The Honor able Thoma s M. Rose, United States District Court for the Southern District * of Ohio, 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 File Na me: 10a0733n.06 No. 10-1572 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,

Plaintif f-Appellee

, v.

CARY GRI MM,

Defendant-

Appellant

. )

) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED ) STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF ) MI CHI GAN ) ) )

BEF ORE: GI L MAN and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and Rose, District Judge. * ROSE, Dist ri ct J u d ge. De fe n d an t -A p p el l an tC ary Gr i m m ap p ea l s the sentenc e imposed upon him after r evoking his supervised re lease , asser ting that it is proce durally unrea sonable. B eca use we fi nd that th e sen te nc e wa s n ot i mpo se d in a mann e r t

hat w ou ld c on sti tut e a

pr oc e dura lly

unrea sonable a

buse of discr etion, we disag ree and AF FI RM. I. F ac tu al Bac kgr ound On F e br ua ry 24 , 2 00 3, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt Cary Gr imm ple a de d g uil ty to pos se ssi on wi th intent to dist ribute more tha n 50 g rams of me thamphetamine, in viol ation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1) and (b) (1)( B) . On J une 20, 2003, the district c ourt sentenc ed Grimm to 60 months of imprisonment and five y ear s of supervise d rele ase. G rimm was re lease d from custody and b egan his ter

m of supervised rele ase on October 25, 2007. The ter

ms of his supervised re lease demande d, int e r a lia ,United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

2 that Grimm not commit another fede ral, state, or l ocal c rime and that he not associate with any one eng ag ed in cr iminal a cti vity or convic ted of a

felony unless permitted by

his probation office r. Grimm was also re quired to answe r all inquiries from his pr obation office r truthfully and follow the probation off

icer ’s instructions; and requir ed to notify his probation office r within 72 hours of be ing

arr ested or que stioned by

law enf orce ment. As a spec ial condition of supervised r elea se, Grimm was als o p ro h i b i t edfr o m as s o ci at i n g wi t h an y o n e u s i n g, p o s s es s i n g, o r convicted of possessing controlled substances. Over two y ear s later, on De cembe r 9, 2009, howe ver , Grimm drove a friend a nd known methamphetamine us er t o a convenie nce store to cash a counter feit pay

roll chec k draw n from the

acc ount of a co m p an y

Grimm owned. When the c heck f ailed to clea

r, store e mploy ees c alled the police. Grimm left the scene when the police arr ived. Duringthe investig ation that followed, police found methamphe tamine in the frie nd’s purse, a nd she wa s subsequently convicted of

felony possession of methamphetamine. P o l i c e l a t e r i n t e r

v i e w e d G r i m m a

b o u t t h e p ay

r o l l c h e c k

. G r i m m t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s , f a l s e l y, that the frie nd worke d for him. After war ds, Grimm did not report his contac t with law enfor ceme nt to his probation office r within 72 hours as require d by the terms of his super vised rele ase. I nstead, he be g an c on ta c tin g the pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r w ithfr e qu e nt r e qu e sts to t e rm inate his su pe rv ise d r e le a se

e arl y . G ri mm s ub se qu e ntl y a dmi tte d to hi s pro bation of fi c e r t hat he kn e w the fr ie nd

wa s a

me tha mph e tamin e us e r. Whe n a sk e d w he the r h e ha d u se d me tha mph e tami ne wi th he r, Gr imm replied “ not while on probation.” Howeve r, Grimm later admitted he had twice use d drug s with the friend.United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

3 The ne x t notable eve nt during Grimm’s term of supervised rele ase occur red in January

2010, when his probation officer rec eived a

telephone c all from the Michig an State P olice, who infor med the probation officer

that Grimm was suspected of bank fraud. Grimm had secured a nd defa ulted on a $50,000 loan f

rom Hasting s City Ba

nk, and the Michig an State Police we re inve stigating whether Grimm obtained the loan usingcollater al which did not be long to him. During a subseque nt meeting with his probation o fficer, Gr imm gave a long and conf using e x planation of the circ umstances surr ounding the bank-f raud investigation. I n an eff ort to c larify what had happe ned, the probation officer

direc ted Grimm to repor t back on Ma

rch 8, 2 010, with a written stateme nt de ta ili ngthe c ir c ums tanc e s of the loa n, and re c or ds ve ri fy

