NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 07a0174n .06 Fi led : M arch 2, 2007 05- 2252 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. DONTAY DARNELL T YLER, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE W ESTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN

Before: MERRITT , DAUGHTREY, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Jud ges. PERC UR IAM

. The defendant, Don tay D ar nel l Ty ler , app eal s t he 72- month sent ence he re c e i v e d fo l l o w i n g h i s g u i l t y p l e a t o a c h a rg e o f ro b b i n g a fe d e ra l l y - i n s u r ed credit un ion . He claims tha t his sente nce was both p roced urallyand substa ntively unreason abl e bec ause the d is tr ic t c our t fail ed to co nsi der

hi s c ontentio n s th at t he nonthrea ten ing nature o f

his cri me , his fam ily

history, and his desire t o imp rov e him self
w arrante d a lower s e n t e n c e . T he Go v ernm entargues thatthe district cou rt adequa tely cons ide re d the rele v ant sente nci ng factors a nd th at t he s entenc e w as re asona ble under a ll t h e c ir c u m s t a n c e s , a s re qu ir e d b y United States v. Book er , 5 4 3 U

. S

. 2 2 0 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. W e ag re e, an d w e the re fore affirm the d is tr ic t c our t’ s s entenc ing order

.05-2252

United States v. Tyler

- 2 - T y ler plead ed guiltyto the of fense of “ robb ing [the credit un ion] . . . by using fo rce and intimida tion. ” Af

ter a three -lev el reduct ion for accep tan ce of resp onsib ility , his of

fense lev el w as cal cul ated at 19

. The present ence re por t ind ic ated that the d efendant had a tot al of t hree j uv en i l e c on v i c ti on s a nd n i ne p r ev i ou s a du l t c on v i c ti on s , as w el l a s mu l ti ple citation s for a series of p a ro le vi o la tions. W hen add itiona l points were adde d be cause Ty ler w a s o n p a ro l e fo r p r e v i o u s s e n t e n c e s a t t h e t i me o f t h e c r e d i t u n i o n ro b b e r y , and becau se he c ommitt ed th e offense “l ess than tw o y ears fol lo wing [h is] rele ase from c u s tod y ,” see U .S. S E NTE NCI NG G U I D ELI N ES M AN U AL § 4a1. 1( d) , ( e) ( 2006) , Ty ler w as ass ig ned a total of 14 cri minal hist or y poi nts , putti ng hi m in a c ri minal hi sto ry ca teg or y VI and resul ti ng i n an adv is or y g uid eli ne rang e of 63 t o 78 months

. T y ler subm itted a sent encin g me mo rand um tha t urged the district court t o “gi ve T y ler a sente nce lon g eno ugh to en sure tha t he rece iv es the drug treatm entthathe ne eds, but n o long er .” The c oncl usi on of the memorand um spe ci fical ly req uest ed tw o bul let ed it ems: that the c our

t rec ommend T y ler

for the 500- hour

resi denti al dr ug treatment prog ra m prov ide d bythe Bureau of Pr is ons (B OP) and that the c our t recommend his des ig nati on to a pr is on near

hi s mot her

and si ste r, req uest s t hat w ere reit e ra te d at the s entenc ing h e a ri n g. T yle r a ls o sp o k e o n h is o wn b e h a lf a tt h e h e a ri n g, a s k in g t o b e a ll o we d t o se rve his se ntenc e at a s peci fic fac ili ty in New Je rs ey bec ause of the v ocat ion al train ing oppor tuni ti es and t he dr ug treatment prog ra m that itaf forded and because i t w as loc ated nea r his fa mily. T y ler told the district judge that h e ha d com mitt ed th e robb eryimpu lsiv ely05-2252

United States v. Tyler

- 3 - “t o obt ain d ru gs” a n d t hat h e w as aw are he had an addi cti on probl em and n eeded t o address i t. H is co unsel al so re q uest ed:
I w oul d as k t he C our

t t o meas ure [Ty ler ’s cri me] agai nstall the other ty pes of ban k robb eries the Court sees f rom day to day , and place it on a sc ale there. There w er e no w eapons inv olv ed, there w ere no i nju ri es inv olv ed. It app ears to m e to ha v e be en a v eryimpu lsiv e of fense . And . . . I w ould ask the C our t t o s how so me mer cy

tow ard thi s p erson. After the defendant and his counsel spoke, the dis tr ic t cour t s entenc ed Ty ler

bas ed on th e s entenci ng g uid eli nes, co mmentin g : “ A s entenc e w it hin the g uid eli ne rang e does app ear to b e reaso nab le and fair and justin this ca se, and in a ccorda nce wi th th e facto rs of 18 U.S.C. § 3553

. Accordin gly , the Court w ill utiliz e the advisory g uide lines.” Th e cou rt ex pla ine d tha t i t w oul d i mpose a 72-month sent ence rather than “ a s entenc e l ow er i n the g uid eli ne rang e because of the re peated v iol ati ons of the defendant, i ncl udi ng v iol ati ons of proba ti on or

parole w hen he has been rele ased prev iou sl y from s tate cus tody .” I n re spons e to Ty ler ’s req uest s, the c our t al so inc lud ed a re commendat ion thathe p arti ci pate in the B OP’ s 5 00- hour resi denti al dr ug treatment prog ra m and “th a t h e be a ss ig ned t o Fai rt on, N e w Jers ey , t o par ti ci pate in the d ru g prog ra m, v ocat ion al train ing , and be n ear his fam ily .”
De sp it e th e fa ctth a t t h e re w e re no obje ct io n s ra ise d a tt h e se n te n cin g he a rin g, other than defense couns el’ s c ontent ion thathis cl ien t’ s cr imi nal hist or y score ov ersta ted the s er iou snes s o f his record to date (a n i ss ue th at w as re sol v ed ag ain st the d efendant and i s n o t i n d i s p u t e o n a p p e a l ) , t h e d e fe n d a n t n o w c l a i ms t h a t h e i s e n t i t l e d t o a n ew05-2252

