1 NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0328n.06 Filed: June 10, 2008 No. 07-3173 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. DE AN GE L O M APP , Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE NORTHE RN DI STRI CT OF O H IO

Be for e : B OG G S, C hie f Judg e ; M AR TIN and SI LER , C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . Dea

ng elo Mapp a

ppeals his sentenc e of 24 months’ imprisonment i mp o sed afte r he ple aded guilty

to a sing le count of ba

nk fra ud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2. He argues that t he dis trict court erre d by (1) failing to find that his criminal history cate g ory (“CHC”)
over- re p resented his past criminal conduc t, (2) deny ing his re quest for a

downwar d depar

ture, (3) de nyinghis re qu e st f

or a do wnwa rd va ri anc e , a nd (4) r e fu sin g to r e du c e his of fe ns e le ve l f

or his alleg edly minor role in the off

ense. The United States claims that this appea l is barr ed by a wa iver provision in the plea ag ree ment. We AFF I RM. I n doing so, we find it unnece ssary to express an op ini on on the va li di ty of th e a

pp e a l w a ive r p ro vis ion

be c a us e Ma pp ’s argume nts are pate ntl y wi tho ut m e ri t.2

BACK GR OUND J acque line West, Melvin West, Gwen Mapp, and De ang elo Mapp de fra uded Ke y Ba nk and obtained money s under the c ustody and contr ol of Key

Ba nk , the deposits of which w ere then insured by the Feder al Deposit I nsuranc e C orporation, by means of false and fraudulent pre tenses and re prese ntations. As a proc essor in the Tr ust Depar tment, it was J acque line West’s duty to issue chec ks as direc ted by

the trustees. When a che ck nee ded to be r eissued, West would issue the che ck to one of he r re latives involved in the scheme , Melvin West (husband), Gwe n Mapp (sister) , and Dea ng elo M app (br other-in- law), instea d of re issuing it to the intended re cipient. To conc eal the scheme , J acque line West created fictitious work orde rs indicating that the che ck nee ded to be reissued to one of her

relatives. The Wests and the Mapps fra udulently cashe d eig ht chec ks, causing Key Ba nk to suffer

a total loss of $101,689.99. Dea ng elo Mapp ca shed one c heck f or $35,042.47. Al l f our o f t he pa rt ic ipa nts in t he sc he me we re ind ic te d a nd De ang e lo Ma

pp ple a de d guil ty to a sing le count of ba

nk fra ud in violation of 18 U.S .C. §§ 1344 and 2. His base of fense level wa s 6, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1, but was incre ased by 6 levels bec ause he cause d a loss g reater than $3 0, 00 0, purs ua

nt t o U SSG § 2 B 1. 1( b) (1 )( D) , an d his of fe ns e le ve l w a s r e du c e d b y 2 le ve ls b e c a

us e he a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty , purs ua nt to USS G § 3E 1. 1( a ). He ha d 2 1 c ri min a l hi sto ry po int s, bu t on ly 19 points could be counted be cause only four of his six convictions fo r m inor offe nses wer e countable unde r USSG § 4A1.1(c) . Wit h an o ffense leve l of 10 and a CHC of VI , Mapp’s Gu ide lin e s r ang e wa s 2 4- 30 mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt. Mapp filed a

sentenc ing me morandum objec ting to his presente nce r eport. He argued that he wa s entitled to a downwa rd departure or variance beca use his CHC over-r epre sented his cr iminal his tor y and lik e lih oo d o f r e c idi vis m. H e argue d th a t hi s G uid eli nes ra ng e of 24 -3 0 mo nth s’3

imp ri so nme nt w a s unr e a so na ble be c a us e oth e r p art ic ipa

nts in t he sc he me re c e ive d li g hte r s e nte nc e s. The district cour

t rejec ted his arguments and sentenc ed him to 24 months’ imprisonment, the bottom of his Guidelines ra

ng e, thre e y ear s of supervise d rele ase, a nd restitution in the amount of $35,042.47 to Key

Ba nk. AN AL YSI S Ov e r- re prese nta tio n of

Cri minal Hi sto ry Cla im USSG § 4A1.3 states that “[i] f re liable information indicate s that t h e d ef en d ant' s criminal history cate g ory substantially over- repr esents the seriousness of the defe ndant' s criminal history or the likelihood that the defe ndant will commit o t h er cr imes, a downwa rd depa rture ma y be
wa r r an t e d
. ” M a

p p c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt s h o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h a th i s C H C s u

b s t an tia lly
ov e r- re pr e se nte d th e lik e lih oo d th a t he wi ll c omm it oth e r c ri me s a nd it s ho uld have g ra nte d h im a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e ba se d o n th a t f

ind ing . We fi nd

thi s a rgume nt who lly

wi tho ut m e ri t. Mapp’s e x tensive cr imin al history spans three deca des and e ncompasses ve ry serious offe nses, including drugtraff ickin g, ca rr ying a