ing se ve ra l cla ims he ma de . G ri mm d id not report ba ck on Mar ch 8, 2010, nor did he provide the r equeste d documentation. Me anw hil e , o n F e br

ua ry 5, 20 10 , G ri mm w a s a

rr e ste d f or do me sti c a ssa

ult . A c c or din g to the po lic e re po rt , G ri mm p us he d h is g ir lf ri e nd do wn so me sta ir s and

kic ke d h e r d

ur ingan a rgume nt. Grimm told his probation officer that he and his g irlfriend had been fig hting a lot about money , and that they both assaulted ea ch other the day of the incide nt. On Marc h 30, 2010, the United States Probation Off ice f iled a petition to issue a war rant for Grimm’s arr est based on six alleg ed violations of t he terms and conditions of his supervised r elea se. The petition a lleg ed that Grimm: 1) failed to f ollow the probation office r’s instructions b y faili ng to report to the Probation Offic e as instructed on Marc h 8, 2010; 2) failed to follow instructions by

no t su bmi tti ngre qu e ste d d oc ume ntatio n o n M arc h 8 , 20 10 ; 3) a sso c ia te d wi th a pe rs on e ng a g e d in criminal ac tivity

on Dec ember

9, 2009; 4) failed to notify his pr obation office r within 72 hours of his c on ta c t w ithlaw e nf

or c e me nt o n D e c e mbe r 9 , 2 00 9; 5 ) a sso c ia te d wit h a pers on wh o w a s inUnited States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

4 possession of a contr olled substance; a nd 6) committed the cr ime of domestic assa ult on Febr

uary 5, 2010. A Supervised Release Violation Report was also prepa red. The repor

t indicated that the

a dv iso ry g uid e lin e te rm a pp lic a ble to Gr imm ’s vio la tio ns wa s four t o te n mo nth s o f i mpr iso nme nt. The Probation Of

fice re co m m ended a six -month term of c ustody and 18 months of supervise d rele ase to follow. At a su perv is ed re le a se vio la tio n h e ari ngon Ap ri l 15 , 2 01 0, Gr imm ple a de d guil ty

to vio la tio ns on e thr ou g h f

ive , and no c on te st t o v iol a tio n s ix, ba se d o n th e a lle g e d d ome sti c a ssa ult

. At sentenc ing, the court invited de fense counsel to spe ak on behalf of her client. Counsel argued that Grimm had bee n “doing well” on supe rvised re lease until he beg an abusingdrug s ag ain. She stated that G ri mm w a s untr

uth fu l w ithhis pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r p art ly be c a us e he wa s d isa

pp oin te d in

him se lf

an d as h am ed

. C o u n s el i n d i ca t ed t h at Gr i m m m ay h av e gr o wn o v er co n fi d en ti nh i s ab i l i t y t o m an age his addiction, but he had not g iven u p o n h i m s elf, and he had “ a lot of positives g oing f or him.” “[W ]i th some help, perha ps some more intensive tre atment for his a ddiction,” counse l posited that Grimm could be succ essful. When asked, c ounsel ac knowledg ed that Gr imm had been “ helped” befor e with tr eatment over the course of sever al y ear s, but contended that treatment wa s sometimes

nece ssary a number of times, and that Gr imm was now sincer ely interested in taking advanta g e of tr e a tme nt. Grimm, in turn, apolog ized to the c o u rt and to his probation offic er f or his behavior . He st ate d th at he w a s a sh a me d th a t he ha d f a lle n, and that he c ou ld n ot b e lie ve he ha d to tr a de his multipl e-y ear

“NA” (Na

rcotics Anony

mous) tag for a 30-day tag
. Grimm explained that he thought h e w as s t ro n g en o u gh t h at h e w o u l d n o t h av e t o co n t i n u e w i t h h i s “m ai n t en an ce , ” b u th e w as wr o n g.United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

5 The g overnme nt c alled Gr imm’s probation office r to addre ss the court. The probation off icer stated that she wa s g lad Grimm was f inally being truthful, but indicated that, since p re p aring he r supervised r elea se violation repor t, she had r ec eived severa l police re ports detailing additional incidents wher e Gr imm is sued che cks with insufficient f unds or counte rfe it checks. O ne che ck wa s written fr om an ac count that was c losed three y ear s ear lier. During another incident, Grimm opene d a business bank a ccount using a counter feit $2,500 chec k. The probation officer stated that, had she known about these three most rece nt incidents, she would proba bly have r ecomme nded a te rm of custody longe r than six m onths due to the sheer number of violations. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

the n r e a so ne d thro ug h it s se nte nc ingde c isi on : B a se d u po n th e a dmi ssi on

of g uil t, a s I

sa id, and

the fi nd ingof

g uil t of the se supervised r elea se conditions, supervised relea se i s here by revoke d. The nature a

nd circ umstances of

this subsequent behavior, the high r isk of conti nued fe lonious be havio r, and

the ma ximumbe ne fi t of

re ha bil itatio n thro ug h in c arc e ra tio n le a ds thi s Court to the only

conclu s i o n it can ar

rive at in this matter, a

nd that is that we have to come bac k and re view this entire matter

. This is sad beca

use there was a

rathe r, fo r Mr. Grimm, a rather substantial sentenc e imposed her e many y ear s ag o as a result of some pr etty eg reg ious behavior involving methamphe tamines, and tog ether with pro gra m m atic issues that we re obviously rathe r sig nificant public investment, if y ou will, in the rehabilitation of Mr. Grimm. I t appea

rs that at this point he repr esents not only a dang er to the community , but he re prese nts a dang er to himself unless this matter can g et cor rec ted. So purs u an t t o 18 United States Code 3583(e )(3) , the def endant is her eby comm i t t ed t o the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons for a term of e ight months. I t appea rs that during that eig ht months t he following will be the conditions of this Court, and that is that -- imposed upon him, and that is that he i m mediately rec eive dr

ug abstinence counselin g an d scre ening and that he r ece ive mental hea lth assessment desig ne d to e n s u r e th a t if th e r e ar e u n d e r ly in g me n ta l h e a lt

h is s u e s , th a t th o s e are addre ssed. M r. Gr i m m , ar e b o t h y o u r p ar en t s s t i l l l i v i n g?United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

6 DEF ENDAN T GRI MM: My mother passed when I was in pr ison a nd my fathe r' s 71 y ear s old. THE COURT: And y ou are awa re of the sig nificant substanc e abuse history that they have? DEF ENDAN T GRI MM: Yes, Your Honor

. THE COURT: So y ou are awa re that if y ou continue with this matter, y ou are awa re of whe re you' re he aded f

or? DEF ENDAN T GRI MM: Yes, Your Honor

. THE COURT: Ican' t run y our life. None of us ca n run y our life. You ha

ve to take char g e of yourself, a

nd this is pathetic. This is absolutely pathetic. I ' m goingto place you on 16 months of supervised re lease follow i ng the incar cer ation. The first six months of that 16 months will be y ou will reside in the residential r eentr

y cente r in Gra

nd R ap i d s . You wil l take par t in their abstinence prog rams. You will have no association with anyone using or possessing drug s, and y ou will be g iven ac cess to mental he alth counselors if in f act some form of medication is nee ded in this matter, althoug h I ' m not sure if that' s not c ounte rp ro du c tiv e so me tim e s. N o b a nk in g w it h out the probation off

icer ' s approva l. Full financ ial disclosure of e ve ry thi ng , e ve ry

pe nn y y ou make and e ve ry pe nn y y ou sp e nd

. No pa rt ne rs hip s, bu sin e sse s o r a sso c ia tio ns e nte re d in to w ith ou t su pe rv ise d r e le a se of

fi c e r a pp ro va l. Iwant t o make one thing r eal c lear with y ou, and that is if y ou come ba ck here to this C ourt with this kind of sad rec ord -- y ou' re smar t. You' re inte l l i gent. I don' t think y ou may

be are -- well, any

way , y ou' re intelli g ent enoug h to know wher e y o u 're h ea d ed , an d

y o u 're go i n g t o k i l l y o u rs el f, n u m b er o n e. Nu m b er

t wo , Id o n 't want y ou scamming other pe ople, taking other pe ople's m o n ey , and I sense we ' re almost on that unless we put a stop to that. And Idon' t want y ou to spend the re st of y our life in prison. You' ll be 39 y ear s old here in a month, won't you? DEF ENDAN T GRI MM: Yes, sir. T H E CO U RT : A n d a y e ar f r o m n o w y o u ' ll b e 4 0

. T im e is s li p p in g aw ay for y ou, isn ' t it ? DEF ENDAN T GRI MM: Yes, sir.United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

7 TH E CO UR T: So I

thi nk it' s ti me y ou

loo k at y ours e lf

psy cho lo g ic a lly , s pir itu a lly and phy sically

and say to yourself, [“] Not only am I g oing to be a diffe rent pe rson, but I ' m goingto surround my self w i t h people that a re diff ere ntly oriented tha

n I ' ve been in the pa st.[ ”] You appea r to be a chame leon. You appea r to be someone who chang es with y our fr iends. I f y ou' re w ith p eo p l e t hat have g ot some kind of a dea l g oing, you g et into the deal. I f y ou' re in with people that are using dr ug s, y ou start using dr ug s. Ithink y ou h ave the ability to be a lot strong er tha

n that. Iknow y ou do. I t's a choice y ou have to make

. Now, I don' t buy this business, and Iknow y ou do beca use that' s part of the NA -A A [N arc oti c s A no ny mou s- Al c oh oli c s A no ny mou s] th e ory , th a t y ou

jus t so me ho w j ump of

f t he wa g on . Ithi nk

the re ' s li te ratur e to t

he e ff e c t th a t y ou

do n' t. You have a proc livity

to do that, but y ou make a lot of choice s along the way that can p u t y o u i n t o t em p t at i o n 's p at h

. An d i t 's t h o s e c h o i ce s t h at p u ty o ui n t o t em p t at i o n 's path, frie nds y ou keep , p l aces y ou g o, times of the day y ou associate , those are the matters that ar e y our t roublesome aspect. You' re not as t oug h as y ou think y ou are , so theref ore, y ou' re g oing to have to associate y ourself wi t h a d i fferent kind of people. You ba sically

are who y our friends are . You knew that from the time y ou w e r e i nf i r s tan d s e c o n d g r a d e , an d

i t ' s tr u e t o d ay. Yo u h a ve a

ri g ht o f a

pp e a l f ro m th is s e nte nc e . Y ou

have 14 da

y s w ith in which to file that a

ppeal. You' ll be rema

nded to t h e cu s t ody

of the mar shal for execution of this sentence

. L et me indicate here that all the other te rms and cond i t i o ns of supervise d re le a se wi ll b e a

pp ro pr ia te in thi s ma tte r. Th os e that re la te to te sti ngand tr e a tme nt, those that relate to no use of a lcohol, those that relate to not en t er i n g i n to any new cre dit without permissi on, those that requir e full-time emp loy ment as appr oved by the pr ob a tio n o ff

ic e r, tho se that requ ir e sup po rt ingof de pe nd e nts , a ll tho se obligations will continue in this matter. Iexpect better of

y ou, Mr. Grimm, and ag ain, I rea lly don' t want to see you a g a in i n th is c ourt

ro om. Yo u und e rs tand

that? DEF ENDAN T GRI MM: Yes, sir. T H E C O U R T : Y o uu n d e r s t an d w h y? DEF ENDAN T GRI MM: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I ' m gr eatly disappointed.United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

8 Any thi nge lse , M s. Woo ds ? MS. W OODS: No, Your H onor, thank y ou. THE COURT: Any

thing e lse, Ms. Turek? MS. TUREK: No, thank y ou, Your Honor

. THE COURT: That' s all for the r ecor d. On April 23, 2010, Grimm filed a timely notice of a

ppeal. II. Jurisdi ction The district cour

t had jurisdiction in

th is c a s e b e c a

u s e D e f e n d a nt- A p pellant Cary

Grimm, was ind ic te d by a fe de ra l g ra

nd jur y fo r a lle g e d vio la tio ns of 21 U. S.C. §§ 84 1( a )( 1) and (b )( 1) (B ). Thus , the Di str ic t Co ur

t ha d ju ri sd ic tio n un de r 18 U. S.C. § 3 23 1 a nd we have jur isd ic tio n und e r 1 8 U .S. C. § 3742 and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. III. Stand ard of Review Gene rally , district court sentenc ing determinations ar e re viewed f or re asonable ness under

an “abuse -of- discretion standa rd.” Gall v. United States , 5 52 U. S. 3 8, 46 (2 00 7) ; Rita v. United States , 55 1 U .S. 33 8, 36 1 ( 20 07 ); accord U nited States v. Booke r , 543 U.S

. 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 (2005). The

rea sonablene ss inquiry

has both proce dural a

nd substanti ve compone nts. United States v. Cave r , 470 F .3 d 2 20 , 2 48 (6 th C ir .2 00 7) . T hu s, “ we mus t ‘ c on sid e r n ot o nly the le ng th of

the se nte nc e bu t a lso the fa ctors eva luated and the proce du re s em p l o y ed by the district court in re achingits sentencing deter mination.’” United States v. Moon , 5 1 3 F. 3 d 5 2 7 , 5 3 9 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2005)).United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

