T h e H on or abl e Joh n R. Adams , U n i t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e N or t h er n D i s t r i ct of O h i o, s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0143n.06 No. 08-6201 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. LA D A R RY L T
. H E M P H ILL, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR TH E EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE
O P I N I O N

BEFORE: BOGG S and NORRIS, Circuit Judges; ADAM S, District Judge. * J OH N R . A D A M S, D is t r ic t Judge. De fe nd ant L a da rr yl T . H e mph ill a

pp e a ls f ro m hi s sentenc e of 262 months’ inca rce ration. We AF F IRM. Hemphill w as i n d i ct ed on one c ount of possession with intent to di stribute more than f ive g rams of c rac k coca ine. On Apr il 9, 2008, Hemphill pleade d g uilty to the i ndictment. Ba sed upon h i s p ri o r c o n v i ct i o n s , He mp h i l l wa s fo un d t o b e a ca re er o ff en d er . As a re s u l t , th e gu i d el i n e r an ge for He mphill’s conviction wa s 262 to 327 months. Following a hea ring , Hemphill was sentenc ed to 2 62 months . H e mph ill tim e ly a pp e ale d, c ha lle ng ingthe su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss o f h is sentenc e. This court re views the district cour t’s sentenc ing de terminat i on for pr ocedur al and substantive rea sonablene ss. See G all v. United States , 5 5 2 U
. S
. 3 8 , 5 1 ( 20 07 ); Un i t ed States v.No. 08-6201

Un ite d S tates v . H e mp hil l

- 2 - Thomas , 498 F.3d 336, 339 ( 6th Cir. 2007). We “first ensure that the district court commit ted no sig nif ic ant p ro c e dura l e rr or , s uc h a s . .. fa ili ng to con side r t he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s . .. or

fa ili ngto adequately

ex p l ain the chose n sentenc e[.] ” Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. Moreove r, sentenc es that ar e proper ly calc ulated and w ithin the applicable Guide lines rang e a re pr esumptively

rea sonable. United States v. W

illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Hemphill does not challeng e the pr ocedur al
rea sonablene ss of his sentence
. Acc ording ly , we turn to the issue of substantive rea sonablene ss, be aring in m i n d t hat He mph ill ’s se nte nc e is p re sumpt ive ly re a so na ble . “ A s e nte nc e may

be c on sid e re d s ub sta

nti ve ly
unrea sonable whe n the distr i ct co urt ‘sele ct[s] the sentenc e ar bitrarily , bas[es] t he sente nce on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa il[s] t o c on sid e r p e rt ine nt § 35 53 (a ) f a c tors or g iv[e s] an unr e a so na ble amount of we ight to any

pertinent fa ctor.’ ” United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 808 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 385 (6th Cir. 2005)) (a lterations in orig inal). Hemphill’s sole argument on appea l is that the district court “g ave too much weig ht to the Guidelines and too littl e we ight” to the statutory fac tors. This argument, howeve r, is not supported by the re cord. When the district court pronounc ed He mphill’s sentence, it not ed that the Guidelines we re only advisory . F u

r th e r more, the only

argument offe red by

Hemphill for a be low-Guidelines se ntence involved the fac t that H emphill ne eded money for a n apar tment. Specifica lly , Hemphill asserte d that his probation office r had de nied him the opportunity to g et a second job and that he ne eded mone y to s e c ur e his a

pa rtme nt, fu rn iture , an d foo d. Th is Court ha s pre vio us ly fo un d that su c h a n e xcu se is insufficient to war

rant a downwar d varia

nce. United St ates v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 390 (6th Cir.No. 08-6201

Un ite d S tates v . H e mp hil l

- 3 - 2008) (“ That Vonne r soug ht to justify his drug dealing on the g round that he ha d no other mea ns of
e arn ing a li vin g a ft e r b e ingre le a se d f ro m ja il d oe s n ot s ho w t hat th e tr ia l c ourt

a bu se d it s discretion[.] ”). Fur thermore , the district court a dequate ly explained why

a withi n-Guidelines se ntence was appropr iate. When it issued Hemphill’s sentence , the district court noted that h e h ad a leng thy criminal history

with convictions in both fede ral a nd state cour

t. The district court a lso ex plained that Hemphill had violated his supervised r elea se on numerous oc casions. F or that matter, Hemphill’s own sentenc ing me morandum indicate d that he beg an sellingcra ck coc aine a mere three
wee ks after

beingplace d on probation for his last state court conviction. The dist rict cour t concluded its stateme n t s b y

noting that “ [t ]he defenda nt has bee n aff

orded se cond and third c hance s to ge t himself straig htened out and c hose to brea k the law a g ain.” This Court reac hes a c onclusion simil ar to that re ache d in Vonner : The re cord a

nd the context of the sentenc ing he aringoff er am p l e re asons for concludingthat [Hemphill ’s] case wa s a “ty pical” one and therefor e dese rving of a wi thi n- g uid e lin e s se nte nc e , a nd that hi s c ri min a l his tor

y and his de c isi on

to v iol a te se ri ou s c ri min a l l aws so on a ft e r [b e ingpla c e d o n p ro batio n] outw e ig he d h is arguments in favor of

leniency . “[W ]e simpl y

cannot s ay that [Hemphill ’s] special c i r c u m s t an c e s a

r e s p e c i a l e n o u g hth a t , i n l i g h t o f § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , th e y re qu irea sente nce lower tha n the sentenc e the Guide lines provide.” Vonner , 5 16 F .2 d at 39 0 ( c itatio ns omi tte d, e mph a sis and thi rd modif

ic a tio n in or ig ina l) . In f

a c t, unlike the def

endant in Vonner , Hemphill ha s prese nted no specia l circumstanc es that would wa rra nt a findingthat a below- Guidelines sentenc e wa s require d. Hemphill, theref ore, ha s failed to rebut the pr e sump ti on

of re a so na ble ne ss atta c he d to his se nte nc e . T he jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRM ED
.