NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0600n.06 No. 08-6396 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, P laintif f - App ellee,
v. WI L L I E J ACK, Defendan t - Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

Be for e : K

EITH , SU TTON , a nd WH ITE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. WHITE , Circuit Judge. Def endant Willie J ack a

ppeals the district c ourt’s re vo cation of supervised relea se and imposi tion of a 12-month sentenc e to be f ollowed by

two y ear s’ supervise d rele ase. We AF F IRM. On Ap ri l 21 , 19 98 , the Un ite d State s c ha rg e d Jac k wi th c on sp ir a c y to po sse ss c oc a ine wi th int e nt t o distri bute , in viol a tio n of 21 U. S.C. §§ 84 1( a )( 1) , 841 (b )( 1) (B ), and 84 6. Jac k p le d guil ty and the district cour

t sentence d him to 80 months’ imprisonment and five y ear s’ supervise d rele ase. J ack beg an serving his supervised relea se on Aug ust 13, 2004. On M ay 15, 2006, probation office r Scott Smi th pe titioned the court for an ar rest wa rra nt, alleg ing that J ack ha d failed to re port to h im, ha d f

a ile d to ans we r i nq uir ie s tr uth fu lly , a

nd ha d te ste d p os iti ve fo r m ari jua na . Sm ithN o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

On May 22, 2006, police stopped J ack for speeding and J ack f led on foot. The f

ollowing 1 day , office rs found a

nd confr onted J ack, c ausing him to flee ag ain and lea ding the police to subdue him with a taser. 2 submitt ed an a

mended pe tition on J une 5, 2006, addingalleg ations reg ardingtwo alterc ations be tw e e n Jac k a

nd po lic e of fi c e rs . 1 At a J u n e 22, 2006 hear ing, Jack a dmitted the violations and the district court re voked supervised r elea se and se ntence d J ack to 18- months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 y ear s’ supervise d rele ase. Jack appe aled a

nd this court aff

irmed. United States v. J ack, 231 F. App’ x 483 (6th Cir. 2007). J ack w as re lease d from prison and bega n serving his second term of supervised rele ase on October 5, 2007. On J uly

10, 2008 Smit h ag ain pet i t i o n ed the c ourt for r evocation of J ack’ s supervised r elea se. The pe tition allege d that afte r a January 25, 2008 drugscre en, Jack tested positive for use of m arijuana , admitted using marijuana, and was placed in individual counseling at the Midway Sanction Center. The petiti on further alleg ed that followinghis placeme nt, J ack te sted positive f or marijuana in thr ee sc ree nings on F ebrua ry 25, 2008, April 25, 2008, and May 1, 2008. Wit h reg ard to the F ebrua ry 25 test, J ack a dmitted using marijuana . Following t he re ceipt of the April and May results, J ack denied usingmarijuana . Additional tests by Kroll L aboratories (Kr oll), ho we ve r, c on fi rm e d th a t Jac k “ re us e d ma ri jua na pr ior to e a c h [Apri l 25 and May 1] of the se collections.” ( Pet. for Warra nt for Of fende r Unde r Supervision, J uly 10, 2008 (Doc . 77) at 2.) O nN o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

I n betwee n the Fe bruar

y and Apr il tests and the May and June tests, J ack te sted neg ative for 2 drug s on sever al occa sions. Smit h’s petition a lso note d that on Dec ember 28, 2007, J ack submitted a ur i n e s p e c i m e nt o t h e p r o b a t i o no f f i c e w h i c hK

r o l l l a t e r d e t e r m i n e d t o h a v e b e e n“ e xtr e me ly diluted.” (Pet. for