9 Procedur al rea sonablene ss r equire s that “the sentenc ing judge

. . . ‘set for th enoug h to satisfy the appe llate cour

t that he has c onsidered the parties’ ar gu m en ts and has a r easone d basis for exercising his own l eg al decision making a uthority .’” United States v. Klups , 51 4 F .3 d 53 2, 53 7 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)) . On re view, an a ppellate c ourt

mus t

ensure that the dist ri ct co urt committed no signific ant proc edura l error , such as failing to calculate (or imprope rly calcu l at ing) the Guidelines ra ng e, tre ating the Guidelines as mandatory , failing to c onsider the § 3553(a) fac tors, s el ec t i n g a sentenc e base d on clea

rly err oneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenc e-inc luding a

n explanation for any

deviation from the G uidelines rang e. Ga ll , 5 52 U. S. at 51 ; see Bolds , 511 F.3d at 581. When a court imposes a t er m o f i m prisonment afte r re voking a

defe ndant’s super

vised rele ase, it m ust also be ce rtain to consider the re levant statutory fac tors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and the policy statements contained in C h ap ter Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines Manua l. See , e.g. , United States v. Polihonki , 543 F.3d 318, 323 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; United States v. W ashington , 147 F.3d 490, 491 ( 6th C i r. 1 9 9 8 ) (“The statute’s

mand a te is thu s satis fi e d if

. . . th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e xplanatio n o f t he se nte nc e make s it

c le ar t hat it considere d the req u i re d fac tors.”); c f. United States v. Y

opp , 453 F.3d 770, 773 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (re mandin g wh er e “the re is no evide nce of the district court’s c onsideration of the Chapter Seve n policy statements”)

. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) a c ourt may , afte r considering the factors set forth in s ection 3553(a )(1) , (a) (2)( B) , (a) (2)( c), (a) (2)( D), (a )(4) , (a) (5), ( a)( 6), and ( a)( 7) . . . * * *United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

10 (3) revoke a term of super vised rele ase, a

nd require the def

endant to ser

ve in prison all or par t of the term of

supervised r elea se authorized by statute for the offe nse that resulted in such t erm of supervised relea se wit hout cre dit for time previously serve d on post r elea se supervision, if the court, pursuant to the Fe dera l R u l es o f C riminal P r o c e d u r e a p p l i c a b l e t o r e v o c a t i o no f p r o b a t i o no r

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , f

i n d s b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the defe ndant violated a condition of supervised rele ase . . . . Section 3553(a) direc ts sentencingcourts to “impose a sen t en ce s ufficie nt, but not gre ater than

nece ssary , to comply

with the purposes set f

orth in para g raph ( 2).” Id. § 3 553(a) . Parag raph two

c ite s “ the ne e d for the se nte nc e imp os e d–

. . . ( B ) t o a ff

or d a de qu a te de te rr e nc e to c ri min a l c on du c t; (C ) to pr ote c t th e pu

bli c fr om f

ur the r c ri me s o f t

he de fe nd ant; and

(D ) t o p ro vid e the de fe nd ant w ith

ne e de d e du c a tio na l or

vo c a tio na l tr a ini ng , me dic a l c are , o r oth e r c or re c tio na l tr e a tme nt in t

he mos t eff ective ma n n er.” Id. § 3553(a) (2). The other re levant portions of § 3553(a ) instruct sentenc ing

co u rt s to consider: (1) “the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and char acte ristics of t he defenda nt”; (4) “the applicable guidelines or policy statements i ssued by the Se nte n c in g

Co mmissi on pursuant to § 994(a )(3) of title 28”; (5) a ny pertinent policy

statement issued by the SentencingCommi ssion; ( 6 ) “the need to avoid unwarr anted se ntence disparities among defe ndants with simil ar r ecor ds who have been f ound g uilty

of similar conduc t”; and (7) “the ne ed to provide re stitut ion to any victims of the offe nse.” 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a). The re levant Guidelines Ma nual policy

statement ac knowledg es that “[w]hen the court f inds that the def

enda n t v iolated a c ondition of supervised re lease , it may continue the de fenda

nt on supervi s e d

r e le a s e , w it

h o r w it h o u t e xte n d in g th e te r

m o r mo d if y in gth e c o n d it io n s , o r

revoke supervised r elea se and impose a term of imprisonment.” U.S.S.G. ch. 7, pt. A, Introductory Com m en t 2 (b ); see U .S.S.G. § 7B1.3 (Revoc ation of Probation or Supervise d Release (PolicyUnited States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

