The Honor able Joseph Hood, Senior United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , 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: 10a0244n.06 No. 08-6541 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. RA P H A E L C O R T E Z H O W E , II, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fo re : C OO K a n d

M cK E AG UE , C i rc u i tJ u d ges , an d HO OD , Di s t ri ct J u d ge . * COOK, Circuit Judge
. Raphae l H owe appea ls a s substantively unrea sonable his 151 months
se nte nc e imp os e d af

te r he ple a de d guil ty

to p os se ssi ngfi ve or

mor e g ra ms o f c oc a ine wi th i nte nt t o dis tr ibute and

po sses si ng a

fi re arm a s a c on vic te d f

e lon . Ca re fu l c on sid e ratio n o f t

he argume nts Howe a dvance s re v ea l s no abuse of discretion in the district cour t’s below-G uidelines sentenc ing
and we thu s a ff

ir m.
A sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable wher e the district c ourt “bas[es] the sentenc e on impermissible fa ct o rs . . . or g iv[ es] an unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. W

ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2005). We rebuttably presume w ithin-Guidelines
se nte nc e s to be re a so na

ble , a nd wh e re t he di st ri ct court ’s e xer c ise of its dis c re tio n le a ds to i tsNo. 08-6541

Un ite d S tat es v . H owe

- 2 - imp o s in g a b e lo w - G u id e li n e s s e n te n c e , “ s im p le lo g ic c o mp e ls th e c o n c lu s io n th a t
. . . [t he] defe ndant’s task of persua ding us that the more lenient sentenc e . . . is unr easona bl y l o n g i s even more de manding .” Un ite d S tat es v . Cu rry , 536 F.3d 571, 573 ( 6th Cir. 2008).
The first of Howe’ s two arguments for substantive unrea sonablene ss c riticizes th e d i s t ri ct
c o u rt f o r a ll e g e d ly c o n s tr a in in g it s a s s e s s me n t to the pre

- Booke r re g ime that r e c og nize d o nly extraordinarily

abusive c hildhood circumstance s as war ranting sentenc e re ducti on. Had the c ourt
a pp re c ia te d th e fu ll e xten t of its po st- Booke r d is c r e ti o nto v ar y fr om the Guidelines—without demanding extraordinarine ss a ssociated with a departure— the arg ument g oes, it likely would have
s en t en ce d Ho we more leniently
. We “ rec og nize two paths by which a sentenc er may rely on a defe ndant ’s fa m i l y

circ umstances to ar

rive at a sentenc e below the rec ommended ra ng e: (1) Guidelines-ba sed departure s . . . and (2) varia nces f rom the advisory

rang e in light of

the § 3553(a ) fac tors.” United St ates v. Elliot , 3 2 7 F. Ap p ’x 5 4 0 , 5 4 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Blue , 557 F.3d 682, 687 ( 6th Cir. 2009)). Her e, the se ntencingtranscr ipt confirms that in first calc ulating the appr opriate G uidelines sentenc e, the district cour t decided to de part downw ard by two levels fr om the ag ree d PSR -ca lculation in consideration of Howe’ s troubled childhood. Yet, Howe contends that this “modest varianc e” f

ailed to ade quately

acc ount for his compelling g rounds for le niency
. The re cord be lies Howe’ s theory that the court misapprehe nded the brea dth of its discretion. First, the c ourt expressly acknow ledg ed awa rene ss “ of its discr etion in the sentenc ing options.” ( Tr.
a t 57 , 6 7. ) S e c on d, it d isc us se d the dr uga dd ic tio n a

nd a bu se c ir c ums tanc e s w ithbo th H ow e and his mother whe n eac h testified in mitigation. Nor did the c ourt—as Howe ’s ar gu m entNo. 08-6541

Un ite d S tat es v . H owe

- 3 - su g g e sts —im

pr op e rl y re ly on the Gu ide lin e s to the e xclu sio n of oth e r 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s. After g ranting the two-leve l downwar d depar ture, the district court moved on to consider the sentenc ing f

actor s, expli citly

addre ssing se vera l of them to arr ive at a se ntence —as he twic e repe ated—suff

icient, but not gr eate r than ne cessa ry , to meet the g oals of § 3553(a) . Whil e the c ourt
e vin c e d a n a pp re c ia tio n o f th e se ve ri ty of the Ho we ’s c hil dh oo d tr a uma —c a lli ngit “ tr a g ic ” in de c idi ng to de pa

rt tw o le ve ls— it a lso e mph a size d H ow e ’s re sp on sib ili ty to c on du c t hi mse lf

wi thi n the law. ( Tr. at 56.) The c ourt’s sentenc ing disc ussion persuade s u s t hat it was unmoved by the de fe ns e ’s argume nt f

or a va ri anc e . Ho we ’s se nte nc e a t the bo tto m of that r e du c e d r ang e fe ll w ith in the cour t’s discretion.
Ho we ’s se c on d a

rgume nt c e nte rs on

his c ri tiq ue of the Gu ide lin e s’ ov e re mph a sis on sma llquantity prior drugconvictions and the district c ourt’s purpor ted misunderstanding of the a rg ument
or its “ sh or t shr if t” tr e a tme nt o f i t. G ive n o ur a bu se -o f- dis c re tio n s tand ard of re vie w t og e the r w ith t h e p re s u mp t i o n o f re as o n ab l en es s we ac co rd t o t h i s (b el o w) -G u i d el i n es s en t en ce , Ho we ’s ch al l en ge cannot suc cee d. Even dispensing with the virtually insurmountable hurdles the standards of revie w pr e se nt, the tr ans c ri pt re fl e c ts a ba lanc e d, ind ivi du a lize d co ns ide ratio n of t he se nte nc ingfa c tor s in light of H owe’ s arguments. Whil e the drug convictions fall into the minor rang e, the c ourt observe d that sever al involved fire arms, a f eatur e Howe ignor es. And the c ourt’s expressed c oncer n that Howe ha d b e c ome a

me na c e to s oc ie ty

and to him se lf

, ne c e ssi ta tin g a me anin g fu l te rm of inc arc e ra tio n to brea k the cycle, likewise supports the soundness of the c ourt’s exercise of its discretion.
Acc ording ly , we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.