NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORPU BLIC ATION Fi le Name: 08a 0673n.0 6 Fi led : Nov ember

4, 2008 No. 07- 6095 UN ITED STATES C OU RT O F APPEA LS FO R THE S IXTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. MICHAEL SHANE SP RINGER, Defendant -A ppel lan t. / On A p p e al from the Uni ted S tates District C ourt for the W este rn Di str ict of Tenness ee

BEF OR E: GU Y , RYAN , and M cKE AGU E, C ircui t J udg es. RY AN , Ci rc uit Judg e. Mi chael Shane Spr ing er w as conv icted on th re e c ounts of produ ci ng and dis tr ibu ti ng ch ild porn og ra phy i n v iol ati on of 18 U .S.C . §§ 2251( a) and 225 2(a)(1). Th e district court sen ten ced Sp ringer to 24 0 mo nth s’ imprisonm ent , a term abov e the adv is or

y g uid eli ne ra ng e, follo w ed by a l ifeti me of super v is ed rele ase. Sp ri ng er cl aims on a ppeal tha t the di str ict c our t l ack ed aut hor ity

to impos e a s entenc e abov e the
re commended g uid eli ne ra ng e, becau se under Rul e 32( h) of the F ederal Rul es of Cr imi nal Proced ure, th e district court w as not em powered to imp ose such a sen ten ce in Springer’s
cas e unl ess i t first g av e Spr ing er noti ce that itw as cons ide ri ng an u pw ard depar ture, an d Spr ing er w as not g iven t h e req uired not ic e. W e c oncl ude t hat S pr ing er w as g iv en adeq uate noti ce and w e w il l aff ir m the dis tr ict c our t’ s j udg ment. I.(N o. 07 -6 095) -2
-

After Spr ing er

pl eaded g uil ty

to a ll t hree c ounts i n the i ndi ctment , t he probati on offi c e p re p a re d a p re s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n re p o rt( P S R ) t o a s s i s tt h e t r i a l j u d g e w i th
sen te nc i ng
. At th e s en te nc i ng he ar i ng an d aft er rev i ew i ng th e PS R , th e di s tr ict court
ass ess ed Spr ing er

a ba se o f

fe n se l e vel of

33 for eac h of the firs t and se cond count s t o
w hi c h h e h a d p l e a d e d g u i l t y , i n v o l v i n g c o e rc i o n o f a m i n o r fo r t h e p u r p o s e o f p ro duci ng
v is ual depi cti ons. The c our t al so ass ess ed an of

fense lev el of 30 for t he th ird c ount, p o s s e s s i n g a n d t ra ffi c k i n g i n m a t e r i a l i n v o l v i n g s e x u a l e x p l o i t a t i o n o f a m i n o r
. T he
re sul t i n g a d v i s o r

y s e n t e n c e g u i d e l i n e ra n g e w a s 2 3 5 t o 2 9 3 m o n t h s ’ i mp r i s o n me n t. Sp r i n g e r t h e n re q u e s t e d a n d w a s g ra n t e d a t h re e - l e v e l c re d i t fo r a c c e p t a nce of respo nsibility, w hich redu ced th e ad v isory g uide line ra n ge h igh end to 2 10 m ont hs’ impr is onment. T h e gove rn m e n t a sk e d th e co u rtto c o n sid e r a s e n te n ce ab o ve th e m o d if ie d ran ge becau se of the eg re g iou s ci rc umstan ces of Spri ng er ’s of

fenses. The cour

t t hen adv is ed Spr ing er and his co unsel that it w as cons ide ri ng an u pw ard depar ture as req uest ed by

the g ov er nment, and g av e Spr ing er an o ppor

tuni ty to re spond

. Springer’s attorn ey s t a t e d t hatthe cou rt had n o au tho rity to ma ke an upward depar ture bec ause the d efendant had not b een gi ven p ro per noti ce that the c our

t w as cons ide ri ng doi ng so
. Spr ing er ’s attor ney also arg ued that an upw ard depar ture w as not
w ar ra nted by

the ci rc umstan ces of

the cas e. The cour

t respon ded t hat i t w as cons ide ri ng an u pward depa rture beca use o f the egregious circumsta nces o f the of fense s, and thatit had g iv en th e defendant the req uired R u le 32( h) noti ce. The c our t t hen s entenc ed S p ri n ge r t o 2 4 0 m o n t h s ’ i m p ri s o n m e n to n e a c h co u n t , t o ru n co n c u rr e n t ly, fo ll o we d b y a(N o. 07 -6 095) -3
-

term o f su pervised re lease for life. S pringer n ow app eals the court’s decision to sent ence him outs ide the g uid eli ne rang e w it hout pr ior noti ce. II. W e rev iew

de n ov o the l e gal i ss ue of w hether the defendant recei v ed s uff ic ien t not ice of the ground s for dep arture f rom the a dvisory guide line range, as required by Rule 32(h ). U nited State s v . Mathe ny, 450 F.3d 633 , 637 (6th Cir. 2006 ). R ule 32 (h) prov ides: Before the c our

t may depar t from the a ppl ic abl e s entenc ing rang e on a g ro und noti denti fied for depar ture ei ther in t he present ence re por t or i n a party ’ s p reh ea r i ng s ub mi s s i on , th e c ou rt mu s t g i v e th e pa rti es rea sona ble noti ce that iti s cont emplat ing suc h a d epar ture. The noti ce must spec ify any g ro und on w hic h the co urt i s c ontempl ati ng a de par ture. Fed. R . C ri m. P. 32( h)

. This courthas held that the notic e req uirement of R ule 32( h) remains i n effectafter Uni ted S tates v . Bo oker , 543 U .S. 220 (2005)

. W e hav e al so hel d tha t notw it hst andi ng the fact th at t he r ule us es the word “ depar t” or “ depar ture” four ti mes an d s ay s n othi ng about
a sen ten ce “v ariance ,” th e rule ap plies to bo th sen ten ce de partu res and sente nce
v ar ian ces
. See Uni ted States v. Cousi ns, 469 F. 3d 572, 580 (6 th Ci r. 2006), rev ’d in par t, Ir iz ar ry v . U nit ed St ates , 128 S. Ct . 219 8 ( 2008)

. The g ov er nme n t a ck n ow led g es that Spr ing er w as not g iv en not ic e before the sent enci ng hear ing thatthe dis tr ict c our t w as cons ide ri ng an u pw ard depar ture, bu t arg ues that Rul e 32( h) does not re q uire adv ance noti ce and that the court’ s stat ement t o Spr ing er at th e he aring that th e court w as consid ering an upw ard departu re, coup led w ith the court’s of fer to giv e Springer and his counse l an o p portu nity to respo nd, w as in f ull comp liance
w it h R ule 32( h)

.(N o. 07 -6 095) -4
-

In hi s b ri ef on appeal , t he defendant arg ues that “t he dis tr ict cour t faile d to g iv e the defendant any

noti ce, reason abl e or

unreasonabl e, i n ac cordance w it h F ed. R . C ri m. P. 32( h) that it w as cont emplat ing an upw ard depar ture” (e mphasi s added) ; tha t the defend a n t d i d n o t re c e i v e “ p r i o r n o t i c e o f t h e c o u rt ’ s i n t e n t t o d e p a rt u p w a rd ” ; t hat “ [t] he onl y noti ce the d efendant recei v ed w as from the dis tr ict c our t t he day of the hear ing ”; and that suc h not ic e “i s not re asona ble as defined by F ed. R . C ri m. P. 32( h) or under C ousi ns. ” W e ob serv e in passin g tha t af ter the parties’ briefs w ere f iled, th e Sup reme Court deci ded I ri z ar ry , 128 S. Ct . 2198, in w hic h it held that the noti ce req uirement of R ule 32( h) does not a ppl y

to a v ar ian ce from the re commended g uid eli ne rang e. The Co urt di d not
ex pli ci tl y ex empt upward depar

tures from the noti ce re q uirement of Rul e 32( h)

