NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0313n.06 Nos. 08-2247, 08-2248 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. DARMAI

NE WENDEL LBROWNI NG, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE U NI TED ST ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : B AT CH EL DE R, C hie f Jud g e ; SU TT ON and KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. KETHL EDGE, Circuit Judge. D arma ine B rowning appea ls his sentence f or beinga fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm and fa ilure to a

pp e ar f or se nte nc ing . We a ff

ir m. I. I n D e c e mbe r 2 00 7, a

jur y c on vic te d B ro wn ingof

be inga fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi rearm. He re ma ine d o n bon d pe nd ingse nte nc ing , b ut d id n ot a pp e ar f or his se nte nc inghe ari ng . A s a re su lt, the district court issued a

bench w arr ant for his a

rre st. The g overnme nt also indicted Br owning for that failure to appea

r. In April 2008, pol i ce ar rested Brow ning. H e pled g uilty to the failure -toap p ea r c h ar ge, wh i ch wa s t h en co n s o l i d at edwi th t h e f i re ar m ch ar ge f

o r s en t en ci n g. Br owning ’s Guidelines ra ng e for the two offe nses was 140 to 175 months, based on a criminal-history

cate g ory of VI (the hig hest level). Prior to se ntencing , Br owning ’s attorne y filed
a memora n d u m arguing that categ ory VI over- repr esente d the seriousne ss of Br owning ’s priorNos. 08-2247, 08-2248

United States v. Browning

-2- c o n v i c t i o n s . M o s t o f t h o s e c o n v i c t i o n s , s h e s a i d , w e r e m i s d e m e an o r s o r i n v o l v e d o n ly sma ll quantities of drug s. She also asser ted t hat “the g uidelines’ criminal history rules we re not ba sed on empirica l evidence ,” Snt’g Memo at 8, and that “[t] his problematic me thod for ca lculating criminal history . . . is appare nt in this case .” Id. at 9. Acc ording ly , she sugges t ed t h at t h e court sente nce B ro wn ingun de r c ri min a l- his tor y c a te g or y V, wh ic h w ou ld y

ie ld a ra ng e of 84 to 1 05 mon ths
. At the sentenc ing he aring , the cour t ack n o wl edg ed “the defe ndant’s position that the [criminal-history

cate g ory ] overstate s the s eriousness of his prior rec ord[.] ” Snt’g Tr. at 14. B ut the court e mphasized Brow ning’ s “consistent pattern” of illeg al conduc t “from a g e 15 . . . until rig ht up to the prese nt day ,” and w as ultimately “not persua ded
. . . [t hat Br owning ’s] history is overstated
as ar g ued by

defe nse counse l.” Id. The court then discussed the § 3553(a) fac tors, and sente nced B ro wn ingto 1 51 mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt. This appea l followed. II. Brown ing ’s so le argume nt o n a pp e a l is that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t f ull y e xpla in i ts
re a so n i n g f

o r i mp o s i n g h i s s e n t e n c e . S p e c i f i c a l l y , h e s ay s t h e c o u rt s h o u l d h a v e a d dr e s s e d h is
argume nt a

bo ut t he la c k o f e mpi ri c a l su

pp or t f or the Gu ide lin e s’ c ri min a l- his tor y c a te g or ie s. We normally

evaluate proc edura l challeng es to a sente n ce u n d er a n abuse- of-discr etion standard. Gall v. United States , 5 52 U. S. 38, 51 (2 00 7) . B ut w he n th e de fe nd ant h a s a n o pp or tun ity to object to the sentenc ing pr ocedur e and f ails to do so, we apply plain-er ror r eview. United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
. We also apply plain-er ror r eview w hen a defe ndant obj ects, but that objection i s “at such a high deg ree of g ener ality that the district court ha sNos. 08-2247, 08-2248

United States v. Browning

-3- no opportunity

to corre ct its purported e rror [.] ” United States v. Simmons , 587 F .3 d 348 , 3 58 (6 th Cir. 2009). Br owning falls i nto that latter categ ory . The c ourt g ave him an oppor tunity to object when, afte r imposing the se ntence , it asked B rowning ’s attorney , “any objection on y our part? ” S nt’g Tr.
a t 22 . B ro wn ing ’s a tto rn e y res po nd e d, bu t di d n ot m e nti on the e mpi ri c a l- e vid e nc e argume nt. I nstead, she of

fer ed only a blanke t obje ction to the sentenc e—“w e objec t to the sentence that’s bee n imposed”

—

w h ic h is to o v a g u e to p r e s e rve Brow nin g ’ s p r o c e d u r a l a r g u me n t f

o r a p p e a l. We there fore revie w the district cour t’s decision only

for plain e rror . Turn ingto t

he me ri ts o f B ro wn ing ’s c hall e ng e , h e is c or re c t th a t a

dis tr ic t c ourt

mus t “ade quately

explain the chosen sentenc e.” Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. A di strict court ne ed not, howeve r, “g ive the re asons for r ejec ting a ny and all ar g uments b y t h e p arties for alter native sente nces.” Vonner , 516 F.3d at 387. Ultimately , “[t] he sente ncing judge should set forth enoug h to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a rea soned basis for

exercising his own leg al dec isionmaking a uthority .” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Th e c ourt ’s e xplanatio n h e re me t th a t s tan dard. Al tho ug h th e c ourt did no t di sc us s B ro wn ing ’s e mpi ri c a l- e vid e nc e argume nt e xplic itl y , th e re c or d s ho ws that th e c ourt c on sid e re d it
. Br owning prese nted that ar g ument within the larg er c ontext of his challen ge to t he application of criminal-history

cate g ory

VI . And that chal leng e is o ne that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e xpre ssl y
ac kn o wl ed ged , t h en re

j ec t ed wi t h a re as o n ed ex p l an at i o n . By ex p l ai n i n g wh y t h i s b ro ad er ch al l en ge was unpe rsuasive, the court implici t l y re j ected the nar

rowe r one. See Simmons , 587 F.3d at 362 (there is no err or when the cour t “appe ars to have considere d and implicitly reje cted the a

rg ument”).Nos. 08-2247, 08-2248

United States v. Browning

-4- Moreove r, the district court’s reje ction of Br owning ’s argument would have be en suff icient even without that discussion. Sentencing courts ar e not re quired to explain why they are reje cting frivolous arguments. See Un ite d S tat es v . G ale , 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006). And B rowning ’s argument is indeed fr ivolous, because the Guidelines’ criminal-history cate g ories are, in fact, base d on empirica l evidence
. See U.S.S.G. ch. 4, pt. A, introductory cmt. (“The specific fac tors included in [ the cr iminal-history

provisions] are consistent with the extant empirical rese arc h assessing
c or re la tes of r e c idi vis m and

patte rn s o f c are e r c ri min a l be havio r” ); se e als o Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 46 (“[T]he Guidelines are . . . the produc t of ca ref ul s t u d y b as ed on ex tensive empirica l evidence derive d from the revie w of thousands of individual sentencing decisions”) . Thus, the district court did no t c omm it any e rr or , muc h le ss pla in e rr or , whe n it imp lic itl y

re je c te d B ro wn ing ’s argume nt. The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.