The H ono rabl e Karl S . Fo reste r, U ni ted Sta tes Di stri ct J udge for th e E aste rn D is trict of * Ke ntuc ky, si ttin g by

de si gnati on. N OTR E C OMME N D E D F ORF U L L -T E XTP U B L IC A T ION File Na me: 07a 067 3n.0 6 Filed : Se ptemb er 12, 200 7 No . 0 6-61 28 UN IT ED S TA

T ES C OURTOF A PP EA LS F ORT H E S IXT H C IR C U IT
Un ite d S tatesof Ameri ca ) Plaintif f-Appe llee ) ON APPEAL FROM T HE UNIT ED STAT ES ) DIS TRICT C OURT F OR THE M IDD LE ) DIST RICT OF T ENNESSEE v. ) ) OP IN ION Sta nl ey Je rome Green ) De fend ant-A ppe ll ant ) )
BE FORE : SU TT ON, McK EAGUE, Circ uit J udg es; and F ORES T ER , D istrict Jud ge *
Foreste r, D istrict Jud ge. Fo l l o w i n g a jurytri al i n 2 003 , Sta nl ey Jero me Green w as
con v i ct e d fo r

c o n s p i r i n g t o p o s s e s s a n d u tt e r c o u n t e rfe i ts e c u r i t i e s , p o s s e s s i n g a n d u tt e r i ng co u n te rfei t se cu ri ti e s, a n d ba n k f ra u d , re su l ti n g i n a t o ta l s e n te n ceo f 96 mo n th s o f i mp ri so n me n t. On a ppe al , hisco nv ictio n was aff irme d, b ut h isse nten ce was v aca ted and rema nde d for
res ente ncing pursua nt to United Stat es v. Booke r , 5 4 3 U

. S

. 2 20 (2005 ). He now appeals his
re se n te n cet o 9 6 mo n th s. F o r th e re a so n s th a t fol l o w , we a ff i rm. I. Ba ckg rou nd In M a rc h 2 0 0 0 , th i s C o u rt a ff i rme d Gre e n ’ s 1 9 9 8 co n v i ct i o n a n d 3 7 -mo n th se n te n cefor a c o u n t e rfe i tc h e c kc a s h i n g s c h e m e . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . G re e n , 2 1 0 F

. 3 d 3 7 3 ( T a b l e ) , 2 0 0 0 WL 355 640 (6th C ir. 200 0). Sh ortl yafter b ei ng rel eas ed f rom tha t co nv ictio n, Gree n e mbarked on the pr esent c oun terfeit c hec k cash in g sche me th at i nvol v ed, at d ifferen t ti mes from Au gust 20 00Un ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 2 throu gh Fe brua ry20 02, a to tal of ni ne parti ci pan ts. Hi s s eco nd con v ictio n was aff irme d, b ut th e sen tenc e re mand ed. H e was rese nten ced i n A ugust, 2006 w ith the court imp osi ng a sen tenc e o f 60 months ’ imp ris onme nt o n th e c ons pi racy co unt and 96 mon ths’ i mpri son ment on Co unts2-1 1
o f th e i n d i ct m e n t , t o r u n c o n c u r re n t l y . H e n o w a p p e a l s t h i s re s e n t e n c e . Ad d i t i o n a l facts a re
re s e rve d fo r

t h e an a ly s is be lo w. II . A n a lys is Gre e n ra i se s five i ss u e s o n a p p e a l

. F i rs t, h e cl a i ms hi s F i fth a n d Si xth Ame n d me n t ri ght s
were v io la ted w hen hi s s ente ncewas enh anc ed throu gh judi ci al fact f in di ng usin g a p repo nde ranc e of the ev id enc e s tand ard. Se con d, Green cha ll enges a four-p oi nt enh anc emen t for hi s ro lei n th e offens e. Third , heargue s th at a ppl ic ati on of the 200 2 U ni ted Sta tes Sent en ci ng Gui del in es (“ U .S .S .G. ” o r “Gu i d e l i n e s” ) v i o l a te d t h e E x P o stFactoC l a u se . F o u rt h , h e c l a i ms e n ti tl e me n t to a two - p o in tr educt ion for acc epta nce of respon sibili ty and, f if

th, he clai ms his resent ence is
unre aso nab le

. A. Sta nda rd o f

R ev ie w C ri mi n a l s e n te n ce s a re re v i e we d u n d e r a re a so n a b l e n e sss ta n d ard, w h i ch c o n ta i n s b o th p ro c e d u ra l a n d s u b s t a n t i v e c o m p o n e n t s . U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M c G e e , _ _ _ F

