T h e H o n o r a b l e K a r e n K
. C a l dw e l l , D i s t r i c tJ u d g e f o r t h e E a s t e r

n D i s t r i c to f

K e n tu c ky, * sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0583n.06 F iled: August 13, 2007 No. 06-5797 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. PATRI CI A COONEY, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fo r e : BO G G S, C hi e f J ud g e ; R OG ERS, Circuit Judge; CALDWELL, District Judge * ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge. This case , which reac hes this court for the third time, see U

nited States v. Cooney , 26 F. App’ x 513 (6th Cir. 2002), United Sta t es v. C o o ney , 87 F. App’ x 850 (6th Cir. 20 04 ), c oncern s P atric ia Coo ne y ’s 43 2- mon th s e nte nc e fo r a va ri e ty of dr ug -r e la te d o ff

e ns e s. Coo ne y argues that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in imp os inghe r s e nte nc e be c a us e the c ourt

imp ro pe rl y calc ulated the applicable Sentencing Guidelines and did not eng ag e in a de novo revie w of the r ecor d befor e imposing the sentenc e. B eca use t he dis trict court, as this court previously held and a s Cooney pr e vio us ly c on c e de d, did no t e rr in c a lc ulatin g the re le va nt S e nte nc ingGu ide lin e s r a ng e a nd be c a us e the district court did not err in relying on previous findi ng s that there was suff icient evidenc e of the drug quantity , we a ffirm.No. 06-5797

United States v. Cooney

The re levant statutory provisions authorized a trial judge to impose a se ntence of up to life 1 imprisonment if a ju ry co nvicted Cooney of distributing more than five kilog rams of c ocaine , 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A), but au t h orized a judg e to impose a sente nce of up to twenty

y ear s of imprisonment for lesser

quantities, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( C). The d i s t ri ct cour t judge found that Cooney was re sponsible for distributing 150 kilog rams of c ocaine and imposed a life sentenc e. - 2 - On September

3, 1998, a fe dera l gr and jury indicted Cooney

on a va ri et y o f drug- related offe nses, includi n g o n e c o u n to f i n t en t i o n al l y d i s t ri b u t i n g o v er

fi v e k i l o gra m s o f c o ca i n e, i n v i o lation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; one count of aiding and abetting in the distribution of approximately twenty -five kil og ra ms o f c oc a ine , in vio la tio n of 21 U. S.C. § 841 (a )( 1) ; and on e c ount o f a idi nga nd

a be tti ngin t h e d i s t ri bution of 3.773 kilogra ms of coca ine, also in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) . A jury convicted Coone y

of al l t h re e counts along w ith one count of c onspiracy to eng ag e in money la un de ri nga nd

on e c ou nt of mone y

la un de ri ng . T he jur

y , h ow e ve r, did

no t r e tur

n s pe c if ic deter minations about the amount of drug s at issue in the two counts that alleg ed vi o l at i o n s o f 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
. On Marc h 17, 2002, the district c ourt imposed a life se ntence for Cooney ’s violation of 21 U
. S. C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1). Cooney , 2 6 F. App’ x at 527-28. The overa ll life sentence was within the Guideline ra

ng e, id. , but the statutory maxi mum f or no count exceede d 20 y ear s unless more than 5 kilogr ams of cocaine was possessed. Cooney appea led her

sentenc e to this court, which he ld that the sentenc e violated Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). This c ourt found that the jury did not make any

deter minations, bey ond a re asonable doubt, as t o the amount of drugs that Cooney distributed and that the i mpositi on of a life sentenc e for violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) wa s there for e improper
. Cooney , 26 F. App’ x at 528. Thus, eve n though the re “ was more than 1No. 06-5797

