The Honor able Thoma s A. Wiseman, Jr., Senior United States District J udg e for the Middle District * of Tenne ssee, sitting 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: 10a0095n.06 No. 08-6252 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. ANDRE LUNDY, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI S TRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : BA TCHEL DER, Chief J udg e; S UTTON, Circ uit J udg e; and WI SEMAN, District J udg e. *
WI SEMAN, District J udg e. Def endant- Appellant Andre Lundy challeng es the substantive and proc edura l rea sonablene ss of hi s 2 0 0 -m onth sentence . Be cause the sentenc e imposed by the dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s b oth pr oc e dura lly

and su bs tanti ve ly

re a so na ble , w e a ff

ir m. I. Lun dy , a re sid e nt of Mic hig an, tr ans po rt e d Oxy Con tin pil ls into Ke ntu c ky wi th the int e nt t o sell them, and, while ther e, wa s the subject of a controlled drugbuy arr ang ed by law enf orce ment of fi c e rs . A s p art

of the c on tr oll e d b uy , a

c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant a

rran ged to p ur c ha se Oxy Con tin pills fr om L

undy
. The informant was told that he would meet with Lundy ’s sister, who would bring t h e p i l l s w i t h h e r

t o a S o n i c r e s t a

u r an ti nC o r

b i n , K e n tu c ky.No. 08-6252

United States of America v . Lundy

- 2 - I n J anuar y 2008, Lundy ’s co- defe n d an t , L aToy a Hor n—who is not actually

Lundy ’s sister—arr ived at the Sonic r estaura nt to make the exchang e on Lundy ’s beha lf. Horn wa s met by ag ents of the Dr

ug Enforc ement Ag ency (“D EA”) , and, ult imately , 270 tablets of Oxy Contin, each weig hing 80 milligr ams, wer e re cover ed fr om the backse at of the police cruiser whe re she had plac ed them. After

the ag ents locate d Lundy at the motel wher e he w as staying, the y questioned him about the Oxy Contin t ablets. Duringthis int ervie w, L u n d y ad m i t ted that he ha d come with Hor n from Detr o i t i n o rd er to sell the Ox y Contin pi lls in Kentucky . Lundy further admitted that he had pr e vio us ly

ma de a pp ro xima te ly

te n s uc h tr ips
. Lundy was subseque ntly

indicted on a sing le count of posse ssing, with intent to distribute, a quantity of pills containing O x y Contin i n violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He pled guilty

to the char g es but prese rved his right to appe al the re asonable ness of his sentenc e. A Presente nce Re port (“PSR”) wa s prepa red, w hich proposed holding Lundy responsible for

4,020 pills based upon a cal cu l at i on that Lundy had ac tually

traff icked this number of

pills over the “appr ox imately

ten” trips he a dmitted making. The PSRalso indicated that, based on his prior
c on vic tio ns , L

un dy qu a lif ie d f or c are e r- of fe nd e r s ta tus
. At t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, t h e j u d ge a d o p t edt h e b as e o ff en s e l ev el o f 3 2 b as edo nt h e d ru gquantity calc ulations set forth in the PSR , and then assig ned a 2-point incre ase f or beingan org anizer
or leade r in the criminal activity , bring ing the offe nse level to 34. (Sentenc ing H r’g . at 23–24.) The judge then ap p l ied a 3- point reduction for cooper ation, bring ing the total offense level to 31,
corr esponding to a g uideline s en t en ci n g rang e of 188–235 months imprisonment. ( Id . at 25–26.)No. 08-6252

United States of America v . Lundy

- 3 - The judg e alter

nativel y found that L

undy ’s status as a c are er of fende r, whe n considere d with the maxi mum statutory

punishment of 30 y ear s for the of fense , independe ntly

y ielded an of

fense level of 34, which, when reduc ed by 3 points for cooperation, provided the same total offe nse leve l of 31, with the same sente ncing rang e of 188–235 months under the g uidelines. (

