NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0720n.06 No. 07-3665 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA 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. DARNEL LNESBI T, De fe nd ant - Ap pe lla

nt. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/ B e fo re : MA RTI

N, RO GE RS, a

nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. Da rnell Ne sbit arg ues that the district cour t erre d in denying him a two-leve l r eduction in his base offe nse level for acc eptanc e of responsibility under 3E1.1(a) . Nesbit furthe r ar g ues that we should remand the matter of se ntencingback to the district

c o u rt f o r r e - s e n te n c in g u n d e r th e a me n d e d G u id e li n e s f o r c r a c k c o c a in e o f

f e n s e s . H e a lso arg ues that the district court e rre d in de nying a Batson motion that the gove rnment impermissibly struck an Afric an-A merica

n juror. For t he followingrea sons, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. On J une 14, 2006, the g rand jury returne d a 49-count indictment ag ainst Nesbit and his codefe ndants for a ctivities related to the posse ssion and sale of c rac k coca ine withi n 1,000 fee t of a public school. Nesbit was char g ed with Count 1, conspirac y to posse ss w ith intent to distribute a nd to distribute more than 50 g rams of c rac k in violation of 21 U .S.C. § 846; Count 35, dist ributing 3.68No. 07-3665

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Ne

sb it Pag e 2 g rams of c rac k coca ine; Count 37, dist ributing 2.60 g rams o f cra ck coc aine; and Count 43, distributing 1.46 g rams of c rac k coca ine. On De c e mbe r 1 8, 20 06 , th e g ov e rnme nt f ile d a n Inf or matio n p ur su ant t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 85 1 to establish Nesbit’s prior c onviction. On Marc h 19, 2007, the jury convicted Nesbit of Counts 35, 37,

and 43

. Aft e r h is c on vic tio n, the Un ite d St a te s Pr ob a tio n O ff ic e pr e pa re d a pr e se nte nc e re po rt
. B a se d o n th e re po rt ’s c a lc ulatio ns , Ne sb it’ s c ri min a l his tor y c a te g or y wa s VI and his a dju ste d b a se offe nse leve l was 28, produc ing a n advisory

g uideline sentenc ing r ang e of 140- 175 months. At the sentenc ing he aringon May 7, 2007, Nesbit asked the district court to considera twopoint r eduction for acc eptanc e of responsibility due to his testimony at trial and hi s p re -trial willingness—ha d a fa

vorable deal with the g overnme nt been rea ched—to plead guilty to the three counts for w hich the jury found him g uilty . The c ourt, in ruling on t h e t wo -point reque st for

a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , s tate d: Fr ankly , Mr Nesbi t , Ifound y our testimony to be completely

lackingcre dibilit y . I found it amazing that y ou admitted condu ct proven be y ond all possible doubt, and y et any other conduct, y ou denied. And this cour t has to take into consider ation wh e the r you

tr uth fu lly a dmi tte d a ll con du c t and re le va nt c on du c t, a

nd y ou sim ply didn’t. You testified to only those portions that were convenie nt for y ou. There fore , Ido not believe y ou have completely acc epted responsibility

. Iwill not afford you the tw o le ve l a dju stm e nt. Nesbit’s counse l then outlined Nesbit’s bac kg round for the cour t and aske d that he be sentenc ed to the lowest e nd of the a pplicable a dvisory

g u i d el i ne sente ncing rang e of 140- 175 months. Additi onally , he re quested a sentence of 120 months . Nesbit did not request a varia nce based on the Guidelines’ dispar ate tre atment of c rac k and coc aine of fense s.No. 07-3665

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Ne

sb it Pag e 3 The district cour

t sentenc ed Nesbit to a term of 150 months incarc eration on Count s 35, 37,

and 43 to r un c on c ur re ntl y , f oll ow e d b y

six y e ars of

su pe rv ise d r e le a se , s tatin g that: This Court does in fact f

ind this sentence to be r easona ble. I t is suf

fi ci ent but not g reater than ne cessa

ry to satisfy the purposes of sentenc ing set forth in 3553( a). The c ourt ha s take n int o c on sid e ratio n, numbe r on e , ho w se ri ou s thi s of fe ns e is, or

wa s; number two, the la

rg e number

(30) of criminal hi story points. I n fac t Mr. Nesbit, y ou are very fortunate t h at y ou are not a ca ree r off ender , but the court did not g ive y ou more time bec ause I

did in fac t take into consideration all of the statements made by y our attorne y

reg ardingacc eptanc e of responsibility . Ido not believe you should ge t a te c hn ic a l a dju stm e nt f

or i t, be c a

us e y ou did no t a dmi t to a ll r e le va

nt c on du c t. Howeve r, y ou did go a s far as to make some a dmissions , and that is why Ig ave you a sente nce of

150 and not g reater. Nesbit timely

appea led. II. A. Nesbit’s Base Off ense Level Nesb it challeng es the district cour t’s denial of a

two-point reduc tion for ac cepta nce of responsibility , alleg ing that the d i s trict court ba sed its decision on ac quitted conduct, or, a s it was define d by

the cour t, releva nt conduct. When review ing se ntencing decisions, we revie w a district court’s fa ctual finding s for c lear

err or and its conclusions of law de novo

. United States v. Haze lwood , 398 F.3d 792, 795 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (c itati o n o m i tted). We revie w de novo a district cour t’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines, United States v. Gibson , 409 F.3d 325, 338 (6th Cir. 2005) , and constitutional challeng es to a def endant’ s sentence
. United States v. Copeland , 321 F.3d 582, 601 ( 6th Cir. 2003). Nesbit relies on Un ite d S tates v . W hite , 551 F.3d 381 ( 6th Cir. 2008), en banc , then bef ore thi s c ourt en banc , in

arguin g that pe rm itt inga dis tr ic t c ourt

to r e ly on a c qu itted

c on du c t inNo. 07-3665

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Ne

sb it Pag e 4 deter mining sente ncing undermines the jur y ’s role in deciding g uilt or innocenc e. Unf ortunately for Nesbit, in W

hite , t h i s C o u rt , s i t t i n g en banc , found that the holding of Un ite d S tates v . W att s , 519 U.S. 148 , 157 (1997)—that a district court is permitted t o consider at sentenc ing c onduct of whic h a def endant is ac quit t ed at trial so long as it was prove n by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e—continues to a

pply afte r the Supreme Co u

r t’ s holding in United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 2 2 0 , 2 4 0

- 4 1 ( 2 004). W

hit e , 5 51 F.3d at 386. Whi le a district cour t may enhanc e a de fenda

nt’s sentenc e base d on acquitted c onduct, this is not to say that it must do so. Id. Additionally , a cour t t h a t c h o o s e s t o e n h an c e “ a s e n t e n c e b a s e d o na c qu i t t e d c o n d u c t
. . . s h o u l d

art i c u l a t e h o w an d

w h y, in i ts j ud g me nt, su c h c on du c t a pp ro pr iate ly

inf lue nc e d it s Sec tio n 355 3( a ) a na ly sis wi th r e sp e c t to the spec ific def

endant a nd specific crime at issue.” Id. He re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a c kn ow le dg e d th a t it

wa s c on sid e ring acqu it ted c on du c t be c a us e it fo un d N e sb it’ s te sti mony

to b e se lf -s e rv ingand

his c re dib ili ty to be lim ite d. As we have pr e vio us ly deter mined that consi d er at i on of ac quitted conduct in sentenc ing is a ppropriate wher e the c ourt articulates why the conduct influence d its de cision for the specific defe ndant and crime at issue, the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt w a s c or re c t. B. Unreasonable Sentence Under Sec tion 3553(a) Nesbit furthe r claims that the district court fa iled to consider the f actor s set forth in Section 3553(a) and, as a

result, the sente nce imposed w as not rea sonable. The standa

rd of r eview f

or sentenc ing deter

minations is abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States , 5 52 U. S. 3 8, 12 8 S. Ct

. 58 6, 59 4 (20 07 ). We r e vie w s e nte nc ingde te rm inatio ns fo r b oth proce dural a

nd substantive rea sonablene ss. A s entenc e is proce durally unrea sonable if it is markedNo. 07-3665

