hs on eac h of coun ts one and tw o, t o be ser

v ed c oncur re ntl y , and 12 months on c ount three, a ls o to be s er v ed co n c u r re n t l y , t h re e y e a rs o f s u p e r v i s e d re l e a s e , a n d a s p e c i a l a s s e s s me n to f $ 2 2 5 , and re commended dr ug testi ng and/or treatment “ at t he di sc re ti on and direct ion of the U nit ed Stat es Probati on D epar tment. ” After

i mposi ng the sent ence the j udg e reit erated that he
w oul d iss ue a w ri tten opi nio n that af ter noon “w it h resp ectto w hy the Cou rti s d ev iat ing from the a dv is or

y se ntenc ing g uid eli nes” and ask ed, “ Is there anythi ng furth e r e it h e r coun sel
w is h to pla ce on th e record i n t h is m a tter?” D efense c ounse l re spond ed, “ Jus t for the re cord, y our

H onor , w e w oul d obj ectto the C our t ex ceedi ng the g uid eli nes in thi s c ase. ”
In the w ri tten opi nio n tha t foll ow ed th e hear ing , the d is tr ict c our t offered s ev eral reaso ns for the u pward v a ria nce: the de fend ant ’s beha v ior througho ut th e proce edin gs, includin g his “challenging” of h is attorne y and the cou rt , a nd th e de fend ant ’s incredible tes tim o n y ; t he fact that, g iv en th e proof in the record, t he defendant coul d hav e been charged wi th po ssession of a f irearm in f urthe rance o f a d rug-traf

f icking crime, w hich w ould hav e c ar ri ed a mini mum fiv e y ear sent ence, and w it h the pos ses si on of the w eapons i n the house ; t he defendant’ s “ cl ear patt er n of di srespect for the l aw hi s e nti re adul t l ife” as ref lected b y

h is th ree prior felon y

co nvictions, his arrest on f iv e add itiona l ch arges fo r w hich no d isposition w as sho w n in the presen ten ce repo rt, his multip le traf f ic citations “for failure to com ply w ith the law ,” and his child supp ort arrearage of ov er $23 ,00 0; th e de fend ant ’s re peated vi ola ti on of probati on; a nd th e fact that none of hi s rela ti v ely l ig ht prev iou s06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 6 - sent ences dete rred hi m from c ommitt ing cr imes ag ain

. Fi nal ly , the dis tr ict cour t c it ed th e nee d to pro tect th e pu blic f rom th e de fend ant , w hom the district judge de sc ri b e d a s a “c areer cr imi nal ,” ev en th oug h W hitfield w as not i ndi cte d as su ch.
II. D ISC US SION
A . Req uestfor

Su bst it ut e C ou nsel
W hitf ield con ten ds tha t his conviction shou ld be rev ersed beca use th e district court ref used to cont inue the trial in order to a llow him to obta in the serv ices of ano the r counse l. The cour t obv iou sl y coul d hav e condu cte d a more searchi ng inq uir y of W hitfield ’s att or ney before d eny ing t h e d e f e ndant’ s mot ion

. How ev er , i n v iew of the u nti meli ness of the defendant’ s req uestand the d is tr ict c our t’ s b ro ad dis creti on in thi s area, w e c oncl ude t hat no Si xth A mendment v iol ati on oc cur re d i n thi s i nst ance. Al thoug h an ess enti al ele ment of the ri g ht t o as si sta nce of couns el is the r ight to couns el of one’s choic e, that ri g ht is not abso lut e. See United S tates v. Mooney

ham , 473 F. 3d 280, 291 (6 th C ir . 200 7)

. “A n i ndi g ent d efendant has no r ig ht t o hav e a p arti cular attor ney representhi m and t herefore must de monstrate g ood c ause to w ar ra nt s ubst it uti on of coun sel.” Id. ( intern al quotat ions an d citatio n om itted ). Moreover, w e rev iew a district court’s de cision de nying a d efend ant ’s m otion for su bstitu tion o f coun sel or an att orne y ’s moti on to w it hdraw

for a buse of dis creti on onl y . See United State s v. Cham bers , 441 F .3d 4 3 8 , 4 4 6 (6 t h Ci r. 2 0 0 6 ). In d e c id in g wh e t h e r a d is t ri c tco u rth a s a b u s e d it s d is c re t io n , we06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 7 - “mus t c onsi der

the ti meli ness o f

the moti on; t he adeq uacy of the c our

t’ s i nq uir y i nto t he defend ant ’s comp laint; a nd whethe r the con f lict betwee n t h e atto rney and client was so g re at t hat i t resul ted i n a t otal l ack of communi cat ion prev enti ng an a deq uate defense.” Mo oneyh am , 473 F .3d a t 291 ( in te rnal q uotat ion s a nd c it ati on omi tted)

. “I n addi ti on, consid eratio n of

such m otion s requires a bala ncing of the accuse d’s rig ht to counse l of his c ho i c e an d th e pu bl i c ’ s i nt eres t i n th e prom pt an d effi c i en t ad mi ni s trat i on of j us ti ce.” Id. (i nte rnal q uotat ion s a nd c it ati on omi tted)

. Mo re ov er , t he Sup re me C our t has hel d tha t

“ [ t ] r i a l j u d g e s n e c e s s a r i l y re q u i re a g re a td e a l o f l a t i t u d e i n s c h e d u l i n g tr ial s. . . . Conse quently, broad d iscretion m ust be g rante d trial courts on m atte rs of contin uan ces; o n l y a n u n re a soni n g a n d a r b i t ra r y i n s i s t e n c e u p o n e x p e d i t i o u s n e s s i n t h e fa c e o f a justif iable requestfor delay v iolate s the right to the assistan c e o f c o u n s el.” Morris v. Sl appy, 461 U.S. 1, 11 -12 (198 3)(interna l quotat ions and citatio n om itted ). As one circuit court ha s interpret ed th is holding, w hen “the gra n t in g of the de fend ant ’s req uestw ould almos t c ertai nly

nec ess it ate a last -mi nute cont inu ance, the tr ial j udg e’s acti ons are ent it led to extraordina ry

deferen ce.” United

State s v. Pierce , 60 F. 3d 886, 891 (1 st Ci r. 1995)

. Taki ng the Mo oneyh amfa ctors i nto a cc ount, w e c oncl ude t hat t he deni al of W hitf ield’s mo tion was not an abu se of the district court’s broa d discretion . Th e time liness of the moti on obv iou sl y w eig hs ag ain st the defendant. Ev en assumi ng that the defendant ra is ed th e i ss ue before the mag is trate jud g e, that ev ent came onl y three day s b efore t ri al and, there fore, als o oc cur re d l ate i n the proceed ing s. See United State s v. Trujil

lo , 376 F. 3d 593, 606- 07 ( 6th C ir . 200 4) ( three day s b efore t ri al hel d untimel y ). Mo re ov er , as th e06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 8 - dis tr ict c our

t not ed, W hitfield had sev eral chanc es to ra is e the is sue in the p er iod l eadi ng up to tr ial

. The one fact or

thatw eig hs in the d efendant’ s fav or is the adeq uacy

– or , as here, the app aren t inad equacy – of the district cou rt’s inq uiry into the substa nce o f

defend ant ’s compl ain t, but i t non ethel ess fail s t o ti p the sc ale s i n hi s f a vor. The reason for req uir ing such a n i n qu iry i s to giv e the defend antthe op portu nity to explain the basis for his dis sat is facti on w it h counsel and to es tabl is h g ood c ause for th e appoi ntment of subs ti tute couns el. See United S tates v. Je nni ngs , 945 F.2d 129, 132 (6 th C ir . 199 1) ( re mandin g “ for the purpo se of