United States v. Tyler

- 4 - sent enci ng hear ing bec ause the s entenc e i mpose d b y t h e d i s t r ic t c our

t w as “u nreason abl e” und er Book

er. This cl aim is bas ed l arg ely on t he di str ic t c our

t’ s fai lure to add re ss and spec ific all y

to factor i nto h is se ntenc e w hat t he defendant now descr ibe s as t he “ miti g ati ng infor mati on” summar iz ed in his attor ney ’s br ief pl e a fo r mercy , i. e. , t h e rel a ti vely be n ign ci rc umstan ces of

the off ense, as w ell as the defendant’ s famil y si tuati on and his des ire to improv e hi msel f. The defendant cont ends that thi s omis si on v iol ated our hol din g i n Uni

ted States v. Richar

dson , 437 F .3d 5 50 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

. W e c oncl ude t hat the defendant has read too much into ou r opi nio n i n Richar dson

. There w e obs er

v ed th at t he rebutt abl e presumpt ion of re asona ble ness that attac hes to a sent ence w it hin the appl ic abl e g uid eli ne ra ng e “d oes not reli ev e the se ntenc ing co urt of i ts o b liga ti o n to exp la in to th e pa rt ie s a n d th e revie wing c o u rtits rea so n s fo r im p o sin g a particu lar sente nce, ” i. e. , I ts “o bli g ati on . . . t o c ommunicat e c le a rl y i ts ra ti onal e” for t he sent ence. Id. a t 5 5 3 , 5 5 4 (quo ti n g Un ite d S ta te s v. W il lia ms , 436 F.3d 70 6, 70 8 (6th Cir. 2006) ). An d, i n dic ta , w e furt her su g g est ed th at “ [w]here a d efendant ra is es a par ti cul ar a rgu m e n t in se e kin g a lo wer se n te n ce , t h e r e co rd m u str e f le ctb o th t h a t t h e di st ric t ju d ge cons ide re d the defendant’ s a rg ument and that the jud g e ex pla ine d the basi s for reje cti ng it.” Id. at 554.
In t his ca se, the dis tr ic t c our t’ s s entenc ing procedu re w as in f u ll compl ian ce w it h b o th t h e hol din g and the dic ta i n Richar dson

. The onl y

“ par ti cul ar arg ument” thatthe defendant rai sed pr ior

to and at the sent enci ng hear ing w as his co ntent ion thathi s c ri minal05-2252

United States v. Tyler

- 5 - his tor y sc ore ov ersta ted t he s er iou snes s of hi s re cord. The di str ic t c our t c onsi dered th at arg ument, found the o bje cti on to be w it hout meri t, and full y ex pla ine d i ts re asoni ng on t he reco rd

. W hen as ked near the conc lus ion of the h ear ing , j ust pr ior to impos it ion of the sent ence, w hether

there wer e anyothe r conc er ns about the s entenc e propose d by the dis tr ic t c our

t, both defense counsel and the de fendant respon ded i n the neg ati v e. At n o poin t di d a n yone sugg est to the district judge th at he had failed to add ress def ense couns el’ s b ri ef plea for mercy sp eci fical ly

. Notonly was a n y f urther obj ect ion to the sent ence therefore w aiv ed at that poi nt, but there cl ear ly w as no procedu ra l v iol ati on unde r Richar dson

. The record i n thi s c ase, much li ke that in Richar dson , ref lects tha t the district court c o n s id e re d t h e fa c t o rs in 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 5 5 3 (a ), a s re qu ir e d b y Book er , and f ull y

ar ti cul ated the reason s for

i mposi ng a 72- month sent ence on the defendant, inc lud ing the nature and ci rc umstan ces of the o ff ense, the defendant’ s c r i mi n a l hi sto ry and other

ch aract er is ti cs , t he fact th at hi s record refl e ct e d m u lt ipl e c onv ic ti ons for i ncreasi ng ly se ri ous cr imes and a patte rn of re ci div is m, the defendant’ s a ddi cti on and need for enrolmenti n a resi denti al dr ug re habi li tati on prog ra m, hi s req uestfor a facil ity w it h v ocat ion al train ing and for as si g nment to a facility

n ear his fam ily

. G iv en this record, w e can notsaythatthe district cou rt “si mp ly s e l e c t e [ d ] ” w h a ti tv i e w e d a s “ a n a p p ro p r i a t e s e n t e n c e , ” a s c o n d e mn e d i n Un ited St ates
v. W ebb , 4 0 3 F .3 d 3 7 3 , 3 8 3 (6t h Cir. 20 0 5 ) (ci ti n g Book er , 543 U .S. at 24 5- 46)

. Ins tead, the record reflect s that the cour t carefull y cons ide re d the § 3553( a) factors a nd ex pla ine d05-2252

United States v. Tyler

- 6 - it s re a s o n s fo r a rr ivi n g a tt h e d e f e n d a n t ’s se n t e n c e , a s re qu ir e d b y Book er and it s S ixth Ci rc u itp ro ge n y. For the re asons se t outabov e, w e AF FI RM the jud g ment of the dis tr ic t c our t.