Id . at 24–26.) Lun dy , thro ug h c ouns e l, ob jec te d at th e se nte nc inghe ari ngto t he c a lc ulatio n o f h is b a se offe nse level based on the PSR ’s alleg ed quantity of 4,020 Oxy Contin pills on the gr ound that, since he ha d p le d guil ty

to p os se ssi on

of on ly 27 0 p ill s, his of

fe ns e le ve l sh ou ld b e de te rm ine d s ole ly b as ed on those pills, which would place him at an offe nse leve l of 26. ( Id
. a t 4

– 5
. ) Lundy
su bs e qu e ntl y

mod if ie d h is o bje c tio n b y

te sti fy ingthat the a mou

nt of pil ls u se d ( 4, 02 0) in t he PSR setting his base offe nse level at 32 was inacc urate ; L undy asser

ted in ope n court: “Truth be told, I
came down here with 2,010 pills, okay ?
. . . [L ]i ke half. And that’s the truth.” ( Id
. at 13.) L undy also argued that, since his prior crime of violence, ba

nk robber

y , wa s re m ote (thoug h Lundy
c on c e de d it

wa s “ no t to o r e mot e to b e fa c tor e d in ” ), the c ourt sh ou ld rel y on that r e mot e ne ss t o justify a lesser sentenc e given the advisory nature of t he g uidelines. ( Id
. at 8.) He did not, howeve r, argue that the ba

n k ro b b er y d i d not constitute a crime of violence a s defined by

the sentenc ing g uidelines, and he did not dispute that this crime, w hen combined w ith his prior drug -re lated off ense, qu a lif ie d h im f or c are e r- of fe nd e r s ta tus
. The district c ourt overr

uled Lundy ’s objections and he ld that the base of fense level of 34 w as
corr ect be cause either: (1) the base level of 32, w ith a 2 point increa se for his r ole in or g anizing and leadingthe transa ction, was a ch i ev ed even unde r L undy ’s own estimation of the total amount ofNo. 08-6252

United States of America v . Lundy

Se c tio n 2 D1 .1 of

the Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s p ro vid e s th a t 1 g ra m of oxy c od on e is eq ui val e nt t o 1 6,700 g rams of ma

rijuana. 1,000 to 3,000 kilog rams of ma rijuana c orre sponds to an offe nse leve l of 32 . Si nc e the oxy c od on e ta ble ts tra ns po rt e d b y

Ap pe lla nt w e re 80 mil lig ra

ms s tr on g , it

is ne c e ssa ry to f ir st c on ve rt

that numbe r i nto g ra

ms, y ie ldi ng.0 8 g rams per tab le t. T his c re a te s a mod if ie d c on ve rs ion ratio : .0 8 g ra ms o f o xy c od on e = 53 6 g ra ms o f m ari

jua na . App e lla

nt a dmi ts to t ra ff ic kin g a t le a st 2 ,0 10 ta

ble ts, or 16 0. 8 g ra

ms o f o xy c od on e (2 ,0 10 * . 08 ), which is equ a l to 1,077,360 g rams of ma

rijuana, or 1 , 0 7 7
. 3 6 kilogr ams of mar ijuana, a f igur e above the 1,000 kilogr am threshold for

purposes of § 2D 1.1. - 4 - drug s he wa s responsible for traff icking (2,010 Oxy Contin pi lls); or (2) a s a ca ree r off ender char g ed with a cr ime punishable by up to 30 y ear s, Lundy merited a n offe nse leve l of 34 under U .S.S.G. § 4B1.1. ( Id . at 21–27.) B ased on a criminal history

of VI and a total offe nse leve l of 31 (incorpor ating the 3-point deduc tion for coope ration), the district court sentenc ed L undy to 200 months im prisonment, which was toward the lower end of the applicable 188–235 month advisory g uideline ra

ng e. ( Id . at 37–42.) II. I n this appeal, L

undy first argues t hat t he dis trict court commit ted procedura l err or in using the numbe r o f O xy Con tin pil ls p ro po se d in

the PSR—4, 02 0— fo r p ur po se s of det erm ini nghis offe nse leve l, rather

than the number

Lundy admitte d t rafficking , 2,010. Howeve r, as the district judge noted, e ith e r fi

gu re , w h e nt r an s l a t e d

i n t o i t s m ar i

j u an a e qu i v a l e n tf

o r s e n t e n c i n g p ur

po se s, y i el d s an am o u n tgre at er th an 1 , 0 0 0 b u tl es s t h an 3 , 0 0 0 k i l o gra m s o f m ar i j u an a, t h e r an ge

