T he H onorabl e T homas A

. W i s eman, Jr

. , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Ju dge f or t he M i dd l e D i s t r i ct of T enn es s ee, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0437n.06 No. 08-3521 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. LUIS ACUNA, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITE D STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE SOU THER

N D ISTRIC T OF OHI O OP IN ION

Before: BOGG S and CLAY, Circ uit Jud ges; and WISE MAN, D istrictJudge. * CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant L uis Acuna a

ppeals fr om a judg ment enter ed by the dis tr ic t c ourt

se ntenc ingDe fe nd ant t o 1 40 mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt f or on e c ount o f c on sp ir a c y

to distribute and possess with intent to dist ribute 1,000 kilog rams or more of marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, an d one count of conspirac y

to commit money

launder ing, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). On appea l, D efe ndant contends that his sentence is substantively unrea sonable. For the re asons stated be low, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound Prior to thi s ca se, De fenda nt Luis Acuna ha d been w orking with the DrugEnforc ement Ag e nc y (“ DE A” ) i n T ucso n, Ar izon a . D ur ing that ti me , a

DE A a g e nt f

ro m Co lum

bu s, Oh ioNo. 08-3521

2 approache d Def

endant r eg ardingDamon Thompson, an individual who wa s supply ing dr ug s to a man named A nthony

Whit taker

. W h i l e working with the DEA, De fenda nt met a per son named Ramero ( “Ram”) who was a lso working with the DEA. S o m et i m e during his dea lings with the DE A, De fe n d an tb ega nen gagi n g i nt h e i l l ega l co n d u ct t h at fo rm edt h e b as i s fo r t h i s ca s e. T h ro u gh h is c o n ta c t w it

h Ra m, D e f e n d an t me t Wh itta

k e r an d th e o th e r in d iv id

u a ls inv o lv e d in the instant offe nse. Th is c a se ari se s f

ro m D e fe nd ant’ s in vo lve me nt i n s up ply inglarg e qu anti tie s o f m ari jua na to various individuals in Ohio, including Whittaker. Whit taker ’s ave rag e tra nsaction with Def

endant was be tween 200 a

nd 300 pounds of m arijuana and deliver ies occ urre d as often a s twice pe r month. On se ve ra l oc c a sio ns , Wh itt a ke r a lso ma de arr ang e me nts to pic k up mari jua na fr om D e fe nd a nt i n Atlanta, Ge org ia for distribution in Ohio. F ro m June to Augus t of

20 05 , D e fe nd ant u se d M e re dit h B a g g ott a s a dru g c ouri e r. B a g g ott

ma de six tr ips to tr ans po rt loa ds of mari jua na , ab ou t 300 t o 4 00 po un ds e a c h ti me , f ro m T uc so n to Columbus and Atlanta. Def endant a lso conspired with Whitt aker and other individuals to l aunder the pr oc e e ds

. B. P roce dural Hi story On M ar ch 2 8 , 2 0 0 7 , De fe n d an twa s i n d i ct edfo r v a r i o u s c o u n t s o f n ar co t i cs t ra ff i ck i n g, conspiracy , u n l awful use of a c ommunication fac ility , and money launder ing. O n November 16, 2007, a s u p er s eding information wa s filed ag ainst Defe ndant cha rg ing him with one c ount of conspirac y

to distribute and possess with intent to dis tribute 1,000 kilogr ams or more of ma rijuana, in v iol a tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § 84 6, a nd on e c ount o f con sp ira c y to c omm it m on e y

la un de ri ng , inNo. 08-3521

The indictment orig inally char g ed De fenda

nt under the name “J ose Quint ana A ponte,” but 1 afte r his arr est, authorities conf irmed that De fenda

nt’s name is L

uis Acuna a

nd that Aponte wa s an a lia s. Th e pa

rt ie s su bs e qu e ntl y fi le d a joi nt mot ion to a me nd the ind ic tme nt and a dd the name Luis Acuna to the case caption. 3 violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Def endan t p l ed gu i l t y to both counts and, as par t of his plea, 1

a g re e d to c oo pe rate wi th a uth or iti e s. A pre sentenc e re port was pr epar ed that dete rmined t hat Def endant’ s conduct re sulted in a base offe nse leve l of 32. Def endant r ece ived a two- level enha nceme nt beca