United States v. Cooney

- 3 - sufficie nt evidence in the trial rec ord to find [Cooney ] responsible for more than 150 kilog rams of
coca ine,” Cooney

never theless suffe red a

n Apprendiviolation b ec au s e t h e jury did not make that specific finding
. Cooney , 26 F. App’ x at 529.
O n r e ma n d , th e district cour

t imposed five conse cutive sente nces of 240 month each. Coone y
a g a in a p p e a le d to th is c o u rt, w h ic h a f f ir me d th e s e n te n c e u n der pr e- Bo ok e r law. Cooney , 8 7 F. App’x at 580

. On appe al, this court stated that “ Def endant c oncede s that the sentenc e imposed by the dis tr ic t c o u rt c o mp o rt s w i t h t h e G u i d e l i n e s , b u t n e v e rt h e l e s s c o n t e n d s t h a t i t i s ‘ o v e r k i l l ’ t o
s en t en ce a p er s o n in her late forties to 100 y ear s in prison.” Id. at 581. This court re jected the argument as beingwithout merit. Id. Coo ne y the n so ught re vie w i n th e Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Court, w hich rema

nded the case for c onsideration in light of United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Cooney v . United States , 543 U.S. 1099 (2005).
On J une 1, 200 6 , t h e district cour t ag ain sentenc ed Cooney . The district cour t imposed a 216-month sentence for e ach count. Howeve r, t he dis trict court ordere d that the sentenc es for the f i r s tt w o dr u g c o u n t s r

u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y a n d

t h e s e n t e n c e s f

o r t h e r e m a i n i n g c o u n t s r

u n c o n c u r r e n t l y. This calculation resulted in a 432-month sentenc e of imprisonm ent. (The sentenc es for the violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(C) did not violate Apprendibeca use the sente nces w ere low enoug h that they wer e author ized by

statute eve n without a specific jury finding of a pa rticular a mount of drug s.) When im p o s in g s e n te n c e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt n o te d th a t it d id n o t d is tu r b th e e a r li e r Guidelines calc ulations beca

use, ac cordingto the di strict court, thi s court previously held that the district cour t pr op e rl y c a lc ulate d th e Gu ide lin e s r a ng e . F ro m th is l ow e r s e nte nc e , Co on e y a pp e a ls.No. 06-5797

United States v. Cooney

Contrary to Cooney ’s apparent arg ument on appea l, nothing in the subseque nt appea l and 2 rema nd require d the district court t o i gnore Cooney ’s conc ession that the Guidelines c alculations we re c or re c t. - 4 - Cooney argues that the district cour t made a proce dural error when it relied on the previous Guidelines ca lculations. Specifica lly , Cooney argues that the district cour t erre d when it deter

mined, for pur poses of calc ulating the re levant Guidelines r ang e, that the a ppropriate drug quantity

was 150 kilogr ams of coca ine bec ause the court a lrea dy found that the drugquantities were improper unde r Apprendi
. Coo ne y ’s a rgume nt s uf

fe rs fr om t

wo se ri ou s f

laws . F ir st, Coo ne y

a lr e a dy c on c e de d to thi s court that the district court proper ly calc ulated the rele vant SentencingGuidelines, which inc luded a dete rmination as to the amount of drug s . As t h is court noted in the sec ond appea l, “Def endant
conce des that t he sentence imposed by the district court c omports with the Guidelines.” Cooney , 87 F. App’x at 581. Cooney cannot come back, afte r a limited Booke r re mand fr om t he Sup re me Court , to sugg est that the Guide l i n es calc ulations, which Cooney previously

conce ded we re c orre ct, ar e
a c tua lly inc or re c t. 2
Se c on d, the ho ldi ngof

the fi rs t Cooney decision di d not do what Cooney sug g ests that it did. As discussed above , in its first decision, this c ourt found that the district court er red w hen it imposed a life se ntence for Cooney ’s violating 21 U.S.C. § 841. The rele vant statutory provisions allowed
a district c ourt to impose a life sentenc e only if a def endant distributed over

5 kilogr ams of coc aine, and, in this case, no jur

y conclude d bey ond a re asonable doubt t hat Cooney distributed over 5No. 06-5797