Warrant f

or Off ender Under Supervision, J uly

10, 2008 (Doc . 77) at 2.) There are no Guidelines for sentenc es imposed pursua nt t o r e v o c a

ti o n s o f s u p e r v is ed re lease
. 3 The Sentenc ing Commission inst ead issues policy statements that “provide g uidance while allowing fo r t he ide nti fi c a tio n o f a

ny su bs tanti ve or

pr oc e dura l is su e s th a t requ ir e fu rt he r r e vie w. ” U. S. Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s Manu a l (U .S. S.G .) c h. 7, pt. A, I ntr od uc tor y Com me nt 1 (2 00 7) ; see U nited 3 June 30 , 2 00 8, Jack su bm it ted ano the r d ru g sc re e n a

nd te ste d p os iti ve fo r m ari

jua na . H e a g a in de nie d u sin g the dr

ugand Kr oll a g a in c on fi rm e d th e po sit ive re su lt. 2 At the e ns uin g Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 08 re vo c atio n h e ari ng , Jac k d id n ot co nte st the c ha rg e s in the petition. J ack did, howeve r, speak with r eg ard to his sentenc e. J ack claimed that he had cha ng ed since his f irst supervised re lease ; after his relea se fr om prison in October 2007, he g ot a job, attended counselingsessions, and lived on his own. But he also admitted that he “messed up” and “ caug ht a couple of di rty urines.” (Hr’ g Tr., S ept. 30, 2008 (Doc . 102) (he reina fter T r.) at 24.) J ack note d that since his J une 2008 test he ha d not tested positive ag ain. Arguing a g ainst another ja il sentence , Jac k s a id h e ne e de d “ a

c ha nc e to p ro ve to you , you

kn ow , to so me bo dy , you

kn owIg ue ss t

hat c are s, y ou kn ow , if a pe rs on is makin g it
. . . . Ye s, I me sse d up smo kin g , b ut I c an g e t be tte r. Th e same way Ig ot better the la st tim e that I was out, I can pr ove that I can be better this time, y ou know.” ( Id. at 25.) He conclude d by

reque sting that the c ourt g ive him “another chanc e.” (

Id. at 26.) The policy

statement in Chapter S ev en o f t he Guidelines Ma nual re commended 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 7B1.4( a) ( 2007) (Policy Statement). I n contra st, the g overnme nt reque sted a 36-month s en tence with no additional

3N o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 579 n.5 ( 6th Cir. 2007). 4 supervised r elea se, while de fenda nt a rgued that sanctions other tha n incar cer ation wer e appr opriate. After consideringU.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.3 and 7B 1.4 and the fac tors listed unde r 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 and 3583, the cour

t revoke d J ack’ s supervised r elea se and se ntence d him to 12-months’ imprisonment followed by

24-months’ supervised r elea se. De fenda nt timely appea led. After United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Sentenc ing Guidelines are advisory and “a ppellate r eview of

sentenc ing de cisions is li mited to determining wh et h er they are ‘re asonable .’” Gall v. United States , 5 52 U. S. 38, 12 8 S. Ct. 58 6, 59 7 ( 20 07 ); se e als o United States v. Grossman , 513 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir. 2008). The review is t wo-tiere d: the court must revie w fo r bot h proce dural a

nd substantive err or. Ga ll , 1 2 8 S. Ct
. a t 5 9 7
. T h e Si xth Circ uit reviews

“ s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e r e v o c a t i o n s e n t e n c e s i n t h e s a m e w ay ” t h a t i t r e v i e w s “ a l l o t h e r s e n te nc e s – under a defe rential a

buse of discr etion standard f o r rea sonablene ss.” United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 5 68 , 5 78 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) ; se e als o G all , 1 2 8 S. Ct . at 591 (h old inga c ourt of a pp e a ls “ mus t r e vie w a ll s e nte nc e s – wh e the r ins ide , jus t outsi de , or sig nif ic antl y outside the Guidelines ra

ng e – under

a def ere ntial abuse-of

-discre tion standard”)
. Al tho ug h Jac k d oe s n ot s pe c if ic a lly sa y so , h e a pp e ars to c la im that hi s se nte nc e is b oth proce durally

and substantively

unrea sonable. The ref

ore, w e re view the se ntence for pr ocedur al
rea sonablene ss and then, if ne cessa ry , analy ze the substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e. See U nited States v. Grossman , 513 F.3d 592, 595 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (“In revie wing sentenc es af ter Booke r , w e ‘ f

ir s t e n s u r e th a t t

h e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o mm itte d n o s ign if ic an t p r o c e d

u r a l e r r o r . ’ WeN o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (“ Modification of c onditions or revocation”) and § 3583(c) (“F actor s 4 to be consider ed in including a ter m of supervised rele ase” ) both instruc t the court to consider the same sub-se ctions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), na mely : (a)( 1), (a )(2)(B ), (a )(2)(C), (a )(2) (D), ( a)( 4), (a) (5), ( a)( 6), and ( a)( 7).

5 then consider

‘the substantive re asonable ness of the se ntence imposed.’” ( internal c itation
o m i t t ed ) ( qu o t i n g Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597)). J ack a lleg es that the trial c ourt unrea sonably sentenc ed him to 12-months’ imprisonment by failing to “involve a pr oper a pplication of the fa ctors set for th in 18 U.S.C . Section 3553(a) , pursuant to Section 3583(c ).” (B r. of Appe llant at 15.) 4 I n o rd e r t o me e t th e re qu ir e me nts of pr oc e dura l re a so na ble ne ss, “ the se nte nc ingjud g e mus t ‘set forth enoug h to satisfy the appe llate cour

t that he has c onsidered the parties’ arguments and has
a re asoned ba sis for exercisinghis own leg al dec isionmaking a uthority .’” United States v. Klups , 514 F. 3 d 5 3 2 , 5 3 7 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Rita v. United States , 551U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). O n revie w,
an a pp e llate c ourt

mus t,
ensure that the dis t ri ct court commit ted no sig nificant proc edura l error , such as faili n g t o calc ulate (or

improperly

calc ulating) the Guidelines ra ng e, tre ating the Gu i d el i n es as m an d at o ry, f a i l i n g t o co n s i d er

t h e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

ac t o rs , s el ec t i n g a sentenc e base d on clea

rly err oneous fa cts, or failing to a dequate ly explain the chosen sentenc e – includingan explanation for a ny deviation from the Guidelines rang e. Ga ll , 1 28 S. Ct . at 59 7; see Bolds , 511 F.3d at 581. When a court imposes a term of imprisonment afte r re voking a

defe ndant’s super

vised rele ase, it must also be certain to consider the re levant statutory fa ct o rs containe d in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) and the policy statements containe d in ChapterN o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

6 Seven of the Sentencing Guidelines Manua l. See, e .g. , United States v. Polihonki , 543 F.3d 318, 323 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) ; United States v. W ashington , 1 4 7 F. 3 d 4 90, 491 (6th Cir. 1998) (“ The statute’ s
mand a te is thu s satis fi e d if
. . . th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e xplanatio n o f t he se nte nc e make s it

c le ar t hat it
c on sid e re d th e requi red fa c tor s. ” ); cf. United States v. Yopp , 453 F.3d 770, 773 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (re manding wher e “the re is no evide n ce o f the district cour t’s consideration of the Chapter Seve n policy statements”)
. Pur su ant t o 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 83 (e ) a c ourt , may , afte r consider ing the fac tors set forth in se ction 3553(a) (1), (a) (2)( B) , (a) (2)( C), (a) (2)( D), (a )(4) , (a) (5), ( a)( 6), and ( a)( 7) . . . * * * (3) r evoke a term of supervised rele ase, a nd require the def

endant to ser

ve in prison all or par t of the term of super

vised rele ase a

uthorized by

statute for the offe nse that resulted in such term of supervised rele ase without cre dit for tim e pre viously serve d on postrelea se super

vision, if the court, pursuant to the Fede ral Rules of Criminal P r o c e d u r e a p p l i c a b l e t o r e v o c a t i o no f

p r o b a t i o no r

s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e , f

i n d s b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that the defe ndant violated a c ondition of supervised rele ase . . . . Section 3 5 5 3 ( a ) d ir e c ts s e n te n c in g c o u rts to “ im p o s e a s e n te n c e s u f

f ic ie n t, b u t n o t gr e a te r

th an
nece ssary , to comply

with the purpos es s et forth in par ag raph ( 2).” Id. § 3553(a) . Parag raph two
c ite s “ the ne e d f

or the se nte nc e imp os e d –

. . . ( B ) t o a ff

or d a de qu a te de te rr e nc e to c ri min a l c on du c t; (C ) t o p ro te c t th e pu

bli c fr om f

ur the r c ri me s of the de fe nd ant; and (D ) t o p ro vid e the de fe nd ant w ith
ne e de d e du c a tio na l or vo c a tio na l tr a ini ng , me dic a l c are , o r o the r c or re c tio na l tr e a tme nt i n th e mos t ef fe ctive manne r.” Id. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 )
. T h e o th e r r e le v an t p o rti o n s o f

§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) in s tr

u c t s e n te n c ing
co urts to c o n s id e r : ( 1 ) “ th e n a tu r e an d c ir c u ms ta

n c e s o f th e o f

f e n s e an d th e h istory

andN o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

7 char acte ristics of the def

endant” ; (4) “the a

pplicable guidelines or policy statements issued by

the SentencingCommi ssion pursuant to section 994(a) (3) of title 28” ; ( 5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the SentencingCommi ssion; (6) “the ne ed to avoid unwa rr an t ed s en tence disparities amongdefe ndants with similar rec ords who have been found g uilty of similar conduc t”; and (7) “the need to pr ovide re stitut ion to any victims of the offe nse.” 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a). The re levant Guidelines Ma nual policy

statement ac knowledg es that “[w]hen the court f inds that the def

endant violated a

condition of supervised r elea se, it may continue the defe n d ant on supervised r el ea s e, wi t h or without ext endingthe term or modify ing the conditions, or revoke supervised r elea se and impose a term of imprisonm en t
. ” U. S.S.G. ch. 7, pt. A, I ntroductory C o m m e nt 2 (b ); s eeU.S.S.G. § 7B1.3 (Revoc ation of Probation or Supervise d Release (Policy State me nt) ); see also supra note 3. Section 7B 1.4 provides re commended imprisonment ra ng es based on a

defe ndant’s violation and cr iminal hist ory . U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. At the revoc ation hear ing, J ack admitted to the rele vant violations. In order to fashion the proper sentenc e, the court hea

rd testimony

from the pr obation office r and Jack, and c onsidered the g overnme nt’s an d defe ndant’s ar g uments. I t then discussed the Chapter Seven policy

statements and fac tors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) , which the court acknow ledg ed “roug hly in whole or in part para llel the S ection 3553 fac tors.” (Tr. at 36.) The c ourt also cor rec tly calc ulated the Chapte r Seven
a dv iso ry se nte nc ingra

ng e and tho ro ug hly

e xami ne d th e re le va

nt § 35 53 (a ) fa c tor s. Af

te r a ll the se proce dures a

nd analy ses, the cour

t imposed a sentenc e of 12- months’ imprisonment.N o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

8 Be cause the district court did not commit a proce dural e rror , much less a “ signific ant proce dural e rror ,” Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597, we c onclude that the district court’s 12-month sentenc e was not proc edura lly

unrea sonable. J ack a lso c laims that a prison sentenc e for his violations of the conditions of his supervision is s ub sta nti ve ly unre a so na

ble be c a us e he did no t ne e d to be de te rr e d f ro m c omm itt ingfu

rt he r c ri me s, there was no proof

that his violations endang ere d the public, and more intensive treatment options
wer e ava ilable. An appe llate cour

t may find a sentence “ to be substantively unrea sonable whe n the district court sele cts the sentenc e ar bitrarily , bases the se ntence on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pertinent § 3553(a ) fa ctors or g i v es an u n rea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Se

xton , 5 12 F .3 d 3 26 , 3 32 (6 th C ir. 20 08 ) (i nt e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) ; c

f. United States v. Liou , 491 F.3d 334, 337 (6th Cir. 2007) (“A lthough we have noted that the borde r be tw e e n f

a c tor s p ro pe rl y

c on sid e re d ‘ su

bs tanti ve ’ a

nd tho se pr op e rl y

c on sid ered ‘ pr oc e dura l’ is blu rr y if no t po ro us , o ur

po st- Bo ok

e r jur isp ru de nc e re qu ir e s u s to c on sid e r e a c h o f t he se fa c tor s in de te rm ini ngwh eth er a

se nte nc e is r e a so na

ble .” (i nte rn a l c itatio n o mitte d) ). Th e re vie wi ngc ourt , ho we ve r, mus t g ive “ ‘d

ue de fe re nc e ’ to the dis tr ic t cou rt ’s c on c lus ion that the se nte nc e imp os e d is
war rante d by the § 3553(a ) fa ctors.” Bolds , 511 F.3d at 581. I n th is c a se , Ch a

pte r S e ve n r e c omm e nd e d a ra ng e of imp ri so nme nt of

6 to 12 mon ths
. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4. In his testimony , the probation officer proposed a

n 18-month sentence followed by five-year s supervision or a 24-month sentence with no supervision. The g overnme nt reque stedN o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

9 imprisonment f

or 36 months with no supervision. Defenda nt reque sted the application of a sentenc e that would not include additional time in prison. ( Tr. at 34 (def ense c ounsel’s statement that “ [y ]ou know, may

be that’s what we’ re in the business of, is just incar cer ating people. But we have a c hance here , Ithink, to do som ething differ ent. . . .”) .) The re vocation hea

ring transcr ipt revea ls that the district court conside re d t h e re levant statutes and policy

statements and wei ghed the pa rties’ a rguments. The cour

t noted that the g overnme nt’s rec ommendation “would re sult in, at a minim um, 24 mo n t h s above the g uidelines policy statement of f

rom six to 12 months.” (Tr. at 40.) The c ourt consider ed Jack’s “de monstrated prog ress towa

rd bec oming a

productive me mber of soc iety ” but also noted that that prog ress “ has been hinde re d by

[defendant’ s] admit ted illeg al druguse.” ( Id. ) B eca

use the g overnme nt’s
rec ommendation “would fa i l t o ref lect the De fenda

nt’s prog ress since his first revoc ation of
su pe rv ise d r e le a se ” and

de fe nd ant’ s r e qu e st f

or tim e se rv e d “w ou ld fa il to re fl e c t the se ve ri ty of his continued lac k of complianc e with the ter ms of supervised r elea se and the ne ed for deter renc e for this and other def

endants,” t h e co u rt sentenc ed Jack to a term of 12-months’ imprisonment to be followed by 24-months’ supervised relea se. ( Id. at 41.) See P olihonki , 543 F.3d at 323-25 (noting that the district court provide d adequate rea soning, supporting the substantive rea sonablene ss of the
se nte nc e ); se e als o U

nite d S tates v . G ale , 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006) (“When a district c ourt
a de qu a te ly

e xpla ins why it impos ed a pa rticular se ntence , espec ially one within the advisory Guidel i n es ra n ge, we do not fur ther re quire that it exhaustively explain the obverse – why an
a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e wa s no t selec ted – in ever y instance.” ).N o. 08- 6396

Uni t ed St at es v. Jack

10 The re cord doe s not show that “the inca rce ration imposed was a

n u n r e a s o n a b le s en t en ce, reg ardle ss of whethe r it i s t h e sentence” this court might have applied. Liou , 491 F.3d at 340. Rather, the r ecor d supports the g overnme nt’s position t hat t h e s e nte n c e w a s s u

b s ta nti v e ly rea sonable. We, theref

ore, hold that the district c ourt d id not abuse its discretion when it re voked Jack’s supervised r elea se and se ntence d him to 12-months’ im prisonment. For the af oreme ntioned rea sons, we AF F IRM the district court’s se ntence
.