1
corr esponding to a base offe nse leve l of 32. Fur thermore , the judg e d i d n o t err in finding that Lundy ’s own admission in cour t that he had tra

nsported 2,010 pills established by a pre pondera

nce of the e vid e nc e that L

un dy wa s r e sp on sib le fo r t

he sa le or a tte mpt e d s a le of

a t le a st 2 ,0 10 pil ls.No. 08-6252

United States of America v . Lundy

- 5 - Lundy also argues that sentenc ing him base d on either a mount violated the bey ond-ar e a s o n a b l e - d o u b t s t an d ar d m an d a t e d

b y Booke r . (A p p el l an t ’s S u p p . Br
. at 3

– 4 (c i t i n g United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 2 20 , 2 33 (2 00 5) ).) Ho we ve r, Ap pe lla nt’ s argume nt m isa

pp re he nd s Booke r . B e c a us e the g uid e lin e s p os t- Booke r are no longe r mandatory , the sentenc ing judge is free to use a prepon dera

nce- of-the- evidenc e standa rd in sentenc ing so longas he doe s not ex cee d the statutory maxi mum for the convic ted cr ime; here , 30 y ear s. Booke r , 5 43 U. S. at 25 1– 52 . T his argume nt i s the re fo re wi tho ut m e ri t. Finally , Lundy argues that his 200-month sentence was substantively unrea sonable, a

nd that
a se n te n c e a t th e b o tt o m o f th e g u id e li n e r an g e o r , a lt e r n a ti v e ly , a d o w n w ar d v ar ia n ce f rom that rang e wa s warr anted. ( Appellant’s B r. at 10.) T his Court reviews a sentenc e cha lleng ed on substantive-re asonable ness g rounds for abuse of discretion. United States v. Pre sley , 547 F.3d 625, 62 9 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) . We have ma de it cle ar that, on ap pe a l, w e wi ll p re su me that a se nte nc e wi thi n the advisory

rang e is rea sonable. United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 389 ( 6th Cir. 2008.) During the sentenc ing he aring , Lundy raised f our ar g uments as to why

he should rec eive a d o w n w ar d

v ar i an c e o r

a b o t t o m - o f

- t h e - r an g e s e n t e n c e : ( 1 ) h e h a d s e r v e d v e r y l i t t l e t i m e p r e v i o u s l y; (2) his prior f

elony conviction for ba

nk robber

y was re mote in time; (3) he had c ooperated
e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h a

u t h o r i t i e s an d

t a k e nr e s p o n s i b i l i t y f

o r h i s a c t i o n s ; an d

( 4 ) h e h a d s e r v e d o n l y 2 d ay s o v er t h e 60 -d ay i n ca rc er at i o n t h re s h o l d fo r do m es t i c vi o l en ce co n v i ct i o n s . (S en t en ci n g Hr ’g, at 28–30.)No. 08-6252

United States of America v . Lundy

- 6 - Th e a pp e lla nt’ s argume nts are wi tho ut m e ri t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dd re sse d e ach of thos e fac tors and clea

rly considere d them, and the other rele vant sentenc ing fac tors, when se n t en cing Lundy to the lower e nd of the guideline ra ng e. ( Id
. at 37–42.) The court actua lly applied a 3- point reduc tion to the offense level for cooper ation and ac cepta

nce of re sponsibili ty . (

Id
. at 2 6
. ) A l t h o u gh the se nte nc ingc ourt

ha d the dis c re tio n to c on sid e r a low e r s e nte nc e , it

c e rt a inl y wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to do so. Moreove r, the sentenc e actua lly handed down falls well within the 30-y ear m ax imum presc ribed for the offense to which L undy pled guilty , and the appellant has not pointed to any thing in the rec ord that would re but the presumption that the sentenc e is rea sonable. III
. F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e he re by a ff ir m th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
.