NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 11a0130n.06 No. 09-5990 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. ANTHO NY L AWRENCE, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO URT F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: KEITH , M c KEA G UE , a nd K ETHL ED G E, C ir c uitJudg e s. P er Curiam . An tho ny L awr e nc e ple a de d g uil ty to o ne c ount o f p os se ssi on of c oc a ine ba se wi t h i n t en tt o d i s t r i b u t e a n d o n e c o u n to f p o s s es s i o nwi t h a f i re ar m i nfu rt h er an ce o f a dru gtraff icking crime. H e n o w challeng es his below the Guide lines rang e sente nce, a rg uing that the district court should ha

ve g rante d a depa

rture be cause his criminal history was ove rre prese nted, and that hi s se nte nc e is o the rw ise su bs tanti ve ly

un re a so na

ble . We a ff

ir m. I. Offic ers f rom the Knoxvil le, Tenne ssee Police De partment c onducted a consensua l searc h of L awr ence ’s residenc e and rec overe d a larg e quantity of drug s and firea rms. A fe dera l gr and jury ind ic te d L awr e nc e on on e c ount of po sse ssi on of fi ve g ra ms or mor e of c oc a ine ba se wi th i nte nt t o dis tr ibute , in

vio la tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § 84 1( a )( 1) , a nd on e c ount o f p os se ssi on of a fi re a rm in- 2 -

fu rt he ra nc e of a dr

ug -t ra ff ic kin g c ri me , in viol a tio n of 18 U. S.C. § 924 (c ). L awr e nc e ple a de d g uil ty to both counts without a plea ag ree ment. The Probation Of

fice prepa red a Presentenc e R ep o rt (P SR). The PSRcalc ulated a ba seof fe ns e le ve l of

26 , w hic h w a s r e du c e d to 23 be c a use L awren c e a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty fo r h is crimes. PSR at ¶¶ 17 , 24. Th e PSR the n de te rm ine d tha t L awr e nc e ha d 9 c ri min a l hi sto ry po int s based on va

rious crimes, includingevading arr est, criminal impersonation, possession of coc ainebase, e scape and unlawf

ul possession of a fire arm. Id . at ¶¶ 27- 31, 34, 36. Be cause the i n s t ant offe nse wa s co mmitt ed while L awr ence was on e scape from a juve nile fac ility , the PSRadded 2 criminal history

points, bringingthe total to 11, and cre ating a cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of V. Id
. at ¶ ¶ 18, 37. The P SR deter mined that a tot al offe nse leve l of 23 and c riminal history cate g ory of V produced a Sentencing Guidelines rang e of 84 to 105 months of imprisonm ent on the possession wi t h i n t en t t o distribute char g e. Id
. a t ¶ 5 7
. B e c a

u s e th e f ir e ar m c h ar g e c ar

r ie d a ma n d a to ry minimum of 60 months imprisonment to be served co n s ec u t i vely , the PSRdeter mined that the eff ective G uidelines rang e wa s 144 to 165 months. Id
. The United States fi l ed a m o tion for a downw ard de parture under U .S.S.G. § 5K1.1, and
rec ommended a se ntence of 115 months imp ri s o n m en t based on substantial a ssistance fr om L awr ence . R. 76, Motion for D ownwar d Depa rture. L awr ence filed a motion for varia nce a nd/or depar ture. R. 7 8 , Motion for Var iance . First, L awr ence reque sted a downw ard de parture under U. S.S. G. § 4 A1 .3 , a

rguin g that hi s crim in al histo ry sc or e ov e rr e pr e se nts the se ri ou sn e ss o f h is criminal history
. Specifica lly , L awr ence argued that most of his juvenile convictions resulted in a violation of probation cha rg e for the pre vious c onviction but wer e for “fa irly innocuous delinquent- 3 -

be ha v i o r . ” A d d i t i o n a l l y , L aw r e n c e r e qu e s t e d t h a t t h e c o u rtc o n s i d e r

t h e s e n t e n c i n g d i sp a ri ty b e t w e e n c r a c k c o c a i n e an d p o w d e r c o c a i n e , an d t h e n e e d f o r L aw r e n c e t o p r o v i d e c a re fo r h is children. The United States opposed the motion. R. 80, Response to Motion for Varia nce. The dist rict court considere d the m otions at sentencing , g ranting the United States’ motion for a downwar d depar

ture a nd denying L awr ence ’s motion. Af t er co n s i d er ing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors, the court sentenc ed L awr ence to 36 months of imprisonment on the drug -traf ficking char g e and 60 months of imprisonment on the firea rm cha rg e, to be se rved c onsecutively , for a total
se nte nc e of