use he ha d a super

visory role in the off

ense a nd a two-le vel enhanc ement beca use of his mone y

launder ing of

fense , pursuant to USSG § 2S1.1(b)( 2)(B ). In addition, Defe ndant re ceive d a thre e-le vel re duction for a cce ptance of re sp on sib ili ty , whic h r e su lte d in a tot a l of fe ns e le ve l of 33 . De fe nd ant’ s to ta l of fe ns e le ve l, combine d w it

h h is te n c r im in a l h is to r

y p o in ts th at e s ta

b li s h e d a c r im in a l h is to r

y c a te g o r y o f V, resulted in a guidelines rang e of 210- 262 months’ imprisonment. Def endant f iled one objec tion to the p resentence repor t, arguing that his criminal history cate g ory overr epre sented the se ri ousness of his criminal history and his likelihood to reoffe nd. Specifica lly , Def

endant pointed to one of his pr ior offe nses—re -entry into the United State s after deportation—and argued t hat he would not have been pe rmitted to re-e nter the c ountry without g overnme nt intervention, i.e. , h is c oo pe ra tio n w iththe DE A. Th e g ov e rnme nt d id n ot o pp os e De fe nd ant’ s o bje c tio n a

nd a lso fi le d a

USS G § 5K1 .1 mo ti on fo r a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e du e to substantial a ssistance, re commending a thre e-le vel downwa rd depa rture f or a total off

ense le vel of 30.No. 08-3521

4 At t h e s en tencinghear ing, the district court sustained De fenda nt’s objection to the prese ntence repor

t, which re sulted in a total offe n se leve l of 33 and a criminal history

cate g ory of I V for a g uidelines rang e of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment. The district cour t also g rante d the g ov e rnme nt’ s U SSG § 5 K1 .1 mot ion , r e du c ingDe fe nd ant’ s o ff e ns e le ve l to 30 , whi c h re su lte d in

a g uid e lin e s ra

ng e of 13 5 to 16 8 mon ths

. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e d De fe nd ant to 14 0 m on ths’ imp ri so nme nt o n e a c h c ount, to b e se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y . D e fe nd ant a

pp e a ls. II. DI SCU SSIO N A. Stand ard of Review We reviewDef

endant’ s sentence “under a def ere ntial abuse-of

-discre tion standard” f

or

rea sonablene ss. United Sta t es v. A l exande r , 5 4 3 F. 3 d 8 1 9 , 8 2 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Gall v. United States , 5 52 U.S

. 38 , 4 1 ( 20 07 )) (i nte rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mit te d) . T he re a so na ble ne ss deter mination ha s both pr ocedur al and substantive components. Un ite d S tat es v . S e do re , 512 F.3d 81 9, 8 2 2 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e C o u rt r e v i e w s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’ s b e l i e f r e g ar d i n g i t s a uth or ity to depar t downwar d de novo

. United States v. W illiams , 355 F.3d 893, 901 ( 6th Cir. 2003). B. Ana lys is I n this case, Defe ndant does not alleg e that his sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable nor do e s the re c o r d

i n d i c at e a

p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r b y t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt
. I n s t e a d , D e f e n d an tf r a m e s thi s appea l as one re g ardingthe substantive re asonable ness of his sentenc e. A sentenc e may

be substantively

unrea sonable whe re the district court “se lect[s] the sentenc e arbitra rily , bas[es] t he sente nce on im p er m issible factors, f ail[s] to consider pe rtinent [18 U.S.C .] § 3 5 5 3(a) fac tors, or g iv[ es] a n unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fac tor.” UnitedNo. 08-3521

5 States v. W

ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Defe ndant ar g ues that the district court “stated te n y e ars wa s app ro pr ia te and g a ve [De fe nd ant] twe lve .” (A pp e lla nt’ s Br . 13. ) Th is a

rgume nt s e e ms to r e fe r t o th e fo llo wi ngstate me nt d ur ingse nte nc ing : Ineed to pr ovide a se ntence that avoids unwarra n t ed sente ncing disparities among defe ndant s with simi lar re cords who ha ve bee n found g uilty

of similar cond u ct . And, Mr. Ac una, y ou fall at the uppe r leve l of people w ho appea r bef ore me on these ty

pes of dr ug dealin g o r marijuana

dealingcase s with the amount of rele vant conduc t that is invol ved her e. Iwo uld have had so me pr ob le ms w iththe g ov e rnme nt h a d th e y fi le d s ome t yp e o f m o t i o nt h a tw o u l d