allow ing the district court to p erson ally inquire fr o m e a c h defend anthis re asons for d is sat is facti on w it h c ounse l” ). H ere, t he defendant w as g iv en th at op por tuni ty – the judge inv ited h im, twice, to express his c o mp laint. T he jud ge also app ropriate ly ask ed th e defense attor ney to re spond to W hitfield ’s ac cus ati ons. See Chambers , 441 F. 3d at447 (h old ing di str ict co u rt ’s inq uir y adeq uate w here defendant w as g iv en oppor tuni ty to ex pla in all eg ed c onfli ct and c ounse l “w as als o g iv en an oppor tuni ty to re spond and gave a det ail ed ex pla nati on of the his tor y of his represent ati on” of the defend ant ). U nfortun ate ly , coun sel’s e x plan ation was less th an d eta iled, an d the court’s inq uir y of him w as les s t han searchi ng . Nev erthel ess , couns el did as sure the j udg e tha t he had spok en w it h his cl ien t on more than one occ asi on and that they had “[ g one] ov er everything.” He also implied thathis client w as try ing to s t a ll wh e n he expressed his f rustration thatW hitf ield “doe sn’t w antto take a plea. But he d oesn ’t wa n t to go to trial. So I really don ’t know w here he is comin g f rom. ” Hence , it w as no t w holly unre ason able06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 9 - for the jud ge, arme d w ith the informa tion h e ha d gathe red at th is p o in ta n d with a jury already se ated, to conc lud e tha t t he defendant w as si mply tr y ing to del ay

tr ial

. The la st factor , t he “ act ual extent of the c onflict betw een t he defendant and coun sel,” Chambers , 441 F .3d at 447, is di ff ic ultto ev alu ate o n thi s record g iv en th e super fici ali ty of the inq uir

y conduct ed bythe di str ict c our t. W e c annot say , how ev er , t hat itw as unreason abl e for the d is tr ict c our t t o c oncl ude t hat t he attor ney ’s assurance that he had “ [g one] ov er

ev er ythi ng ” w it h hi s c li ent i ndicated thatco mmunic ati on had not compl etel y

broken dow n. See Un ite d S ta te s v. W il lia ms , 176 F .3d 3 01, 314 (6 th Ci r. 1999) (n o abus e of di sc re ti on w here “ the d is tr ict c our t was not s ati sfied that communi cat ion had trulybroken down, only tha t the re w as som e lack of und erstan ding or lack of conf iden ce betw een [ the c li ent] and his lawy er”)

. Y es, the inq uir y int o the si tuati on coul d hav e been cond ucte d mo re throu ghly . But, after consid ering all the facto rs togeth er, w e f ind no abu se of dis creti on i n the di str ict c our t’ s d eter minat ion thatthe acc used’ s i nv ocat ion of his r ig ht to c ounse l of choi ce w as outw eig hed b y t he publ ic ’s i nteresti n prompt and eff ic ien t admini strati on of j ust ic e. B. R ig htt o Co mp ul sor y Proces s The defendant c omplai ns on appe al that the d is tr ict c our t v iol ated his r ig ht t o com pulso ry

process i n failing to g rant a co ntinu ance so thathe cou ld produ ce Angela Johns on as a w it ness at tr ial . The re cord show s c oncl usi v ely , howev er , t hat t he defendant did not make a moti on for a c onti nuanc e and, i ndeed, had ne ver is sued a s ubpoena for06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 10 - Johns on, i nst ead rely ing on h er to appear

v olun ta ril y . Ev en i f w e w ere to int er pret t he defendant’ s re q uest that he be all ow ed to cont act Johns on by tel ephone as the funct ion al eq uiv ale nt of a mot ion for a co nti nuanc e, w e c o u ld n ot s ay thatthe dis tr ict c our