. 3 d _ _ _ , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 9 8 9 0 1 7 a t * 5 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. “ A s e n t e n c e ma y b e p ro c e d u ra l l y u n re a s o n a b l e i f t h e d i s t r i ctj u d ge fai lsto con si der the app li cab le guid el in e range or n egle cts to c ons id er th e o ther facto rs l is ted in 18 U.S .C. § 3 55 3( a) , a nd i nste ad si mpl yse le cts w hat the judge d eems an app ropri ate sen tenc e
w ith out suc h re quire d c ons id erati on.” U ni ted Sta tes v . Bo rho, 485 F.3d 90 4, 9 08 (6th Ci r. 20 07) (quoti ng Un ite d Sta tes v . Co ll in gton, 461 F.3d 805 , 80 8 (6 th C ir. 200 6)). “In a ddi tio n, ase nten ce may besu bsta nti v el yun reas ona bl e ‘ w hen the dis trict court sel ects the sen tenc e a rbi trari ly , ba ses the sen tenc e o n i mpermi ssi bl e factors , fa ils t o con si der perti nen t § 355 3(a) facto rs o r gives anUn ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 3
unre aso nab leamo unt of w ei ght to any pe rtin ent facto r.’” Id. A “re bu t t ab le pr esu mpti on of
reas ona bl ene ss” is a pp li ed to s ente nce s fall in g w ith in theap pl ic abl e Gu id el in es range. U ni ted Stat es v. W ill iams , 436 F.3 d 706, 708 (6t h Cir. 2006) ; Rita v. Uni ted St ates , ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 , 1 6 8 L .E d .2 d 2 0 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ). Ch al le nges tothei nterp retati on an d a ppl ic ati on of the Gui del in es are rev ie wed de novo, a s a re c o n st i tu ti o n a l c h a l l e n ges . U n ited S ta te s v . K a tz o p o u l o s, 4 3 7 F .3 d 5 6 9 , 5 7 3 -5 7 4 ( 2 0 0 6 ). F a ct u a l fi n d i n gs a t se n te n ci n g a re re v i e we d for c l e a r e rro r. Id

. a t 5 7 4

. B

. Ju d i ci a l F a ctF i n d i n g a n d P re p o n d e ra n ceo f th e E v i d e n ceS ta n d a rd Green con tend s th at th e d is trict cou rt’s factu al dete rmin ati ons by a prep ond eran ce of the
e v i d e n cerega rd i n g se n te n ci n g en h a n ce me n ts v i o l a te d h i s S i xth A me n d me n t ri ghtt o t ri a l b yju ry and hi s F ifth A mend ment right to h av e c harges rev ie wed by a grand jury

. Bri ef for App el la nt, p p. 12
- 14

. He ac k no wled g es th atth e Si xth Circu ith a s a p p rove d t his proc ed ur e in Un it ed St at es v. C o ffe e , 4 3 4 F .3 d 8 8 7 , 8 9 8 ( 6 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) a n d U n i te d S ta te s v . Ga te s, 46 1 F.3 d 70 3 , 7 0 7 -0 8 ( 6 th Ci r. 20 06), but state s th at th e U ni ted Sta tes Su preme Co urt has not rul ed on the is sue . H e a ls o note s th at th e Thi rd C irc ui t i n U ni ted Sta tes v . K ikumura , 91 8 F .2d 10 84 , 1 10 1 ( 3rd Ci r. 19 90) di sagreed w ith a prep ond eran ce stan dard w hen the enh anc emen ts have a d is prop orti ona te e f fect
on the sen tenc e. The Governmen t res pon ds w ith nu merousun pub li she d d eci si onsof thi s C ourt an d pub li she d deci si onsf rom man yci rcui ts th at a re c ons is tent w ith C offee and Gates . In Gates , the offens e a nd enh anc emen ts were quite si mil ar to Green’ s, and the same argument was rejecte d. 46 1 F. 3d at708