United States v. Cooney

- 5 - kilogr ams of cocai n e. For this li mited rea son, the court he ld that Cooney suffe red a

n Apprendi violati o n . T h is court, howeve r, did not hold that the district court’s Sentenc ing G uidelines
c a lcu lat io ns we re in e rr or , o r t hat a tr ia l ju dg e may

no t make fa c tua l f

ind ing s in c a lc ulatin g the m. The Ap pr e nd i violation that we found extended only to the imposit ion of a sente nce hig her tha n the statutory maxi mum on the bas is of judicially -dete rmined fa cts, and did not conde mn judicial deter mination of fac ts in all contexts. Simpl y put, Cooney ’s ar g ument that the district court re peate d the Apprendiviolation that this court pre viously identified is without merit. Finally , we c an dispose brie fly of Cooney ’s ar g ument (which she raised for the first time at oral a rg ument) that the district cour t violated United States v. Muham mad , 478 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2007), when it de fer

red to the ear lier district c ourt and court of appea ls de terminations that there was sufficie nt e vidence of the drug quantities. Cooney ’s argument is w ithout mer it because Muhammad does not apply

in the situation in this c ase. I n Muhammad , the district court de nied the def endant the opportunity

to allocute at the r e-se ntencing hear ing. Id. at 248. The Court o f Ap p ea l s for the F ourt h Ci rc uit he ld t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c omm itt e d p la in e rr or

be c a us e a se c on d a llu c uti on

c ou ld have r evea led that important sentenc ing f actor s chang ed fr om the first sentenc ing. For example, the defe ndant might ha

ve ac knowledg ed his wrong doing a nd expressed deep reg ret for his conduc t at his re-se ntencing , and such post-se ntencing developments mig ht have ha d an i m pact on the d e f e n d a n t’ s s e n te n ce. Id. at 2 5 1
. Her e, in contra st, the district court did not err in r elying on pr e vio us Gu ide lin e s c a lc ulatio ns that bo th a dis tr ic t c ourt

a nd thi s c ourt fo un d to be a

pp ro pr ia te inNo. 06-5797

United States v. Cooney

Coo ne y su g g e ste d a t or a l a rgume nts that Muhammad re qu ir e s a dis tr ic t c ourt

to c on du c t a 3 de novo revie w of the r ecor d at re -sente n cing. Neither the Muhammad court nor the courts of appea ls decisions which the F ourth Circuit cited in Muhammad held, howeve r, that a district c ourt mu s t c o n d

u c t a de novo Guidelines ca lculation befor e imposing a sentenc e in ca ses wher e a defe ndant pre viously conce ded the a ppropriate ness of the r eleva nt Guidelines ca lculations. See Muhammad , 4 7 8 F
. 3 d a t2 5 0 (c i t i n g United States v. Barne s , 948 F.2d 325, 330 ( 7th Cir. 1991); United States v. More e , 928 F.2d 654, 656 (5th Cir. 1991)). In this case, the district c ourt did not c omm it p la in e rr or

in r e lyingon

the pr e vio us Gu ide lin e s c a lc ulatio ns .

- 6 - light of th e e v id e n c e o f

dr u g q u a n ti ti e s . Co o n e y

c o n c e d e d

th a t t h e G u id e li n e c a lc u lati o n s w e re 3

corr ect a nd it was not nece ssary

for the district c ourt to rec onsider the issue at re-se ntencing
. This case comes down to this. The Apprendiviolation was cure d by the first re mand. The advisory Guideline sente nce w as cor rec tly calc ulated on the f

irst remand a

nd did n o t h ave to be
rec alculate d on the sec ond rema nd. As long as the Guidelines wer e treated as a dvisory on the sec ond
rema nd and the se ntence was not otherw ise unrea sonable, a ffirma nce is re quired.
For these re asons, we a ffirm Cooney ’s sentenc e.