conce aled we apon with violence specific ation,
a ssa ult , a nd re sis tin g arr e st. He te ste d p os iti ve fo r c oc a ine and mari jua na in 2 00 6 a nd he fa ile d to appea r for later dr ug tests. He wa s on probation for a state off ense w hen he p ar t i ci p ated in the
sc he me to d e fr a

ud Ke y B ank . H is argume nt t

hat hi s c ri min a l hi sto ry

is o ve r- re pr e se nte d b e c a

us e
many of his of fe ns e s we re re so lve d on the same da y ha s n o me ri t. T he re a so n th a t so many of his offe nses wer e re solved on the same day is that he fa iled to appea r in court f

or the many

offe nses he
c omm itt e d in

19 92 and

19 93 , in c lud ingdr

ug tr a ff ic kin g and

c arr yinga c on c e a le d w e a

po n w ith viole n ce s p ec i fi cation, and he was not appr ehende d until 1994. Once he w as appr ehende d, he4

ple a de d guil ty

or no lo c on te nd

re to a ll o f t

he c ha rg e s o n th e same da

y and he se rv e d s ix y e ars in prison befor e beingparole d in 2000. Re fu sa l to Grant

a D ownw ard D e

pa rture Mapp ar g ues that the district cour t erre d by ref using to g rant him a downw ard de parture at
se nte nc ing . H e arg

ue d th a t he wa s e nti tle d to a do wn wa rd de pa rt ur e be c a us e his fathe r l e ft

his fa mil y wh e n h e wa s in

the thi rd g ra de and

be c a us e mos t of his c ri me s inv olv e d dr ug s. Ho we ve r, “ we sh a ll not reviewdecisions of a district cour t not to depart downw ard unle ss the rec ord re flec ts that the district court wa s not awar e of or did not understand its discretion to m ake suc h a depa rture.” United Sta te s v . P uc k e tt , 422 F.3d 340, 345 (6th Cir. 2005). He re, the district court wa s clea rly awa re of and understood its discretion t o make a downwar d depar ture. The dist rict court exhaustively discussed the § 3553(a ) fa ctors, the r eleva ntBo ok e r c on sid e ratio ns , and the a dv iso ry natur e of the Gu ide lin e s. Refusal to Grant

a V ariance Mapp ar gues that the district cour t should have g rante d him a varia nce be cause the other participa nts in the scheme r ece ived lighte r sentenc es. We revie w the district cour t’s sent encing deter mination for reasona

bleness. United States v. Thomas , 498 F.3d 336, 339 ( 6th Cir. 2007). The
rea sonablene ss of a sentenc e is revie wed under a “ defe rential a buse-of -discre tion standard” in lig ht of the “ uniqueness of the individual case.” Gall v. United States , 128 S.Ct . 586, 598 (2007). Ma pp’s varia nce argument essentially

challeng es the substantive re asonable ness of his sentenc e. Reg arding the su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss i nq

uir y , w e have a

pp lie d a re bu tta ble pr e sumpt ion

of re a so na ble ne ss to sentence s falling within the applicable Guidelines rang e. United States v. Liou , 491 F.3d 334, 337 (6th Cir. 2007).5

Ma pp ’s se nte nc e wa s r e a so na ble and the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t err by refu sing to g ra nt a downwar d varia

nce. H e re ceive d a har sher se ntence than his co-de fenda nts beca use he ha d a hig her CHC. J acque line West, who Mapp claims masterminded the sc heme, wa s sentence d to 12 months plus one day of imprisonment, thre e y ear s of supervised rele ase, and $101,689.93 in re s t i t u t i on. Gwen Ma pp rec eived f

ive months’ im

p r is o nme nt, thr ee year s of supervise d rele ase, a nd $101,689.93 in r e sti tut ion . M e lvi n We st, who cash ed on e ch e c k f or $3 71 , r e c e ive d a

se nte nc e of

on e da y in custody , three y ear s of supervise d rele ase, a nd $371 in r estitution. J acque line West ha d a CHC of Iand Gwe n Mapp had a

CHC of I I I . Melvin West cashed one chec k for $371 while Ma pp cashe d
on e c he c k f

or $3 5, 04 2. 47 , c a

us ingKe y

B ank a muc h g re a ter lo ss. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y discussed and c onsidered the § 3553(a) fac tors and the a dvisory nature of the Guide lines. Re fu sa l to Grant

a Re duc tio n f

or Mino r Ro le

in the Of fense Ma pp argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d b y fa ili ngto r e du c e his of

fe ns e le ve l ba se d on h is alleg edly minor role in the off

ense. H oweve r, he f

ailed to ra is e t h i s ar g ument befor e the district court. The ref

ore, it is waived. Un ion Plan te rs N at’ l Ban k of Me mp his v . Co mm e rc ial Cre dit Bu s. Loans , 651 F.2d 1174, 1187 (6th Cir. 1981) (“I t is ax iomatic that an issue not pre sented to the trial court c annot be r aised for the first time on appe al”)
. AFF I RMED.