. Ad dit ion al l y, t he Sixt h Cir cu itdec lin ed to foll ow Kik um ura in Unit ed St at es v. M ay le , 33 4 F

. 3d 55 2, 5 57 (6th Ci r. 20 03). Thi s C ourt isbo und by co ntrol li ng de ci si onsof oth er p a n e l s. S a l mi v . S e cre ta ry o f H e a l th a n d H u ma n S e rv i ce s, 7 7 4 F .2 d 6 8 5 , 6 8 9 ( 6 th C i r. 1 9 8 5 ).Un ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 4 C. Fou r-poi nt E nha nce ment for R ol e i n th e Offens e Green obje cts to th e four-po in t en han cemen t to hi s s ente nceas an organi z er or l ead er o n th e gro u n d s th a t th e re we re n o t five o r mo re p a rt i ci p a n ts i n th e cr i mi n a l a ct i v i ty “a t a n ygi v e n t i me .” He sep arate s the parti ci pan ts in to eac h month of p arti ci pati on and argues therewere not more than four in any one mo nth. Brief for Appellant, pp. 15-1 6. He f urt her obj ect s to t h e d is t r ic tcourt ’s f in di ng thattheactiv ity was “othe rw is e e xtens ive.” Fi nal ly , heargue s, a lte rnati v el y , tha t a three
poi nt e nha nce ment as a ma nager/su perv is or was more app ropri ate. A di stri ct c ourt’ s d eci si on con cern in g a d efendan t’srol e i n a n o f fens e is rev ie wed for c le ar error. Un ite d Sta tes v . Gates, 461 F.3d 703 , 709 (6th Ci r. 200 6). “A di stri ct cou rt’sde termin ati on regardi ng a defenda nt’ s ro lei n th e o f fens e i s re v ersi bl e o nl yi f cl earl yerro neo us.” U ni ted Sta tes
v . D a v i s, 3 0 6 F .3 d 3 9 8 , 4 2 3 ( 6 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). In th isca se, the di stri ct c ourt made thefoll ow in g f in di ngs regard in g rol e: [I]n terms of

the organi z er le ade r enha nce ment, I thi nk that app li es. M r. Green was the organi z er a nd le ade r an d contro ll er of M s. Carro ga, M r. Fann in g, M s. S imp son , M r. B i sh o p a n d o th e rs , i n cl u d i n g the R u cke r si st e rs . A n d t h a t’ s mo re t h a n fi v e . I n anye vent, i t was othe rw is e e xtens ive. M r. Green ha d apre ttyso phi sti cate d operation g oing , and it was q uite extensive based on the fact s intro duced attrial. J. A

. 4 2 4

. The Governmen t co rrectl yno tes that fou r of the pa rtic ip antstes tifie d a t Green ’stri al tha t he prov id ed them cou nterfeit che cks an d a sked th em topu rcha se mercha ndi se for h im w ith the che cks. B rie f

for Ap pel le e, p p. 3 2-33 . Two o f the se parti ci pan ts i den tifie d a t l eas t fo ur othe r in di v id ual s w ho pas sed co unte rfei t ch ecks p rov id ed by Gree n. I d. Ms . S imp son tes tifie d th at Green t old h erh e c oul d ma nufacture bu si nes s c hec ks for h er tous e tobu ymerch and is e from Na shv il lemerch ants . Gre en tol d her spe ci f ic al ly w hat el ectro ni cs to b uy an d s ai d s he cou ld bu y ite ms for he rsel f

after sh e p urch ase d th e five it em s he w ante d (J .A. 216 -221 ). Gree n a lte red Simpso n’s driver’s li cense numbe r so she could pass t he check s w ith her own identif ication (J .A.Un ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 5 223 ). The yshared most of the ite ms pu rcha sed (J.A . 22 9). H e a ls o p rov id ed pay rol l che cks for Si mpson an d th e R ucker s is ters to c ash (J.A . 23 0-23 3). The Governmen t po in ts t o s ubs tanti al testi mony at tria l regardi ng Green’ s le ade rshi p rol e and ite ms sei z ed f rom hi s prop erty