t abu sed it s d is creti on i n fail ing to int er ru pt t he tr ial on t he basi s of t he meag er infor mati on s uppl ied by the defense w it h reg ard to Johns on’ s a v ail abi li ty and the subs tanc e of her propose d t e s t im o n y. W e h av e fo c u s e d o n s e v e ra l fa c t o rs w h e n re v i e w i n g a d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f a mo tion to contin ue in ord er to ob tain a w itness, including “th e diligence of the de fense in interview ing w itne sses an d procu ring the ir presence , the proba bility of procuring their tes ti mony w it hin a re asona ble ti me, the spec ific ity w it h w hic h the defense is ab le to describe thei r e xp e cted knowl edge or test imo ny, the degree to w hich th e test imo ny is ex pect ed to be fav orabl e to the a cc used, an d t h e u n iqu e or cu mulat iv e nat ure of the testim ony.” Bennett v

. Scro ggy, 793 F.2d 772 , 774 ( 6th C ir . 198 6) (i nter nal q uotat ion s a nd ci tati ons omitted)

. W e hav e further noted that “[ t]here are no mechani cal tes ts for dec idi ng w hen a den ial of a cont inua nce is so arbitrary as to violate du e proce ss. Th e an sw er mu st be found i n the ci rc umstan ces presenti n ev er y case, par

ti cul ar ly i n the reason s p re sent ed to the trial judge at the time th e request is den ied.” Id. Ad dit ion all y , i n order to prev ail the d e fe n d a n t mu s t s h o w a c t u a l p rejud ic e. See id. I n the ca se of a cont inu ance for th e purp oses o f

locating a w itness, thatmea ns “the m oving party mu st show tha t the w itness
w oul d hav e gi v en subst anti al fav orabl e ev ide nce and that he w as av ail abl e and w il li ng to testif y .” Uni ted S tates

v. F oster , 128 F.3 d 949 , 952 (6t h Cir. 19 97). G iv en th e de fend ant ’s06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 11 - lac k o f dil ig ence in sec ur ing h is witn e ss ’s presenc e and the l ack of an adeq uate ex pla nati on to the dis tr ict cour t w it h re g ard to the rele v ance of her tes ti mony , as w ell as the defendant’ s fai lure to est abl is h actual prejud ic e on appeal , w e find no bas is on w hic h to find th at W hitfield w as deni ed a fair tr ial i n thi s respect.
C. Reasonable Not ice under Rule 32(h)
T he d efend antarg u es tha t his sente nce sh ould be vacated beca use th e district cour t fail ed to g iv e reason abl e not ic e pursuantto Fede ra l Rul e of Cr imi nal Procedu re 32( h) of its intent to impo se an upward v ariance and the g roun ds for doing so. T hatrule provi des:
Before the c our

t may depar t f ro m the appl ic abl e s entenc ing rang e on a g ro und noti denti fied for depar ture ei ther

i n the present enc e r e por t or i n a party’s prehea ring subm ission, th e cou rt mustgi ve t h e parties reaso nab le noti ce that iti s c ontempl ati ng su ch a depar ture. The noti ce must spec ify any g ro und on w hic h the co urt i s c ontempl ati ng a de par ture. Subs ect ion ( h) w as added t o R ule 32 b y amendment i n 2 0 0 2 i n order to codi fy the Supreme C our

t’s holdi ng i n Bur

ns v. United S tates , 501 U .S. 129, 138 ( 1991) , t hat t he g uarantee in Rul e 32 of the defendant’ s r ig ht “ to com m e nt on

. . . matte rs rela ti ng to the app ropriate sente nce” nece ssarily in clude d the rig ht to notice of a court’s inten t to de part upw ard and the g ro unds for s uch a depar ture. W e hav e s ubseq uentl y hel d tha t R ule 32( h) is applicab le noto nly to guideline dep artures (as it w as traditio nally) b ut also to v ariance s. See United S tates

v. C ousi ns , 469 F .3d 5 72, 5 80 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