g e tyo ub e yo n d , b e l o w , t h e t e n - ye ar m i n i m u m m an d a t o r

y, to be honest with y ou. I might as well j ust be as fra nk as I can. I

don’t believe that y our conduc t is such that would warr ant something less than the ten- y ear minimum mandatory . And I g uess, as a credit to the gover nment, they didn’t try

to do that even with reg ard to the a ssistance y ou’ve pr ovided. And don’t g et me wr ong . I know t hat y ou have a lot of information that ca n be helpf ul to not only

the a u t h orities here in Central Ohio, in the Southern District of Oh io, bu t a lso , mor e imp or tantl y , pro ba

bly in Ar izon a , a

nd y ou g ot c re dit fo r t hat. I ’m g oing to g ive y ou cre dit for that, and y ou deser ve it, but I don’t believe that y ou deser ve a sentenc e that would be below the minimum mandatory , and any sentenc e below the minimum mandatory would, Ibelieve , b e an unwar rante d sentenc ing disparity in this case. (Sentenc ing T r. 19-20.) Ho we ve r, thi s st ate me nt b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

do e s n ot su g g e st that a te n- y e ar se nte nc e wo uld be more appropr iate than the se ntence imposed on Defe ndant, and d ef ense counsel eve n acknow ledg ed that it wa s clea r the district cour

t thought “that a ten-y ear mandatory

minimum sentenc e, or a

ny thing less, would be inappropriate.” (Sentenc ing Tr. 21.) Moreove r, as the re cord

make s c le ar, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y c on sid e re d th e pe rt ine nt 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s. Thus , Def endant’ s sentence is not subst antively unrea sonable. Def endant’ s actua l argument on appea l seems t o be that the district cour t did not depart do wnwa rd fa r e no ug h d

ur ingse nte nc ing . Adis tr ic t c ourt c an d e pa rt do wnwa rd fr om t he g uid e lin e s,No. 08-3521

6 but we wil l n o t re v i ew a district court dec ision concer ning the extent of a downwa rd depa rture “unless the r ecor d ref

lects that the district cour

t was not awa

re of or di d not understand its discre tion to make such a

depar ture.” Un ite d S

tat es v . P uc k

e tt , 422 F.3d 340 , 3 4 5 (6 t h C ir. 2005) (quoting Un ite d S tat es v . S te war t , 306 F.3d 295, 329 ( 6th Cir. 2002)) (interna l quotation marks omitted). I n this case, the district c ourt clea rly rec og nized its discretion to depa rt downw ard a s evidenc ed by

the fa ct that the court g rante d Def endant a three -leve l dow nwar d depar ture. There fore , the dis tr ic t c ourt no t on ly

a c kn ow le dg e d it s d isc re tio n to de pa rt do wnwa rd bu t e xer c ise d it s a

uth or ity to do so. Moreover , the district court re cog nized its discretion to depar t downwar d further

but opted to deny Def endant’ s reque st for an a dditional one-leve l downwar d depar ture. Havingrec og nized its discretion, the district cour t’s decision is only revie wable if: “(1) the sentenc e w as i m p o sed in violation of the law; (2) it was imposed as a r esult of an incor rec t application of the g uidelines; (3) the sentenc e re prese nted an upwa rd depa rture; or (4) the se ntence

wa s imp os e d fo r ‘a

n of fe ns e fo r wh ic h the re is no [S]en te nc ing [G]ui de line and is pl ainl y

unrea sonable.’” Pu c k

e tt , 422 F.3d at 346 (quoting 18 U .S.C. § 3742(a)) ( alterations in original). None of the § 3742(a ) exceptions apply here . Acuna

does not cha lleng e the a

pplication of the sentenc ing guidelines to his sentenc e or alleg e that his sentenc e “was i mposed in violation of the law.” The district c ourt did not sentenc e Acuna to a leng th of time above his applica ble g uidelines rang e and the criminal ac tivity char g ed in the indictment f alls within the sentenc ing g uidelines. The d i s t r i c tc o u rt ’ s d e c i s i o nr e g ar d i n g d e p artu r e i s t h e r e f o r e n o tr e v i e w a

b l e o na p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y, beca use the d i s t ri ct court’s decision reg ardingfurther downwar d depar

ture is not revie wable onNo. 08-3521

7 appea l and bec ause D efe ndant’s sente nce is not substantivel y unrea sonable, we aff

irm the district court’s de cision. III. CONCLUSION For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM the district court’s de cision.