The Honora ble Wil liam O
. Be rtelsman, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. -1- NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0413n.06 F iled: Jun e 18, 2007 No. 06-1672 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. MARQUA N SHERROD WILS ON, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP PEA L F RO M THE U NI TED STATES DIST RI CT CO UR T F OR THE WEST ERN DISTRIC T OF MICHIG AN

Before: G IBBO NS and McK EAGU E, C ircuit Judges; and BERTE LSMAN, Distric t Judge. * JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , Circuit Judge. De fe nd ant- a pp e lla nt M arq ua n Wil so n a

pp e a ls the district court ’s s entenc e of e ighty -seve n months following his conviction on a c harg e of conspirac y to possess with intent to distribute approximately 3.5 kilogr ams of cocaine in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a )(1) , (b)( 1)(B )(ii), a nd 846. Wil son challeng es his sentenc e on the grounds that the district court e ng ag ed in impermissible judicial fac t-finding and th a t h is s e nte n c e is unr easona ble. F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e se nte nc e of

the dis tr ic t c ourt . I. Wils on ple d guil ty , w ith out a

ple a a g re e me nt, to t

he c ha rg e of c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ith intent to dist ribute appr ox imately 3.5 kilogr ams of coc aine. The sente ncingg uidelines ca lculation,-2-

disputed befor e the district c ourt but not on appea l, r esulted in a final offe nse level of 29, cr iminal his tor y c a te g or y I , and a re c omm e nd e d se nte nc e of 87 -1 08 months . T his c a lc ulatio n r e fl e c te d a ba se offe nse l evel of 32 with a 3-level reduc tion for acce ptance of responsibili ty . At sentenc ing, Wilson
a po log ize d a

nd too k f ull re sp on sib ili ty

fo r h is c ri me and

c la ime d th a t he wa s a c ha ng e d man du e to the re habilitation and counselin g h e h ad undertaken duringhis presente ncingincar cer ation. The dis tr ic t c ourt

imp os e d a

se nte nc e of

87 months
. I I
. Wils on argue s th at “ on c e a dis tr ic t court c ho os e s to us e the Gu ide lin e s, be c a us e that us e mus t still comport with the Six th Amendment, the maximum sent ence is the top end of the Guide line rang e ca lculated solely on the basis of the facts reflecte d in the jury ve rdict or admi t t ed by the defendant .” (A

pp e l l a nt ’ s B r . 1 3 ( i nt e r

na l qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) .) Wils on ’s argume nt i s e xpre ssl y contra dicted by numerous contr olling opinions that have he ld that judicial fac t-finding at sentenc ing is constituti onal, so long as the c ourt appre ciates that the guidelines are advisory , not binding. See United States v. Book

er , 543 U.S. 220, 233 (2005) (“ I f t he Guidelines a s curr ently written could be
rea d as mere ly

advisory provisions that recommended, rather than r equire d, the selec tion of pa rt ic ula r s e nte nc e s in

re sp on se to dif

fe ri ngse ts o f f

a c ts, the ir us e wo uld

no t im pli c a te the Sixth Am e ndme nt . . . .” ); United States v. Gardiner , 4 63 F .3 d 4 45 , 4 61 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. Mick ens , 453 F .3 d 6 68 , 6 73 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 555 ( 6th Cir. 20 06 ); United States v. Coffee , 43 4 F .3 d 8 87 , 8 98 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) ; United States v. Stone , 432 F.3d 651, 654-55 (6th Cir. 2005). As the district c ourt understood that the sentenc ing guidelines provided only a re commendation and that it was fre e to deviate from that recommendation, which W ilson does
n o td i s p u t e , i td i d

n o tv i o l at e W i l s o n ’ s F i f

than d S i x th A m e n dm e n tr i g h t s b y r e l yi n g u p o nj u d i c i a l l y--3-

fo un d f a c ts. III
. Wils on argue s th at hi s se nte nc e is u nr e a so na ble be c a us e he “ do e s not pos e a

da ng e r t o s oc ie ty and has shown himself amena ble to c hang ing his life sty le.” (Appe llant’s Br
. 24.) This c ourt revie ws a sente nce f

or both proce dural a

nd substantive rea sonablene ss. United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 2006). A sentenc e is proce durally rea sonable if the r ecor d demonstrates that the sentenc ing c ourt addre ssed the re levant § 3553(a ) fa ctors in re achingits conclusion, expl aining its reasoningto a sufficie nt deg ree to allow for r easona ble appe l l at e re view. Un ite d S tates v . D e

x ta , 470 F.3d 612, 614-15 (6th Cir. 2006). Her e, in addition to expli citly stating that it had considered all the § 3553(a ) fac tors, the district court c onsidered the char acte r of t h e d ef en d an t and his allocution that he had chang ed, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (1); the se riousness of the of fense , see§ 3553(a) (2)( A); the ne ed to deter c riminal conduct, see§ 3553(a) (2)( B) ; the need to pr otect the public f rom furthe r crimes of the def endant, see § 35 53 (a )( 2) (C ); the ne e d to p ro vid e the de fe nd ant w ithc or re c tio na l tr e a tme nt,
see§ 3553(a) (2)( D); the re commendation o f t h e s entencing guidelines, see§ 3553(a) (4); and the need to a void unwarr anted se ntencingdisparities, see§ 3 55 3( a )( 6) . T he re fo re , th e sen ten ce i s proce durally

rea sonable. Wil son’s sentenc e is also substantively rea sonable. “We g ive a pr operly calc ulated sente nce within the guid el i n es , i n which the district judg e ade quately considere d the § 3553(a ) fa ctors, a ‘re buttable pre sump t i o n o f reasonablene ss.’” United States v. Cruz , 461 F.3d 752, 754 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006) ). A “mer e alleg ation that th e se nte nc e imp os e d is g re ate r t ha n n e c e ssa ry to a c hie ve the g oa ls of punis hme nt o utl ine d in-4-

§ 3553(a) is insuff

icient to r ebut the presumption of re asonable ness.” De x ta , 470 F.3d at 616. The district court consider ed Wilson’s allocution that he had chan ged in light of his conduc t and eve n g ra nte d a thr e e -l e ve l r e du c tio n in

the of fe ns e le ve l f

or his a c c e pta

nc e of re sp on sib ili ty . T he re is nothing in the r ecor d that sug g ests the district co u rt ’s we i g hing of the re levant fa ctors wa s
unrea son ab l e. “The fac t that the district court did not g ive the def endant the e x act se ntence he
so ug ht i s n ot a

c og niza ble ba sis to ap pe a l, part ic ula rl y wh e re the dis tr ic t court fo llo we d the mand a te of § 3553(a ) in all rele vant re spects.” United States v. Jac kson , 466 F.3d 537, 540 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Acc ording ly , the sentenc e is substantively rea sonable. I V. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e se nte nc e of

the dis tr ic t c ourt .