.06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

I n Un i t e dS t a t e s v . W i lli am s , N o. 03- 3575, 200 4 W L 10 43096 , * 1 ( 6t h Ci r . M ay 6, 200 4) 1 (u n p u b l i s h e d ), a p a n e l o f th i s c o u rt h e l d th a t w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t w a s g iv e n “n o m e a n i n g fu l o p p o rtu n i ty to o b j e c t to a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n a t s e n te n c in g ,” th e f a ilu r e to lo d g e a n o b j e c tio n b a s e d o n R u le 3 2 ( h ) s h o u ld not be consi der ed wai v ed a nd, t her ef or e, t hat pl ai n er ror revi ew r equi r i ng p r oofof act ual pr ej udi ce i s not appr opr i at e. T he W illia m s cour t r easone d t hat t hi s concl usi on i s i m pl i ci t i n Bur ns i t sel f , because i n t hat case, t he Su pr em e C ou r t wa s aw ar e t ha t t he r e wa s no obj ec t i on but non et he l es s di d no t app l y p l ai n er r orr ev i ew . See W illia m s , 2 0 0 4 W L 1 0 4 3 0 9 6 , a t *1 ; see also U ni t ed St at es v. Mat heny , 45 0 F

. 3d 6 33 , 6 37 n . 2 (6 C i r. th 2006) ( not i ng d i scr epancyi n t hi s ci r cui t ’ s and ot herci r cui t s’ case l aw r egar di ng whet herpl ai n er r or orhar m l ess er r or r ev i ew i s appr opr i at e)

. M or eov er , al t hough not ci t ed by t he W illia m s c o u r t, t h e r u le a n n o u n c e d b y th is cour t i n U n ite dS ta te s v . B o s tic , 371 F. 3d 8 65 ( 6t h Ci r . 200 4) , pr ov i des t he d ef i ni t i on o fwhat const i t ut es a
“ m eani ngf ul opp or t uni t y t o ob j ect , ” hol di ng t hat bef or e pl ai n er r or re v i ew i s appr opr i at e, t he d ef endan t m ust hav e r em ai ned si l ent af t er t he di st r i ct j udge speci f i cal l y ask ed f or obj ect i ons f ol l owi ng i m posi t i on ofsent ence. M or eov er , l at er cases hav e m ade cl ear t hat a di st r i ct cour t sa t i sf i es t he B o s tic r u le o n ly b y a s k in g s p e c if ic a lly f or f ur t herobj ect i ons t hat hav e not pr ev i ousl y been r ai sed and t hat gener al quest i ons su ch as “ Any t hi ng f ur t her fo r th e re c o rd ? ” a re n o t s u ff i c i e n t. S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed St at es v. Thom as , 49 8 F

. 3d 33 6, 34 0 (6th C i r. 20 07 ).

- 12 - It is undisp ute d tha t the district court did n ot giv e the defend antreason able notice of its i ntentto impos e an upw ard depar ture and that the p oss ibi li ty w as not reflect ed i n the PSI o r in the partie s’ subm issions. Ind eed , the gov ernm ent conce des th at th e district court erred bu t asserts th at th e cou rt’s nonco mp liance wi th Rule 32 (h) mu st be rev iew ed fo r plain er ro r onl y , g i v e n t h a tt h e d e fe n d a n to bj e c t e d a ts e n t e n c i n g o n l y t o t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t he upw ard depar

ture and not s peci fical ly to a v iol ati on of t he ru le. In cont ra st, the d efendant argues for de n ovo rev iew , w hic h, t o our kn ow le dg e has been appl ied onl y i n an unpubl is hed c ase in thi s c ircui t. Beca u se we c o n cl ude t hat t he defendant is enti tl ed to 1
re li ef under

ei ther st andard of rev iew , w e find it unnec ess ar y to re sol v e thi s i ss ue here and app ly the m ore stringent sta nda rd simply for ea se of ana ly sis.
Pursuantto Fede ral Ru le of Cr imi nal Procedu re 52( b) , “ pla in er ro r that affect s subst ant ial ri gh t s m a y be con sidered ev en th ough it w as no t brought to the cou rt’s atten ti on.” An appel lat e cour t must find “( 1) er ro r, (2 ) that is pl ain , and that( 3) thataffect s06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 13 - subst ant ial rig hts.” United States v. Meeker

