* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### February 14, 2006
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. MICHAEL C. HUGHES, Defendant-Appellant. No. 05-3271 (District of Kansas) (D.C. No. 03-CR-20087-01-JWL)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BRISCOE , LUCERO and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has determined unanimously to grant the parties’ reques t for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10thCir. R. 34.1(G). This case is, therefore, ordered submitted without oral argument. On June 30, 2000, defendant-appellant Michael C. Hu ghes pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Sentence-2-

was imposed by the United States District Court forthe Western District of Missouri and Hughes was confined under that sentenc e at the Federal Correctional Institution in Florence, Colorado. Hu ghes was released from the Colorado facility on March 13, 2003, and instructedto report to Correctional Systems, Inc., a halfway house in Leavenworth, Kans as. Hughes failed to report as required. An indictment was returned on July 23 , 2003, charging escape, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 751(a) and 4082(a). Hughes pleaded guilty to the escape charge and a Pr esentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) was prepared. The PSR arrived at a total offense level of seven which, when coupled with a criminal history category of VI, resulted in a sentencing guideline range of fifteen to twenty-one months. Acting through counsel, Hughes filed a Sentencing Memorandum informing the district court that a closed-head injury he sustained approximately fif teen years earlier affected his memory and comprehension. He asked the court to take the injury into account when it determined an appropriate sentence. Hughes also filed a pro se motion for a downward departure pursuant to USSG § 5K2.13, arguing his injury impaired his memory, judgment, and ability to conce ntrate. The district court held a sentencing hearing at which it heard evidence relating, inter alia , to Hughes’ head injury. After considering the evidenc e and the arguments of both parties, the district court sentenced Hughes to fif teen months’ imprisonment, the-3-

low end of the guidelines range. Hughes then filed this appeal, challenging the sentence imposed by the district court as unreasonable. See United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 765-67 (2005). Because Hughes was sentenced after Booker, this court will not reverse his sentence “if it can be determined from the record t o have been reasoned and reasonable.” United States v. Contreras-Martinez , 409 F.3d 1236, 1241 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). We conduct our rev iew with guidance from the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Booker , 125 S. Ct. at 766. Hughes argues that the sentence imposed by the dist rict court is unreasonable because the court failed to properly t ake his head injury into consideration. This argument is wholly unsupportedby the record which clearly demonstrates the district court fully considered Hu ghes’ head injury when it arrived at the sentence. Before imposing sentence, the court stated, I think there’s a heck of an argument to be made he re that if I totally ignored the head-injury issue this would be a high- end-of theguidelines range or even an upward-departure case b ecause of underrepresenting criminal history, because the num ber of criminal history points are so high they are almost double w hat I think it would take to get a Criminal History VI to begin wi th. The court then engaged in an in-depth analysis of t he factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) before sentencing Hughes to the low end of the guidelines range. As part of that analysis, the court charact erized Hughes’ crime of-4-

conviction as “very serious,” and expressed concern that Hughes’ extensive criminal history indicated a lack of respect for th e law. Because the record demonstrates the district court not only properly considered Hughes’ head injury, but also fully cons idered all the § 3553(a) factors, Hughes has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge