NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0547n.06 No. 07-6194 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. WI L L I AM WASHI

NGTON , De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE U NI TED ST ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR T H E WE ST E RN D I ST RI CT OF TENNESSEE

B e fo re : CL AY , CO OK , a nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. KETHL EDGE, Circuit Judge. William W ashing ton ap peals his 235-month sentenc e for

co n s p i ra cy

t o p u rc h as e f

i re ar m s , m ak i n g fa l s e s t at em en t s i n o rd er t o ac qu i re a f

i re ar m , an d b ei n g a fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re a rm . We re

je c t hi s a rgume nts , a

nd a ff ir m. I. This case is before us for the se cond time. Washington wa s convicted of the same of fense s in 2001 and sentenc ed to 235 m onths. On appea l, we af firmed Washing ton’s conviction and sentenc e. See U

nited States v. W

ashington , 134 F. App’ x 797 (6th Cir. 2004). I n 2005, howeve r,

we va cate d his se ntence and rema nded for rese ntencing in light of United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 220 (2005). On r emand, the district c ourt ag ain sentenc ed Washing ton to 235 months

. This appea l followed.No. 07-6194

United States v. W

ashington

-2- II. Was hin g ton ’s pr inc ipa l argume nt i s th a t th e distri ct c ourt e rr e d w he n it

omi tte d to dis c us s on the re cord one of the six grounds he a sserted a s a basis for a below- Guidelines sentenc e. Was hin g ton did no t ob

je c t to thi s o mis sio n in

the dis tr ic t c ourt , b ut c on te nd s w e sh ou ld r e vie w h is

c la im fo r a n a

bu se of dis c re tio n r a the r t

ha n f or pla in e rr or . A s an in iti a l matte r, the re fo re , w e mus t deter mine our standar d of re view. I n Un ite d S

tat es v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865, 872 ( 6th Cir. 200 4 ), we h el d that, “af ter pronouncing the defen d an t ’s sentenc e but bef ore a djourning the sentenc ing he aring ,” the district court should “a sk the parties w hether they have a ny objections to the sentenc e just pronounc ed that have not previously been raised.” I f a district court does so, a party forf eits any objection not raised and is requir ed to demonstrate plain err or on appe al. Id. at 872-73. He re, the district court did not ask Washington’ s counsel if he had any “objec tions” to his sentence. B ut the court did ask him the following : “Mr. B rooks, do y ou know of any rea son other than any rea son y ou have a lrea dy argued, why the sentenc e should not be imposed as stated?” W ashing ton’s counsel a nswere d no. W e h a v e a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r e d t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f p r e c i s e l y t h a tl a n g u a g e . InUnited States v. Tat e , 5 16 F .3 d 4 59 , 4 64 -6 5 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) , w e he ld t

hat Bo sti c was satisfie d wh ere, “a fter pronouncing the sentenc e, the district cour t asked [] counsel: ‘[D] o y ou know of any rea son, other than any rea son y ou have a lrea dy

argued why

the sentenc e should not be imposed as stated? ’” The district c ourt asked the same que stion here. As in Tat e , there fore , we review Washing ton’s sentenc e for plain e rror .No. 07-6194

United States v. W

ashington

-3- To establish plain err or, W ashing ton must show “(1) err or (2) that was obvious or c lear , (3) that a ff e c te d d e fe nd a nt’ s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts a nd (4 ) t

hat a ff e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, int e g ri ty , o r p ub lic reputation of the judicial proce eding s.” United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 386 ( 6th Cir. 2008) ( en banc ) (inter

nal quotation marks omitted). There was no plain e rror

here . At his resente ncing hear ing, Washing ton asserte d six g rounds fo r a do wnwa rd va ri a nc e . Tho se we re : ( 1) his a g e ; ( 2) his su bs tanc e -a bu se pr ob le m; ( 3) that hi s heroin a ddiction had bee n “substantially addre ssed”; (4) that most of his c riminal rec ord had be en g e ne rate d d

ur inghis twe nti e s; ( 5) that th is c a se inv olv e d f ir e a rm s th a t he wa s n ot g oin g to u se pe rs on a lly ; and