. B rie f for Ap pel le e, p p. 3 -20. Un der U .S.S .G. § 3 B1 .1, a ba se offens e maybei ncre ase d b yfour p oi nts “[i]f the defenda nt
was an organi z er o r l ead er o f a cri min al activ ity

tha t i nvol v ed f ive o r more p art ic ipa nts or was othe rw is e e xtens ive.” No thi ng i n th isgui del in e r eq uir es a ll f ive p arti ci pan ts tobei nvol v ed in the
cr i mi n a l a ct i v i ty

a t th e s a me t i me . Tot h e c o n tra ry , Application Note 3 p ro v i d e s i n p a rt : “ In
ass ess in g w heth er a n o rgani z ati on i s ‘ othe rw is e e xtens ive,’ al l pers onsi nvol v ed duri ng the co urse of the entire of

fense are to be consider ed.” U.S. S.G

. § 3B1.1 cm t. n. 3 (em phasis added) . Th is Co urt h as hel d th at th e te rm “e xtens ive” c rimi nal activ ity focuse s o n “n umeros ity .” Uni ted Sta tes
v . A ntho ny , 28 0 F .3d 694 , 70 0 (6th Ci r. 2002 ). Gree n d oesno t po in t to any au thori tyi n s upp ort o f h i s p o si ti o n , a n d i t i s th e o p i n i o n o f th i s C o u rtt h a t th e a rgu me n t i s w i th o u t me ri t. Gr een next comp lains that t he distr ict court failed to apply t he three-p oint analysis in An thon yi n d etermi ni ng the activ ity was othe rw is e e xtens ive beca usenoco unta bl e n on-p arti ci pan t
was id enti f ie d. Thiscl ai m i s ess enti al ly the same as the prec edi ng one rel ati ng to the numb er o f p a rt i ci p a n ts a t a n ygi v e n t i me a n d i s e qua l l yw i th o u t me ri t. Fi nal ly , Green cl ai ms tha t ca ses in v ol v in g s imi la r cri min al activ ity res ul ted in a three -poi nt
e n h a n ce me n t for ma n a ger /s u p e rv i so r, ra th e r th a n a fou r- p o i n t e n h a n ce me n t for l e a d e r/o rga n i z e r. In s upp ort, Gree n p oi nts to Un ite d S tatesv . Gates , 46 1 F .3d 703 (6th C ir. 200 6), i n w hi ch Gates
rece ived onl ya three -poi nt enh anc emen t. Gate s, h owev er, was the mid dl eman be tween the p e rs o n s p a s s i n g fra u d u l e n tc h e c ks a n d C o n l e y , w h o re c r u i t e d G a t e s a n d d i re ct e d t h e o ther
cocon spirat ors . Conley received a four- pointe n h a n cem ent as t he org anizer of the count erfeit che ck cash in g cons pi racy an d a n id enti cal 96-mon th sen tenc e. Id. a t 70 7. Li ke Co nl ey , Green wasUn ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 6 the pers on at the top w ho recru ite d parti ci pan ts, prov id ed the cou nterfeit che cks an d i den tifica tio n, and sh ared i n th e p roce eds . The Governmen t al so rel ie s o n c ase s f rom othe r juri sdi cti onsi nvol v in g si mil ar c oun terfeit c hec k cash in g sche mes a nd acti v ity tha t res ul ted in four-poi nt e nha nce ments: Un ite d S tatesv . R obb io , 18 6 F .3d 37, 45 (1st Ci r. 19 99); Un ite d Sta tes v . M ija ngos, 2 40 F.3d 60 1, 605(7th C ir. 200 1); a nd Un ite d S tatesv . S ui tor, 2 53 F.3d 1 20 6, 1 210 (10 th C ir. 200 1). W e fin d th a t Gre e n ’ s cl a i m l a cksme ri t. D