, 411 F. 3d 736, 741 (6 th C ircui t, 2005) (c it ing Jo hnson v. U

nited St ates , 52 0 U .S

. 46 1, 4 66
- 67 ( 19 97 ) ) ( i nt er na l q uo ta ti on s omitt ed). Generall y , i n order

to show thatsu bst anti al right s a re adv ersel y affect ed, t he defendant “mustd em onst rate prejud ice as a result of t he e rror.” Id. at74 1 -4 2 (cit in g United S tates
v. Ol ano , 507 U.S. 725 , 734 -35 (199 3)) (i nte rnal quotat ions omitte d). Finally , even w here all three co nditio ns are m et, “an app ellate court ma y then ex ercise its discretion to notice a forfeited e rror, but on ly if (4) the error seriously af fects th e fairness, integrity , or pub lic repu tatio n of

judicial proce edin gs.” Id. at74 1 (cit in g Johns on , 520 U .S. at 46 7) ( int er nal quotat ions om itted ).
Al thoug h c o n c e d i n g p l a i n er ro r, the g ov er nment arg ues that the d efendant has fail ed to es tabl is h preju dic e. To est abl is h preju dic e i n R ule 32( h) ca ses , w e hav e s aid thatthe defend antmustex plain h ow, if g iv en th e op portu nity, he w ould have rebutt ed th e district cour t’ s rati onal e. See Me eker , 411 F .3d a t 742 ( “w here a d efendant ha s had an oppor tuni ty to re v iew the ev ide nce re li ed upon by the dis tr ict c our

t, an ex pla nati on of how the d efendant w as p reju d iced i s req uired” ); but see Cou si ns , 469 F.3d at581 (prejudice pron g of plain error revie w

w as me t w hen the de fend antargued tha t “such no tice w ould hav e per mitt ed hi s c ounse l to ad dress the dis tr ict c our t’ s c oncer ns re g ardin g hi s p ri or cr i mi n a l h i s t o r

y a n d p o t e n t i a l ( o r

l a c kt h e re o f) fo r

re h a b i l i t a t i o n ” )

. I n c h a l l e n g i n g t he subs tanti v e reason abl eness of his se ntenc e, t he defendant has lai d out at lea st some o f the a rg um e n ts that , presumabl y , he w oul d hav e made t o the di str ict c our t i f gi v en th e oppor tuni ty

.06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 14 - T he governme nt no net hele ss argues thatW hitf ield’s s ub s ta nt i v e un rea s on ableness arg ument i s i nsuffici ent t o es tabli sh preju dic e for pur poses of his R ule 32( h) arg ument b e c a u s e “ [ t h e ] d e fe n d a n t d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’ s fa c t u a l fi n d i n g s ; ra t h e r , he arg ues w it h the di str ict c our t’ s a ss ess ment of the impact of thos e findi ng s o n hi s s entenc e.” W e thin k tha t this argume nt begs the q uest ion. Howev er, the purpo se be hind the no tice re q uirement i n R ule 32 (h) is to promote “ focused, adv ersar ial resol uti on of the leg al and factual i ss ues” rele v ant t o s entenc ing so thatthe dis tr ict c our t may ar ri v e at a s entenc e tha t is su ff ic ien t, but n ot g re ater than n e ces sar