96 mon ths of

imp ri so nme nt. We c on du c t a

bu se -o f- dis c re tio n r e vie w o f a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se nte nc e , lo ok ingfo r b oth proce dural a

nd substantive rea sonablene ss. Un ite d S tat es v . Cu rry , 5 36 F .3 d 5 71 , 5 73 (6 th C ir 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Gall v. United States , 5 52 U. S. 3 8, 50 (2 00 7) ). Ad dit ion a lly , w e c on du c t de novo revie w of a

district court’s leg al interpre tations of the Guidelines, while a cce pting the c ourt’s fac tual finding unless they are clea rly err oneous. United States v. Burns , 4 98 F .3 d 5 78 , 5 80 (6 th Cir. 2007). L awr ence first appe als the district court’ s denial of his motion for a d o wn wa rd depar ture
un de r U .S. S.G . § 4A 1. 3. We o nly re vie w a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa ilure to g ra nt a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e if the cour t errone ously

believed it lac ked the a

uthority to g rant the de parture
. United States v. Lucas , 357 F.3d 599, 609 ( 6th Cir. 2004). L awr ence argues that the district cour t believed that it di d not h a v e th e a u th o r it y to d e p art u

n le s s h e f e ll w it h in th e e xa mp le p r o v id e d

in ana p p li c a ti o nn o te
. We dis a g re e . Adis tr ic t c ourt jud g e do e s n ot have to e xplic itl y state that he ha s the a uth or ity to d e pa rt
. Id . at 60 9– 10 . Ins te a d, we c an in fe r t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

re c og nize d th a t it had th e auth or ity to- 4 -

depar t when it “states that ther e wa s no basis for departure in this case.” Id . at 610. Her e, the district court c onsidered the arguments of both sides and then noted that the ap p l i cation note pr ovided “a
sc e na ri o w he re re du c inga de fe nd ant’ s cr imi na l histo ry sc or e wo uld be wa rr ante d, ” wh e re the re is
a sig nif ic ant g a p in c ri min a l hi sto ry . Se nt. Tr . at 35
. Th e c ourt no te d th a t th e re wa s n o s imi lari ty with the Guidelines example bec ause L awr ence has bee n consistently brea king the law, including traff icking cra ck-c ocaine since the ag e of 16. Id
. Finding that the cr iminal hist ory cate g ory did not
overr epre sent L awr ence ’s cr iminal history , the court denied the motion for depar ture. Id . The c ourt did, however , specific ally consider L awr ence ’s juvenile history when choosing to impose a sentenc e below that re commended by the g overnme nt. Id
. at 38. Beca use the district cour

t rec og nized that it had the authority to depar t but found no basis for a depar ture, we decline to r eview the denial of the depa rture. Next, L awr ence argues that the sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable. F or a se ntence to be substantively

rea sonable, it should be suffic ient but not greater than ne cessa ry to comply

with the purposes of § 3553( a). Cur ry , 5 36 F .3 d at 573 . Spe c if ic a lly , L awr e nc e argue s th a t hi s se nte nc e is g reater than nece ssary beca use the district court plac ed too much we ight on his conduc t in the instant
o f f e n s e an d h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y . W h e r e a s e n t e n c e f a l l s w i t h i nt h e G u i d e l i n e s r an g e w e a p p l y a presumption of re asonable ness; wher e a sentenc e falls below the Guide lines rang e, as it does he re, L awr ence ’s task of showing that it is unre asonable is even more demanding
. Id . L awr ence has not
overc ome this strong pr esum p t i o n o f reasonable ness. Our r eview of the re cord shows that the district court ca

ref ully considere d near ly

all of t he § 3553(a ) fa ctors, including the nature and circ umstances of

the instant offe nse, t he his tory and chara cter istics of t he defenda nt, the benefit that- 5 -

L awr ence would rec eive f rom substance -abuse treatment, the need to pr omo t e re spect for the law and the ne ed to provide de terre nce. Sent. Tr. at 30-34. Whil e the re cord doe s sugg est that the cour t fo un d th a t the mix of dr

ug s and fi re arm s in the ins tant o ff e ns e and L awr e nc e ’s his tor

y of re c idi vis m
wer e important, there is nothing in the re cord that sugg ests the court place d an unreasonable amount of we ight on those f

actor s, espec ially

beca use the district cour

t sentence d L aw re nce be low the
a pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s r ang e . F ur the rm or e , it

is q uit e re a so nable for a distr ic t c ourt to f ind tho se fac tors to be important. Acc ording ly , we f ind the sentenc e to be substantively rea sonable. L awr ence ’s last argument is that the district court er red in re fusing to apply

a cra ck to coc aine powder ration lower

than 100 to 1. Specifica lly , L awr ence argues that in dec lining to var y from the Guidelines ratio, the district court inappropr iately made a n individuali ze d

a s s e s s me nt. T h is a

r g u ment relies on a misunderstandingof the Supreme Court’s holding in Sp e ar s . Sp e ar s re c og nize d th a t a district court ca

n depar t from the Guidelines r atio based on a p o licy disag ree ment with the ratio, which would pre vent district courts fr o m “masking their c ateg orica l policy disag ree ments as ‘individual determinations.’” Spears v. United States , 129 S.Ct . 840 , 844 (2 00 9) . Thi s wa s p re c ise ly be c a us e e arl ie r t

he Court ha d r e cogni z ed th at a

dis tr ic t c ourt

c an v ary fr om t he Gu ide lin e s r a tio “base d on the individualiz ed circ umstances of a particula r case .” Kimbrough v. United States , 552 U.S. 85, 102 n.13 (2007). Her e, the district cour t rec og nized that it had the authority to vary from the Guidelines ratio, but declined to do s o b eca use in the instant offe nse L awr ence had loade d firea rm s an d d ru gs i n t h e pre sence of minor childre n. Sent. Tr. at 37. That decision was not an abuse of discretion.- 6 - II. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
.