. A p p l i ca ti o n o f th e 2 0 0 2 Gu i d e l i n e s toS o me Offen se s C o mmi tt e d P ri o r The re to Green co nt en ds that theap pl ic ati on of the 200 2 Gu id el in es to h isres ente nci ng i n 2 006
v io la tes the Ex

P ost Facto C la useof the U ni ted Sta tes C on stituti on. H e c la ims that the 200 0 Ed iti on of the Gui del in es sho ul d h av e a pplie d to h isoffens es and tha t hewas di sad v anta ged b y useof the 20 02 Ed iti on. H e n otestha t the puni shmen t for f raud committed on or after N ov embe r 1, 2 001 , was in crea sed w hen P art F– O f fens es Invol v in g Frau d a nd De cei t was el imi nate d a nd
co n so l i d a te d w i th P a rtB

– B a si c E co n o mi c Offe n se s. S p e ci fic a l l y , h e s a ys th a t i n 2 0 0 0 , U .S .S .G. § 2F1.1 p ro v i d e d a s i x-l e v e l i n cre a sei f th e l o sswa s mo re t h a n $ 7 0 ,0 0 0 , w h e re a s U .S .S .G. § 2B 1.1, w hi ch app li es to b ank fraud commi tted aft erN ov embe r 20 01, prov id ed an ei ght-le v el i n cre a se . H e a l son o te s a two -p o i n t e n h a n ce me n t u n d e r § 2 F 1 .1 (b )( 3 ) for s ch e me s tod e frau d mo re than on e v ictim in the20 00 Ed iti on, bu ta fou r-poi nt e nha nce ment und er § 2B 1.1(b )(2)(B) for offens es in v ol v in g 50 or mo re v ictims. Gree n a cknow le dges th at th e 2 001 - 200 6 edi tio ns of the Gui del in es are the same in thi s re gard. Bri ef for Ap pel la nt, p . 22 . H e d oesno t argue the re was any i ncre asei n p uni shmen t after N ov embe r 20 01. Green’ s c oun terfeit c hec kc as hin g sc heme an d c ons pi racy be gan i n A ugust 2 000 an d
co nt inu ed th rou g h Fe br ua ry 200 2. He ac k no wled g es th is Cou rt ’s dec is ion in Un it ed St at es v. Bu ckner, 9 F.3d 452 , 454 (6th Ci r. 199 3), that “[w]hen an offens e begi ns before but con tin uesafter the ef fect iv e date of

a Guideline or amendm ents thereto, the mo st rec ent g uideline appli es. ” HeUn ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 7 argues, ho wev er, that the Un ite d State s Sup reme Cou rt has not con si dere d th e i ssu e o f “co nti nui ng offens es” suc h a s c ons pi racy an d a ppl ic ati on of the Ex P ost Facto c laus e un der thos e ci rcumsta nce s. Bri ef for A ppe ll ant, p. 2 4. The U ni ted Sta tes r eli es o n U .S.S .G. § 1 B1 .11 stati ng tha t a rev is ed edi tio n o f the Gui del in es isto beap pl ie d tobo th o f fens es w hen on e i s c ommitte d b efore a nd the sec ond after t he re vise d ed it ion bec am e ef fec t ive. I tals o reli es on t his Cou rt ’s dec is ion s in Unit ed St a t e s v. M il ton, 27 F.3d 203 , 21 0 (6 th C ir. 199 4) (u se onl yon e ma nua l); Un ite d S tatesv . B uckner, 9 F .3d 4 5 2 , 4 5 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) ( “ W h e n a n o ffe n s e b e g i n s b e fo re b u tc o n t i n u e s a ft e r t h e e ffe ct i v e d a t e o f a G uid eli ne or

am en dm en t s t he ret o, th e m os tre ce ntG uid eli ne app lie s” ) ; a n d U n i t ed St at es v. He beka, 8 9 F .3d 279 , 28 5, ( 6t h Cir