. See i d. at 2203- 04. Fur

ther , atora l arg ument, the g ov er nment s ug g est ed th at w hil e the co urt had compl ied w it h the noti ce re q uirement of R ule 32( h) , ev en i f it had not , t he rati o n a le of Ir iz ar ry sh oul d appl y

to upw ard depar

tures as w ell as to v ar ian ces
. W e ne ed n ot de c id e wh e t her the sente nce giv en Sp ringer w as an “upw ard dep arture” or a “v ariance ,” thu s i m p lica ting the Iriz arry decision , beca use a s w e sha ll
ex p la in , w e are s ati sfied that the c our t g av e Spr ing er

reason abl e not ic e tha t i t w as cons ide ri ng a “ depar

ture” from t he recommended g uid eli ne rang e. At the sente ncing hea ring, the governme nt asked the cou rt to consid er an up w ard depar ture from t he recommended g uid eli ne, a fter w hic h the courtst ated to t he defendant and hi s c ounse l: [T ] h e g o vernm enthas aske d the court to con sider an u pward depa rture in this case, and I believe that th e Prese nte nce Rep ort and the governmen t’s compel li ng st ate m ent woul d s uppor t t he c our

t c onsi der ing that

. And s o I w antto giv e y ou an opp ortun ity to respo nd to tha t shou ld y ou wi sh to do so becau se I d o – I do t hin k, as I s aid before, the g ov er nment ha s s et forth(N o. 07 -6 095) -5
-

facto rs w hich wo u ld w arrant th e cou rt to consid er an up w ard de partu re bey ond the gui del ine s w hether the cour t impose s that [or

] not, I w il l g iv e y ou that oppor

tuni ty

. (Emp hasis ad ded .) Defense co unsel i mmediat ely respon ded t hat t he defendant had bee n g iv en no ind ic ati on i n “ the g ov er nment’ s p osi ti on pape r” or in the PSR that an upw ard depar ture w as re commended, and sta ted: Base d upon that, Ju dg e, I w oul d s ay thatsi nce w e w oul dn’ t hav e not ic e, t hat y ou woul d not been [si c] abl e to impos e the se ntenc e abov e 210 months at thi s p oin t. Obv iou sl y

i f Yo ur Honor w oul d w ant to conti nue the heari ng , t hat w oul d g iv e us noti ce, but at t his poi nt we woul d as k you to s ti ck w it hin – w it hin the g uid eli ne rang e bec ause of the l ack of noti ce. Before sent enci ng Spri ng er to 240 months’ impri sonment , the dist ri ct jud g e s tated “t hat t he g uid eli nes do noty iel d an appropr iat e rang e in [Spr ing er ’s ] case, ” and that “ I am
a wa re t h a tI n e e d t o gi ve yo u n o t ic e t h a tI ’m go in g t o d e p a rtu p wa rd a n d I t h in kI h a ve giv en you tha t not ice.” W e, to o, th ink the district court gav e ad equ a t e n otice u nde r Rule 32(h). Defense couns el w as apparentl y under the impress ion that the rule req uired notic e pr ior to the d ay of sente ncing, and in w riting, that the court w as con sidering an up w ard de partu re; the re is
no su ch requireme nt in the r u le o r in our cases. Th e rule requires only tha t “reason able noti ce” be g iv en. It is c le a r f ro m the district cou rt’s statem entat sent encin g tha t, no t only was it
c o n s id e ri n g a s e n t e n c e a b o ve t h e re c o m m e n d e d gu id e li n e ra n ge , itwa s a ls o wil li n g t o gi ve the defend antan op portu nity to respo nd t o wh a tt h e cou rt called “the governme nt’s
com pelling state me n t ” calling for an up w ard de partu re. Rathe r than a sking fo r a cont inu ance of th e s e n te n ci ng hear ing to tak e adv antag e of the cour t’ s i nv it ati on to(N o. 07 -6 095) -6
-

re spond , defense couns el si mply obs er v ed th at “ if Y our

H onor w oul d w ant t o c onti nue t he hea ring, that w ould g iv e us no tice, bu t at this po int w e would ask y ou to stick w ithin – wi thin the g uide line range be cause of the lack of

notice .” W e are satisf ied th at th e district court com plied wi th th e no tice requireme nt of Rule 32( h)

. The cour

t adv is ed the defendant w it h par ti cul ar ity of the reason s i t w as cons ide ri ng an upwa rd d e p a rt ure, an d g av e defense couns el an oppo rt uni ty to re spond to the g ov er nment’ s req uest

. The di str ict c our t w as not req uired to do a nythi ng more. III . For thes e reason s, w e A FFIRM the dis tr ict c our t’ s j udg ment.