NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0226n.06 No. 12-1623 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. EL ENA MARI SOL RI CHARDSON, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

BEF ORE: GI BB ONS, KETHL EDGE, a nd STRANCH, Circuit J udg es.
PER CURI AM. Elena Ma risol Richardson appe als throug h counsel the sentenc e im posed following her g uilty plea to be ing prese nt in the United States subsequent to deporta tion following an ag g ravated fe lony

conviction. Richardson, a

citizen of Mexi co, ente red the United States illeg ally at the ag e of f

ourtee n. Her criminal history includes many crimes, sever al of which wer e felonies, as well as violations of probation or parole

. I n 1990, she wa s convicted of two counts of delivery of l ess t han fifty g rams of coca ine, an ag g ravated felony

. In 1995, she was convicted of ag g ravated assault, a violent crime which raised her offe nse level. She was deporte d i n 2 009, but she immediately returne d to the United States. I n 2010, she was convicted in a Michig an state court of first-deg ree home invasion, and she w as sentenc ed to five to thirty y ear s of imprisonment. Richardson’s sentenc ing g u id e li n e rang e was calc ulated at 77 to 96 months of imprisonment. Her attorney filed a sentenc ing memorandum s ee k i n g a lower sentenc e, attaching letters ofNo. 12-1623

United States v. Richardson
rec ommendation from Richardson’s family and friends. At the sentenc ing hear ing, the district court addre ssed t he ar g uments raised in Richar dson’s sentenc ing memorandum and reje cted them. The court acknow ledg ed Richardson’s drug problems and rec ommended that she rec eive trea tment. The court also discussed the nature of the crime and the sentenc e’s ab i l ity to promote deter renc e, incapa citation, and respe ct for the law. The court sentenc ed Richardson to a within-Guidel ines sentenc e of 84 months of imprisonment. The court reje cted Richardson’s reque st that the sentenc e
run concur

rently with h er s t at e sentenc e, rea soning that a concur rent sentenc e would undermine Michig an’s e nforc ement of its laws, a nd instead imposed a c onsecutive se ntence
. On appea l, Richardson argues that the district court failed to consider the sentenc ing fac tors other than he r cr iminal hist ory and g ave a

n inadequate explanation for the c onsecutive se ntence
. A crimi nal sentenc e is revie wed under an abuse- of-discr etion standard for proce dural an d substantive rea sonablene ss. United States v. Barahona-Montene gro , 565 F.3 d 9 8 0 , 983 (6th Cir. 2009). A sentenc e within the Guidelines rang e is presumed substantively rea sonable. United States

v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 389 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

. A sentenc e may be both pr ocedur ally and substantively unrea sonable wher e the district court fails to consider the rele vant sentenc ing fac tors. United States v. Camacho-Are llano , 614 F.3d 244, 247 n. 1 (6 th Cir. 2010). Contrary to Richardson’s argument, the rec ord in this case shows that the district court considered other sentenc i n g fa ct o rs in addition to her criminal history

. Where the sentenc e imposed is within the Guidelines rang e, a short explanation of t he sente n ce i s ad equate wher e the rec ord shows that the defe ndant’s arguments and evidenc e wer e considere d. See United States v. Lapsins , 570 F.3d 758, 774 (6 th Cir. 2009). Her e, the district court addre ssed the arguments and evidenc e submitt ed in Richardson’s se ntencing memorandum. -2-No. 12-1623

United States v. Richardson Finally , Richardson arg ues t hat t he dis trict court’s ex planation for imposi ng a consecutive sentenc e wa s inadequa

te. A conse cutive sente nce will be affirmed w here it is i mposed to provide

an appropr iate incre mental penalty and the court makes its rationale “g ener ally clea r.” United States

v. Owens , 159 F.3d 221, 230 (6th Cir. 1998). I n t h i s ca se, the district court explained that a
concur rent sentence would undermine Michiga n’s enforce ment of i ts laws. This was a n adequate explanation for the imposition of a consec utive sentenc e. Acc ording ly , we f

ind no abuse of disc retion and a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment.

-3-