. 1 996) (se nten ci ng Gui del in es app ly to a food sta mp fraud sch eme stretch in g ov er s ix years , du rin g w hi ch Gui deline s were ado pted ). B uckner in v ol v ed a con tin ui ng ba nk f raud scheme an d i s c ontro ll in g in thi s c ase . W hat ismore , si nceGree n re cei v ed
con curre nt s ente nces on e ac h of theseco unts(so me o f w hi ch warran ted sen tenc in g und er th e 200 2 Gu id el in es), any

erro r woul d b e h arml ess . E

. D e n i a l o f Two -p o i n t R e d u ct i o n for Acc e p ta n ceo f R e sp o n si b i l i ty In re v ie w in g the den ia l of a decre asefor acce ptan ce of resp ons ib il ity , this Co urt a ppl ie s th e ov eral l deferenti al sc opeof rev ie w i n B uford v . U ni ted Sta tes, 532 U.S . 59 , 64 -65 (200 1). Un ite d S ta te s v . B o l d e n , 4 7 9 F .3 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 4 ( 6 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). “[W ]i th res p e ctt o p u re l yfactu a l c o mp o n e n ts
o f t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f re s p o n s i b i l i ty d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we re j e ct s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n s o n l y i f th e ya re cl earl yerro neo us.” Id. Becaus e Green g ave the governm ent prof fers on Septem ber 13 and 16, 2002, before t rial, he argues he isen titl ed to atwo-l ev el red ucti on for acce ptan ce of resp ons ib il ity . Gre en cl ai ms he onl ywent to tri al be cau se he believed he was not guil tyof “ba nk f raud ” i n th at h e i nten ded for mercha nts to b ear the lo ss, not the ban ks. He acknow le dges th isC ourt’ s d eci si on in U ni ted Sta tesUn ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 8
v . R eau me, 3 38 F.3d 57 7 (6 th C ir. 20 03), i n w hi ch a re ductio n for a cce ptan ce of respo nsi bi li tywas unwarran ted w herethede fend ant admi tted the und erl y in g c ond uct but den ie d i nten t to defraud a ban k. Gre e n a tt e mp t s t o d i s t i n gu i s h t h a t c a s e fa ct u a l l y o n t h e b a s i s t h a t R e a u me ope ned ba nk
acc oun ts and w rote che cks agai nst in suff ic ie nt fundsi n th e a cco unts , w here as Green purc has ed mercha ndi se w ith co unte rfei t ch ecks. R e a u me re co gni z e d t h a t “u n d e r ra re ci rc u ms ta n ce s, a d e fen d a n t ma yc l e a rl yd e mo n st ra te
an acc epta nce of re spo nsi bi li ty des pi te exerci si ng hi s c ons titu tio nal ri ght to tria l.” Id. at 5 83. The
exampl e was a d efendantg oin g t o tri al “to ass ert i ssu es that do not rel ate to factua l guil t.” Id

. Re aume , l ike Green, cl ai med he i nten ded to defraud mercha nts, not ban ks. Thi s C ourt agreed
w ith t he g ove rnment that Re aume ’s“sp eci f ici nten t to defraud the Ba nk i s a factual matter” and
was “an ess enti al factual el emen t of guil t.” Id

. I n t h e p re s e n tc a s e , G re e n t e s t i fi e d a th i s s e n t e n c i n g: [ B] as ic all y I ne ver

co m m itt ed ban kf rau d eve n th ou g h I g otprove n g uil ty by a ju ry. If you l ook at t he el emen t of the of fens e of bank f raud , I never c ommitte d i t. Tha t wa s o n e o f th e re a so n s, th e ma i n re a so n I we n t tot ri a l b e ca u sel o o k a t th e c ri me and l ook at the el emen ts o f theoffens e o f

ba nk f raud . ... You know , themen s re a, th e a ct u s re u s I n e v e r co mmi tt e d a n yo f th a t. J.A. 425 -426

