NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0127n.06 No. 10-3013 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 , v. TY RO NE DU MA S, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

B e fo re : G I L MA

N, GI B B ON S, a

nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. Ty rone Dumas appea ls his sentence of ten months’ imprisonment for vio latin g the c on dit ion s o f h is s up e rv ise d r e le a se . We a ff ir m. I . Dumas plea ded g uilty to c onspiracy to posse ss w ith intent to distribute coca ine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and rec eived 15 months’ imprisonment and 48 months’ supervise d rele ase. Thr ee y e ars int o h is s up e rv ise d r e le a se , Duma s te ste d po sit ive fo r c oc a ine , pr omp tin g the dis tr ic t c ourt to or de r c he mic a l- de pe nd e nc y tr e atme nt. Ei g ht months late r, a ft e r f a ili ngto atte nd

tr e a tme nt s e ssi on s, Dumas ag ain tested positive for c ocaine
.No. 10-3013

United States v. Dum as

- 2 - These tr ansg ressions spawne d a supervised-re lease revoc ation hear ing. At the hear ing, the dis tr ic t c ourt

be g an b y a sk ingDu

ma s g e ne ra l que sti on s abo ut his dr ug us e . Ne ith e r D uma s n or his counsel objected to this questioning . Dumas re adily conce ded to using drug s during his supervised rele ase. When a sked whe ther he wished to admit the violations or to pr o ce ed to hea ring , Dumas admitted the violations. After discussing D umas’s per sonal circ umstances at leng th, the cour t revoke d his supervised
re le a se . It no te d th at it c ou ld s e nte nc e Duma s to a ma ximumof

tw o y e ars of

pr iso n, c a lc ulate d h is g uidelines rang e as f

our to ten months, and an al y zed eac h of the re levant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors. The c ourt then sentenc ed Dumas to ten months’ imprisonment and two y ear s of supervise d
re le a se , a se nte nc e it c ha

ra c te ri zed a s “ su ff ic ie nt b ut n ot gre a te r t

ha n ne c e ssa ry . . . to c omp ly

wi th all the sentenc ing pur

poses of 3553(a ).” Once the cour

t delivere d its sentence, it a s k ed whether “ther e [were ] any

leg al objections . . . not pr eviously raised.” Dumas’s counsel objected to the leng th of the sentenc e, and sug g ested super

vised rele ase in its place . When the court a sked counse l to clarify whether she ob je c te d o n p ro c e dura l or sub sta nti ve g ro un ds , s he re pli e d, “ My ob je c tio n is that [th e se nte nc e ] is substantively

unrea sonable.” Addr es s ing this objec tion, the court fur ther e x plained the appropr iateness of

the sentenc e and the nece ssity of imprisonment.No. 10-3013

United States v. Dum as

- 3 - II.
Dumas now c halleng es his sentenc e on both proc edura l and substantive g rounds . A. Dumas conte nds that th e d i s t ri ct court c ommitt ed proc edura l error in two way s. First, he
argue s th a t th e c ourt

ne g le c te d h is m iti g a tio n a rgume nts tha

t tr e a tme nt w a s p re ferab le to imp ri so nme nt; that he ha d tr ans po rt atio n a nd fi na nc ia l p r o b l e m s ; a

nd that he c omp lie d w iththe te rm s of his rele ase f

or sever al y ear s. Second, he claims that the court violated Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Pr oc e dure 32 .1 (a )( 3) by

qu e sti on inghim wi tho ut inf or min g him of his ri g ht to a he ari ng . B e c a us e Dumas failed to r aise these proce dural objections to the district c ourt, eve n afte r it proper ly invited them, we r eview only

for plain e rror . See U

nited States v. Lalonde , 5 0 9 F. 3 d 7 5 0 , 7 5 7 (6th Cir. 2007). This standard of

revie w poses a pr oblem for Duma s. Altho u gh h e all eg es two er rors, he
ne g le c ts t o a

rgue tha t th e e rr or s “ [ar e ] pla in[, ] . . . af fect [ ] su bs tant ia l r ig hts [,] . . . [and ] se ri ou sly aff ect[] t he fa irness, integ rity , or re putation of judicial proceed i ng s.” Id . at 757–58 (interna l quotation marks and c itation omit ted). B ut ev en i f Du m as had pr operly put forth a plain- err or argument, his claims would stil l fall short. The f irst alleg ed er

ror is no er

ror at all: the district court
c on sid e re d e a c h o f D uma s’ s mi tig atin gargume nts , a nd e ve n c ite d D uma s’ s p ri or c omp lia nc e a s a re a so n for imp os ing a se nte nc e un de r the ma ximum
. An d the se c on d a lle g e d e rr or did no t a dv e rs e lyNo. 10-3013

United States v. Dum as

- 4 - af f e c t h is s u b s ta n ti a l r igh ts . E v e nif

w e a s s u me , w it

h o u t d e c id in g , th a t t

h e d is tr ic t c o urt v io lated Rul e 32 .1 wh e n it

qu e sti on e d Du mas befo re he wa ive d h is r ig ht t o a he ari ng , th e re is n o b a sis to conclude that his admissions aff ecte d his ultimate sentenc e. Dumas ne ver c ontested his druguse, no r c ou ld h e have : he te ste d p os iti ve fo r c oc a ine on thr e e dif fe re nt o c c a sio ns , a

nd he a dmi tte d h is
coca ine use to his probation off icer
. B. Dumas also cla ims that the distric t court c ommitt ed substantive er ror be cause his withing uidelines sentenc e wa s longe r t han necessar y to satisfy

§ 3553(a) ’s sentenc ing pur poses. Reviewing the sentenc e “unde r a de fer ential abuse -of- discretion standa rd f o r r e a sonablene ss,” Lalonde, 509 F.3d at 769 (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted), we disag ree . Dumas receive d a sentence of ten m onths’ imprisonment because he continued to violate the
c on dit ion s o f h is s up e rv ise d r e le a se . In s e nte nc ingDuma s, the cou rt e xten siv e ly e va luate d h is persona l circumstanc es and applied ea ch of the rele vant § 3553(a ) fa ctors. B eca use Dumas c ontinued h i s dru g u s e d es p i t e th e co urt ’s p ri o r l en i en cy , th e c o urt re as o n ab l y v i ew eda s en t en ce t o wa rdth e h i gh
e nd of the g uid e lin e s r ang e a s ne c e ssa ry to ind uc e his c omp lia

nc e wi th the law. We dis c e rn no a bu se of dis c re tio n in

the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s tho ro ug hly re a so ne d a

na ly sis
. III . F or the se re a so ns , w e a ff

ir m.