y , t o c omply

w it h the pur poses of the s ect ion 3 552( a) factors. See Bur ns , 5 0 1 U

. S

. a t 1 3 7

. H e re , b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c t j u dg e di d not state his reason s in open court, let alo ne d o so afte r gi vin g ade quate p re-hea ring not ice of t h o s e re a s o n s , t h e re w a s n o t–a n d c o u l d n o th a v e b e e n –a “ fo c u s e d a d v e rs ar ial re sol uti on” reg ardin g W h it field ’s se ntenc e. This er ro r w as suffici entl y si g nific ant, in our jud g ment, to ha v e “ ser iou sl y affect [ed] the fai rn ess , i nteg ri ty , or publ icreputat ion of

j udi ci al proceed ing s.” It follo w s that the dis tr ict c our t’ s s entenc ing order

mustbe v acat ed and the ca se rem a n d e d fo r a n e w se n te n cin g he a rin g. D. Su bst ant iv e R easo nab len ess o f th e Sen te nce Beca u se thi s c ase is bei ng remanded, there i s n o reason to anal yz e full y the subs tanti v e reason abl eness of the s entenc e prev iou sl y i mposed by

the di st rict c our

t. How ev er , w e w oul d be re mis s i n fail ing to poi nt out that t he defendant’ s 6 0- month t er m of i n c a rc e ra t i o n re p re s e n t s a 1 0 0 p e rc e n tv a r i a n c e fro m t h e t o p o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e g uid eli ne06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 15 - ra ng e of 24-30 months. W hil e the recentSupreme Cour t opi nio n i n Gal

l v. United S tates , 128 S. C t. 586, 596 (2007) , c all s for the extens ion of a s ig nific ant d eg re e of deferenc e by a revi ewi ng court to the sente ncing dete rmina t io n s o f a district court, tha t opin ion also reaff ir ms t hat i n c ar ry ing out the “ g eneral direct iv e” i n Secti on 3553 (a ) to “ impos e a sent ence suffici ent b ut no t g re ater than nec ess ar

y ,” i f a dist ric t co u rt dec ide s t hat “ an outs ide -g uid eli nes sent ence is w ar ra nted, [i t] must cons ide r the e xtent of the dev iat ion and ensure tha t t he j ust ific ati on i s s uff ic ien tl y co mpell ing to suppo rt the d eg re e of the v ar ian ce. ”
W e f ind trou bling, for example , the district court’s emp hasis on the de fend ant ’s behav ior at tr ial , w hic h the co urt i nter preted as hav ing “ chal len g [ed]” his attor ney and the cour t. W hil e w e are not in a posi ti on to jud g e demeanor of w it ness es in the t ri al cour t, our read ing of

the colloquies b etween W hitf iel d a nd th e district judge w ould indicate thatin attempt ing to protect his ri g ht to couns el of c hoi ce, the defendant may hav e been v ocal but
w as not ru de , di s res pe c tfu l , or u nn ec es s ar i l y

d i s r up ti v e. E q ua l l y

t rou bl i ng i s t he d i s tr i ct court’s con siderat ion of W hitf ield’s pr i or

a r rests for w hich th ere w ere no known disposition s. T he guid e li n e s ’ policy

state me nts ind icate th at in orde r to supp ort an u pward depa rture based on “ pr ior si mil ar adul t condu ct not resul ti ng i n a c ri minal co nv icti on,” there mustbe “reli abl e i nformati on” thatthe condu ct occ ur re d. United States v. Jo nes , 444 F .3d 4 30, 4 34 (5th Cir. 2006 )(citing U.S.S.G . § 4A1 .3(a)). Moreove r, according to at lea st one circuit court, “arrests, stand ing alone, do no t const itute reliable informa tion. ” Id.06-2457

Un ited S tates v . W hit fie ld

- 16 -

III . CO NC LU SION
F or the re aso n s se t outabov e, w e AF FI RM the defendant’ s c onv icti ons but VAC ATE the dis tr ict c our t’ s s entenc ing order

and RE MA ND the cas e for a new se ntenc ing hear ing

.