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Ne

sb it Pag e 5 by “sig nificant proc edura l error , such as f ailing to c alcu l at e (o r improperly calc ulating) the Gu ide lin e s r ang e , tr e a tin g the Gu ide lin e s a s ma nd a tor y , f a ili ngto c on sid e r t

he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, selec ting a

sentenc e base d on clea

rly err oneous fa cts, or fa iling t o ad equately explain the chosen sentenc e-inc luding a

n explanation for any

deviation from the Guidelines ra ng e.” Ga ll , 128 S.Ct . at 597. “[A] s entenc e may be substantively unrea sonable when the district c ourt selec ts the sentence arbitra rily , bases the sentence on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pe rtinent § 3553(a) fac tors or g ives an unre asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Borho , 485 F.3d 904, 908 (6th Cir. 2007) (c itation and quotation marks omitted). Se c tio n 3 55 3( a ) p ro vid e s th a t w he n im po sin g se nte nc e s c ourt s: shall consider . . . the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense a nd the history

and char acte ristics of the defe ndant [along with] the nee d for the se ntence imposed . . . to r e fl e c t th e se ri ou sn e ss o f t he of fe ns e , to pr omo te re sp e c t f or the law, and

to provide just punishment for the offe nse . . . to affor d adequate deter renc e to cr iminal c on du c t [and ] to p ro te 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. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1- 2). Whil e the rec ord must re flec t that the district court consider ed the Sec tion 3553 fac tors, the di strict court need not g ive a detailed ex planation of the f actor s so long a s the court

“ satis f[ies] the a

pp e llate c ourt

tha t [th e jud g e ] ha s c on sid e re d th e pa rt ie s’ argume nts and

ha s a

rea soned basis for exercising his ow n leg al decision-making authority .” Rita v. United States , 551 U. S. 3 38 , 3 56 (2 00 7) ; see also United States v . Madden , 515 F.3d 601, 610 (6th Cir. 2008) (a pply ing Rita and no tin g tha

t a jud g e may ex erc ise dis c re tio n in de te rm ini ngho w muc h e xplanatio n is

nece ssary , and that a leng thy explanation is not require d when a judge decide s simply to apply the Guidelines to a pa

rticular c ase) . Sentence s that fall wit h i n t h e ad v i sory Guidelines ra

ng e ar eNo. 07-3665

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Ne

sb it Pag e 6

He make s n o a

rgume nt t hat he wo uld

qu a lif y fo r “ sa fe ty

va lve ” re lie f pur su ant to 1 8 U .S. C. 1 § 3553(f) , nor does it appe ar that he would so qualify

. aff orded the “re buttable pre sumption of reasona bleness.” United States v. Erpe nbeck , 532 F.3d 423, 4 3 0 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Ri ta , 551 U.S. at 345). I f we deter

mine that no proce dural e rror occur red, the sentenc e is then co n s i dere d for substantive rea sonablene ss, taking “into acc ount the t otality of t he cir cumstance s.” Erpenbec k , 532 F.3d at 430. Where there is nothing in the rec ord to indicate “that the district c ourt select ed t he sentenc e ar

bitrarily or re lied on impermissible factor s,” t h e s entenc e is presumptively rea sonable. Madden , 515 F.3d at 613. I n th is c a se , N e sb it’ s sen te nc e fa lls wi thi n the Gu ide lin e ra ng e and is the re fo re pr e sumpt ive ly

rea sonable. While the district court’s refe renc es t o the S ection 3553(a) fa ctors wa s hardly detailed or exhaustive, the judge ’s ref ere nces to the purposes of the statute and clea r understanding of how it should apply to Nesbit’s sentences provides sufficie nt basis for this Court to be satisfied that the sentenc e wa s rea sonable. The court re asonably exercised its discre tion under Section 3553(a ). C. Cr ac k/P owde r Di spa r it y Se nt e nc ing Nesbit contends that a

retroa cti v e ame ndment to the g uideline for c ocaine -base offe nses require s that his case be rema nded for re- sentenc ing. Howeve r, on October 2, 2009, the district court reduc ed Nesbit’s sentenc e pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2) from 150 months to t h e s t atut ory mandatory

minimum of 120 months. Thus, his claim that the district court fa iled to consider se ction 3553(a) fac tors is now moot be cause , as his c onviction sta nds, he ca nnot rec eive a

lower se ntence
. 1 D. Batson ChallengeNo. 07-3665

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Ne

sb it Pag e 7

Neither Cameron nor Nesbit made a Batson challeng e at the district c ourt level. How ever ,

2 neither pa rty argues that Camer on or Ne sbit forf eited their rig ht to bring a Batson challeng e by not br ing ingthe mot ion

ind ivi du a lly

a t tr ia l. Ne sb it, wh o is bla c k, joi ne d in de fe nd ant Ha

ro ld C a me ro n’ s Batson claim, ar g uing that the prosec ution’s exercise of one of i ts pere mptory challeng es aga inst a black potential juror deprive d Nesbit of his ri gh t t o eq u al protec tion. I n Batson v. Kentuck y , 4 76 U. S. 7 9 ( 19 86 ), the Sup re me Court hel d

t h at t h e E qu al P ro t ec t i o nC l au s e p ro h i b i t s p u rp o s ef u l ra ci al d i s cr i m i n at i o nin the selec tion of a jury . I n order

to establish a prima facie Batson case , a “de fenda nt must prove three things: 1) that the def

endant i s a m ember

of a c og nizable rac ial g roup; 2) that the pr osecutor ha s exercised pere mptory

challeng es ag ainst mem b er s o f t he def endant’ s rac e; and 3) that the re levant circ umstances r aise a

n infere nce of

purposef ul discrimination.” United States v. Ferguson , 23 F.3d 1 3 5 , 1 4 1 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tates v . P e e te , 919 F.2d 1168, 1178 ( 6th Cir. 1990)). Once the def endant e stablishes a prima facie case , the burden shifts to the prosec ution to present a r ace n e u tr a l e xp la

n a ti o nf o r h a v in g e xc lu d e d

th e ju r o r . Id. This Court gives “ ‘g reat defe renc e’ to the district court’s finding s on the cre dibilit y of the prose cution’s asser ted neutra l expl anations.” Id. (c i t i n g Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 n.21). Her e, def ense c ounsel for G illis raised a B a tson objection af ter the g overnme nt exercised 2

on e of six per e mpt or

y c ha lle ng e s ag a ins t a bla c k jur or , Ms. Coo pe r. Th e g ov e rnme nt h a d p re vio us ly dismiss ed five white jurors, one for a previous ar

rest, with pe remptory challeng es. While Nesbit can clea rly establish the first two ele ments of the p r i m a fa c ie Batson challeng e, he ha s not offer ed

su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to sup po rt the inf e re nc e of dis c ri min a tio n n e c e ssa

ry to m e e t th e thi rd

e le me nt. Id. (c i t i n g United St ates v. Sangineto-M iranda , 85 9 F .2 d 15 01 , 15 20 -2 1 (6 th Cir

. 19 88 ) ( se tti ngfo rt hNo. 07-3665

Un ite d S tates o f A me ric a v . Ne

sb it Pag e 8 fac tors to be consider ed in assessingi n fe re n ce of intentional discrimination, including r acia l composition of jury

pool and final jury

panel, number of pe remptory strikes, rac e of those jur ors struck or e x cused, a

nd order of stri k es ))

. An i nfer ence of intentional discrimination does not

nece ssarily

arise e ven if the pr osecution used a ll of its peremptory challeng es to exclude blacks. Id. Her e, the only

black juror

that the g overnme nt removed f rom the pane l was Juror Coo p er. Whe n Gi lli s’ c ouns e l e xpre sse d c on c e rn that the g ov e rnme nt w a s “ us ingpe re mpt or ie s to e lim inate black juror s from the pa

nel” a nd asked the g overnme nt to state its reasons for challeng ing Juror Cooper, the g overnme nt stated that the re ason that the c halleng e was exercised was bec ause Cooper had bee n arr ested within the past y ear . The g overnme nt further noted that three Afric an Amer icans

wer e cur rently in the jury

box , more than w ere prese nt when voir dire commence d, and that they had no intention of challeng ing a ny additional potential black jurors. Given the fac t that the number of black jurors that serve d on the panel was higher than bef ore voir dire and that the g overnme nt used pere mptory

challeng es to strike six jurors and only one of the m was bl ack, the re is suff icient evidenc e to deter

mine that this reason wa s not pretextual. Additionally , the g overnme nt struck a wh ite jur or

fo r the same re a so n. As thi s in fo rm a tio n w a s w ith in t he tr ia l c ourt ’s purv ie w a nd thi s Court give s broad de fer ence to the district court’s finding s, we AF F IRM the district court’s de nial of Batson c ha lle ng e s. I V. For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.