NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 11a0148n.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 AMENDED OPI

NI ON

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 a tme nt. Ei g ht months late r, a ft e r f a ili ngto a tte nd tr e a tme nt s e ssi on s, Dumas ag ain tested positive for c ocaine . These tr ansg ressions spawne d a supervised-re lease revoc ation hear ing. At the hear ing, theNo. 10-3013

United States v. Dum as

- 2 - dis tr ic t c ourt be g an by a sk ing Duma s g e ne ra l qu e sti on s a bo ut his dr

ugus e . N e ith e r D uma s n or his counsel objec ted to this que stioning. Dumas re adily conce ded to using drug s duringhis supervised rele ase. When a sked whe t h er he wished to admit the violations or to procee d to hear ing, D umas admitted the violations. After discussing Dumas’s per sonal circ umstances at leng th, the court re voked his supervised re le a se . It note d that 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 four to te n months, a nd analy zed e ach of the rele vant 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (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 n e 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 as k ed whether “ther e [were ] any leg al objections . . . not previously raised.” Dumas’s c ounsel objecte d 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

su bs tanti ve g ro un ds , she repli e d, “ My ob je c tio n is tha

t [th e se nte nc e ] is substantively

unrea sonable.” Addre ssing this objection, the c o u rtfurther explained the appropr iateness of

the sentenc e and the nece ssity of imprisonment. II. Dumas now c halleng es his sentenc e on both proc edura l and substantive g rounds .No. 10-3013

United States v. Dum as

- 3 - A. Dumas conte nds that the district court committed proc edura l error in three 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 that tr e a tme nt w a s p referabl e to imp ri so nme nt; that he ha d tr ans po rt a tio n a n d f i n a n c i a l pr ob le ms; and

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

or seve ral y ear s. Second, he c laims that the court violated his due pr ocess r ights unde r Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a ) ( 3 ) b y q u estioning him without informing him of his right to a hea ring . Fin al l y , h e contends that his waiver of a re vocation hea

ringunder Rule 32.1 wa s invalid. Be cause Dumas failed to r aise these proc edura l objections to the district court, eve n afte r it properly

invited them, we re view only for plain e rror . See U

nited States v. Lalonde , 509 F.3d 750, 757 (6th Cir. 2007). This stan d ar d o f revie w poses a pr oblem for Duma s. Although he alleg es two er rors, he ne g le c ts t o argue th at the e rr or s “ [ar e ] pla in[, ] . . . a ff e c t[] sub sta

nti a l r ig hts [,] . . . [and ] se ri ou sly aff ect[] t he fa irness, integ rity , or re putation of judicial proce eding s.” Id . at 757–58 (int erna l quotation marks and c itation omit ted ). Bu t ev en if Dumas had prope rly put forth a plain- err or argument, his claims would stil l fall short. The f irst alleg ed er

ror is no error at all: the district court c on sid e re d e a c h of

Duma s’ s mi tig a tin 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 f or imp os ing a se nte nc e un de r the ma ximum . An d the se c on d all e g e d e rr or did no t a dv e rs e ly aff ec t his substantial rights. Even if we a ssume, without deciding , that the district court violated Rul e 32 .1 wh e n it

qu e sti on e d D uma s b e fo re he wa ive d his ri ght to a he ari ng , th e re is n o b a sis toNo. 10-3013

United States v. Dum as

- 4 - conclude that his admissions affec ted hi s ultimate sentenc e. Dumas never contested his druguse, no r c ou ld h e have : he te ste d p os iti ve fo r co c 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 . And even if his w aiver of a revoc ation hear ing under Rule 32.1 wer e invalid, any

resulting err or would be ha rmless for the se same r easons. B. Dumas also cla ims that the district court committed substantive er ror be cause his withing uidelines sentenc e wa s longe r than necessa ry to satisfy § 3553(a) ’s sentenc ing pur poses. Reviewing the sentenc e “unde r a de fer e nti a l a buse-of -discre tion standard for

rea sonablene ss,” Lalonde, 509 F.3d at 769 (interna l quotation marks and citation omitted), we disag ree . Dumas re ceive d a sente nce of ten months’ imprisonment beca use he continued to violate the c on dit ion s o f h is sup ervis e d r e le a se . In s e nte nc ingDuma s, the c ourt e xten siv e ly

e va luate d h is persona l circumstanc es and a pplied eac h of the re levant § 3553(a ) fa ctors. B eca use Dumas c ontinued h i s dru g u s e d es p i t e t h e c o urt ’s p ri o r l en i en cy , th e co urt re as o n ab l y v i ew ed a s en t en ce t o wa rdth e h i gh e nd of the g uid e lin e s ra

ng e a s ne c e ssa

ry to ind uc e his c omp lia

nc e wi th the law. We d isc 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 . For these re asons, we a ffirm.