11 Statement)); see also supra note 3. Section 7B1.4 pr ovides rec ommended im p r is o nme nt r a

n g e s based on a def endant’ s violation and criminal history . U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. Finally , this Court has sugg ested that district courts, af ter a nnouncing a propose d sentenc e, “ask the parties whe ther they have a ny objections to the sentenc e . . . that have not previously been raised. I f a se ntencingjudge as k s t h i s q u estion and if the r eleva nt party does not object, then plain-er ror r eview a

pplies on appea l to those arguments not pr eser ved in the district cour

t.” United States v. Vonner , 5 1 6 F. 3 d 3 8 2 , 385 (6th Cir. 2008) ( en banc ) (quotations marks omitted). In the instant case, however , the di strict court did not ask t he parties whether there wer e objec tions to t he sentenc e that had not y et bee n raised, so r eview is not for plain err or. IV . Ana lys is Def endant- Appellant Cary

Grimm claims that th e d istrict court fa iled to give a re asoned explanation for the sente nce it imposed, and further, that the court failed to ex plain why the sentenc e of eig ht months’ impr i sonment followed by six months in t he half

-wa y house as a

condition of supervised r elea se wa s “suffic ient, but not gr eate r than ne cessa ry ” to comply

with the statutory purposes of se ntencing . This, however , is not the case. The sente ncing court c onsidered “ the nature and cir cumstance s of the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fenda nt.” The se ntencing judge stated, “The nature and cir cumstance s of thi s subs e qu e nt be havio r, the hig h ris k of co nti nu e d f e lon iou s b e havio r, and

the ma ximumbe ne fi t of re ha bil itatio n thr ou g h inc arc e ratio n le a ds thi s Co ur t to the on ly

c on c lus ion

it c an a rr ive a t in thi s matter[.] ” The Court continued on to consider Grimm' s history and cha rac teristics, eve n inquiring as to whethe r his pare nts are still alive.United States v. Cary Grimm , No. 10-1572

12 Simi larly , the sentenc ing c ourt consider ed the ne ed “to pr otect the public f rom furthe r cr imes of the de fenda

nt . . . .” This is evidenc ed by the cour t’s statement, “It appea

rs that at this point he

re pr e se nts no t on ly

a da ng e r t o th e c omm

un ity , b ut h e re pr e se nts a dan ger to h ims e lf

un le ss t his matter c an g et cor

rec ted.” The ne ed “to pr ovide t he defenda nt with neede d educational or vocational training , medical

ca re , o r o t h er

co rr ec t i o n al t re at m en t i n t h e m o s tef fe ct i v e m an n er ” w as al s o co n s i d er ed

. T h e j u d ge demande d, The fir st six months of [ supervised rele ase] y ou will r eside in the residential r eentr y c e nte r i n G ra

nd Ra pid s. Yo u will take pa

rt in the ir a

bs tin e nc e pr og ra

ms. Yo u w ill have no a ssociation wi t h an y one using or possessing drug s, and y ou will be g iven a c c e ss t o me nta l he a lthc ouns e lor s if in f a c t so me fo rm

of me dic a tio n is ne e de d in this matter . . . . Grimm relies primarily

upon United States v. Y

opp , 453 F.3d 770 ( 6th Cir. 2006), in which thi s Co ur t va c a te d a

se nte nc e wh e re the dis tr ic t cou rt se e me d to bas e the se nte nc e imp os e d p ri mari ly upon the leng th of ti m e necessar y to obtain treatment while inc arc erated, but then imposed a sentenc e of twic e that leng th, w ithout explanation. I n the instant c ase, G rimm does not assert that the six -month term in a half -wa y house is not in alignment with the l en gt h o f a term neede d for treatment there. IV. Conclusion The re cord r efle cts that the sentenc ing court considere d the statutorily mandated f

actor s, thus prec luding a

conclusion that the sente nce w as arr ived at in a proce durally unrea sonable manne r that amounts to an abuse of

discretion. The ref

ore, w e AF F IRM the judg ement of the district court.