. The Gov ernmen t urges that thi s i s n ot o ne of those“rareci rcumsta nce s” c onte mpl ated by U.S .S.G. § 3E 1.1. Gree n p ut th e U ni ted Sta tes t o it s bu rden of pro of on the ess enti al factual el emen ts o f

al l cou nts, not just the ban k fraud cou nts. M oreo v er, hi s s pec ific in tent to d efraud a f inancial i nst itut ion was a fact ual mat ter . Th e Governm ent also relies on the follow ing Sixth Circuit auth ori tyde ny in g the redu cti on, in ad di tio n toR eau me: Un ite d S tatesv . M aha n, 1 90 F.3d 41 6, 426 -27 (6th Ci r. 19 99) (defenda nt went to tri al to con test factu al gui lt and co nti nue d todow npl ay rol e a fter c onv ictio n); a nd Un ite d S tatesv . C hal kias, 971 F .2d 120 6, 1216 (6th Ci r. 19 92)Un ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 9 (defenda nts w ho attempte d tomi ni miz e th ei r rol es in a drug co nsp ira cy before, du rin g, and after tr i a l we re n o t e n ti tl e d t o re d u ct i o n for a cc e p ta n ceo f re sp o n si b i l i ty ). The d is trict co urt d eni ed the adju stment as fol lows: M r. Green went to tria l, and he has n’ t truthfull yad mitted theoffens es of conv ictio n. In fact, h e’ s conti nue d to deny the essen tia l facts de al in g w ith theba nk f raud an d hi s ro lei n th e o ffen se , s o I am o v errul in g the obje cti on regardi ng acc epta nceof res po ns ibi lity. J.A. 414 . W e d o n ot fin d th att he d is t r ic t co urt was cl earl yerro neo us in de ny in g a re ductio n for
ac ce pt an ce of

re sp on si bil ity. F. Re aso nab le nes s o f theS ente nce Gr een claims his sent ence is subst antively and procedu rally unre aso n a b le ; however, his
a rgu me n t a p p e a rs t o foc u s o n s u b st a n ti v e u n re a so n a b l e n e ssfor fai l u re t o gi v e p ro p e r we i ghtt o § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) fa ct o rs . B r i e f fo r A p p e l l a n t , pp . 29
- 3 0

. Gre e n ’ s s e n t e n c e i s w i t h i n t h e G u i d e l i n e s ra n ge of 77 to 9 6 mo nths(J.A . 43 1) a nd, there by , i s ent it led to apre sumpti on of reaso nab le nes s. W il li ams, 4 36 F.3d at 708 ; R ita , 12 7 S .Ct. a t 24 62. At the end of the se nten ci ng he ari ng, the cou rt sa id : M r. Green , i t i s th e judgment of the Co urt th at th e fol low in g sente ncebei mpose d. I am goin g to commi t you to th e c usto dy of the B urea u o f

P ris onsto be imp ris one d for atota l term of 96 mont hs

. T he rea son for thi s i s re al ly w hat you had sta ted w hi ch istha t you were con v icted in thi s Co urt and [si c] matte r of just a few mon ths you eng ag ed in the sam e c onduct , and you are r igh t backher e be fore [ sic]. T hat’s the bas isfor the se nten ce. It i s topro mote resp ect for th e l aw , refle ct the se ri o u sn e sso f th e o ffe n seand t o pro te ctt h e p u b l i c a n d a ffo rd a d e qua te dete rrenc e. J.A. 432

. Gre e n c l a i ms t h e d i s t r i ct c o u rt p u n i s h e d h i m fo r re c i d i v i s m w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g o ther cha racte ris tics s uch ashi s re hab il ita tio n i n p ris on, hi s ed uc at ion, and hi s p osi tive a ttitu de. The factu al ev id enc e o n w hi ch he rel ie s, h owev er, i s p ost-se nten ci ng con duct. J .A. 427 -428 , 49 8-52 8. This cou rt has hel d that pos t-sen tenc in g e v ents or con duct can not be con si dere d und er the li mite dUn ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 10
sco pe of a B ooker re mand . U ni t ed S t at es v. W orl ey , 45 3 F .3d 706 , 70 9 (6 th C ir. 200 6); U ni ted S ta te s v . K e l l e r, _