(6 ) t hat hi s f a the r d ie d le ss t

ha n tw o y ears pr ior

to t he be g inn ingof

his juv e nil e

rec ord. The district court addre ssed eac h of these arguments on the rec ord except for the de ath of Washington’s fa

ther. That omissi on, Washington asse rts, amounted to re versible e rror . The c asela

w does not support that asse rtion. Under § 3553( c), a court must g ive “the

rea sons” for its sentenc e, but need not “g ive t he re asons for r ejec ting a ny and all ar g uments by

the parties f or alter native sente nces.” Vonner , 516 F.3d at 387. The district court’ s obligation was ins te a d simp ly to “s e t for

th en ou g h to satis fy

the a pp e llate c ourt

that he ha s c on sid e re d th e pa rt ie s’ arguments and has a rea soned basis for ex erc ising his own l eg al dec isionmaking a uthority .” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). He re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e xpla ine d th a

t i t f o u n d W a s h i ng ton ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry “ e xtra or din a ri ly disturbing,” that “ther e is a need to pr otect the public” from the kinds of offe nses W as h i ng ton

c omm itt e d, a nd

that “ the Gu ide lin e s have c a ptu re d th e se ns e of

se ri ou sn e ss” a sso c ia te d w iththe se crimes. More over, the court did addr ess five of the six g rounds that Washington a s s er t ed fo r aNo. 07-6194

United States v. W

ashington

-4- downwar d varia

nce. T hat the cour

t omitt ed an e x pre s s d i s cu s sion of the death of Washington’s fathe r—in 1966—was not er ror . Although the better c ourse mig ht have be en to addr ess ea ch of Wash ington’ s arguments expressly , the re cord, taken as a whole, amply

demonstrates tha t the district court c onsidered the parties’ arguments and had a rea soned basis for

its sentencing d ecision. The court ther efor e did not plainly err in its application of § 3553(c)

. Was hington als o makes tw o a rgume nts pr o s e . First, he a rg ues that the district cour t miscalculate d his criminal-history cate g ory by including a

conviction that was more than 15 y ear s old. “A sente nce imposed more than fiftee n y ear s prior to the def endant’ s commence ment o f t he offen s e i s not counted unless the de fenda nt’s incar cer ation extended into this 15-y ear period.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 cmt. n.1 ( 2008). Washington committed the subject off ense on O ctober

6, 2000. He wa s paroled f

or seve ral of his prior convictions on Marc h 28, 1990, which wa s easily within 15 y e a rs of the pr e se nt o ff

e ns e . T ho se c on vic tio ns we re the re fo re pr op e rl y fa c tor e d into his c ri min a lhistory cate g ory . Se c o n d , Wa s h in g to n a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt im p r o p e r ly d e s ig n a te d h im a n Armed Care e r C ri min a l. “ [A] de fe nd a nt i s su bje c t to a n en ha nc e d sen te nc e [as a n Ar

me d Car e e r C ri min a l] if the ins tant of

fe ns e of c on vic tio n is a vio la tio n of 18 U. S.C. § 9 22 (g ) a nd the de fe nd a nt h a s a t le a st three p r io r c o n v ic ti o n s f o r a ‘ v io le n t f

e lo n y ’ o r ‘ s e r io u s dr

u g o f f e n s e , ’ o r b o th , c o mmitted on

occa sions differe nt from one a nother. ” U. S

. S

. G. § 4B1.4 c mt. n.1 (2008). Washington wa s convicted of

violating § 922( g ) in this case. And it is undisputed that he was convicted of a “ violent felony ” on Nove mber 11, 1984 and two “ser ious drug offe nses” on J une 5, 1991 and A pril 10, 1995. Thus , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y c la ssi fi e d Wa sh ing ton

a s a n A rm e d Ca

re e r C ri min a l.No. 07-6194

United States v. W

ashington

-5- The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.