_ _ F .3 d __

_ , 2 0 0 7 W L 2 2 5 4 4 4 2 a t *7 ( 6 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). Thed i st ri ctc o u rt acknow le dged Green ’s p os t -sen tenc in g reha bi li tati on and sa id , “I a m pu ll in g for you.” J.A . 43 2. The di stri ct cou rt’s fai lu re to rel y on imp rope r, pos t-sen tenc in g c ond uct doe s n ot s upp ort vaca tin g Green’ s s ente nce . Green al so argues tha t the dis trict court fai le d toco nsi der the di spa rity be tween hi s p rese nt sent ence and his 37-m onth senten c e i n 1 9 9 8 for sim ilar conduct , as well as the subs tant ially sho rter s ente nce s o f

hi s cod efendan ts. The Un ite d Sta tes resp ond s that the di spa riti es between Green’ s s ente ncean d thoseof hisco-defend antsw ere sup porte d by G reen ’slea ders hi p rol e i n th e of fenses , by his part icipation in the conspira cy f rom Augu st 2000 thro ug h February 2002, by his fai lu re toac cep t res pon si bi li ty , an d b yth e substan tia l ass is tanc e p rov id ed by hi s c ode fend ants

. Bri ef for Ap pel le e, p. 48. This Co urt al so note s th at Gree n’ s s ente ncewas si gnifica ntl yi ncre ase d by oth er unco mmon facto rs, such as a l ossexcee di ng $7 0,00 0, mo re th an f iftyv ictims, commi ssi on o f t h e of fe n s e whi le un d e r

cr im in a l j u s t ic e se n t e n c e , an d co m m is s io n of t h e of fe n s e wit h in two y e a rs o f re l e a se . J .A

. 4 3 0 , 4 4 1

. I n U n i te d S ta te s v . Ga te s, 4 6 1 F. 3d 7 0 3 , 7 0 7 ( 6 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ), defenda nt Co nle y w as the organi z er o f a cou nterfeit che ck-cashi ng con spi racy an d re cei v ed an id enti cal se nten ce of 96-mon ths’ i mpri son ment. Hi s c oop erati n g m a n a ge r a n d co d e fe n d ant, Gates,
was sen tenc ed to th irty-two mo nths . Id . at 706

. In th e p rese nt case , the re cord refle cts that the di stri ct c ourt con si dere d Gre en’ s l egal an d factu al argumen ts regardi ng senten ci ng. J.A. 410-4 32. It rejecte d hi s arguments regardi ng judi ci al fact-find in g and us e o f the 200 2 Gui del in es (J.A. 410 -412 ), del eted para graphs of the pres ente nce repo rt(J. A. 412- 413) , heard evidence reg arding t he num ber of check s and amou nt of

the loss (J. A. 414 -420 ), he ard arguments and rul ed on the enh anc emen ts (J .A. 423 -424 ), he ard Green in si st th at he never commi tted ban k fraud but that he had be en reha bi li tated (J.A . 42 5-42 9), a nd arti cul atedUn ite d S tates v. Green No . 06 -612 8 Pa ge 11 that it con si dere d th e Gu id el in es and eac h of th e § 355 3(a) facto rs (J.A. 420 -432 ). To the extent th a t Gre e n cl a i ms hi s s e n te n cew a s p ro ce d u ra l l yu n re a so n a b l e , we d i sa gre e . A s e n te n ci n g c o u rt is not requi red to a nal yz e e v ery frivol ousan d n on-frivol ousargumen t a defenda nt ma kes. U ni ted Sta tes v . M cGee,

___

F .3d

___ , 20 07 W L 1 989 017 , at *6 (6th Ci r. Ju ly 11 , 10 07); Un ite d S tates
v . Liou, 4 91 F.3d 334 , 33 9, n . 4 (6th Ci r. 20 07) (“Ri ta c ontra v ene s s uch a stron g techn ic al
req uir em en t ” )

. T he dis t r ictco urtdem on st rat ed th at it un de rst oo d Gree n’s cl aim s but did notbel ieve th e yo u twe i ghe d o th e r § 3 5 5 3 (a ) facto rs t h a t we re mo re p e rt i n e n t. III. Co nclu sion F o r th e fore goi n g re a so n s, we A F F IR M t h e s e n te n ci n g d e ci si o n o f th e d i st ri ctc o u rt

.