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: 08a0751n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 9, 2008 No. 07-3870 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, Plaintif f-Appellee

, v. HARVEY JOHNSON, De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: M ER RI TT, M OORE, a nd C OLE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. COLE, Circuit Jud ge. De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt H arv e y John so n a

pp e a ls the thi rt

y -s ix-m on th sentenc e imposed by

the district c ourt following its re vocation of his supe rvised rele ase. Johnson argues that the district cour t committed pr o ce d u ra l error by inadequately

explaining its upward

va ri anc e fr om the Un ite d St a te s Se nte nc ingCom mis sio n’ s a dv iso ry Gu ide lin e s r ang e . Joh ns on a lso argues that the sente nce imposed by the district c ourt was substantively unrea sonable beca use there was insuffic ient rec ord evide nce de monstrating its consideration of the r eleva nt 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors. We a g ree that J ohnson’s sentenc e is pr ocedur ally unrea sonable. Howeve r, bec ause w e have insufficient infor

mation to provide meaning ful rev iew of substantive r easona bleness, we do not evaluate J ohnson’s sentenc e for substantive rea sonablene ss. For the re as o n s set forth below, w e VA CA TE J ohnson’s sentenc e and REMAND this case to the district cour t fo r r es en t en ci n g. I. BACKG ROUNDNo. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 2 - On Octob e r 1 6 , 1 9 9 7 , Jo h n s o n w a s c o n v ic te d in th e U n it e d St a te s D is tr ic t Co u rt f o r the Easter n District of P ennsylvania of conspirac y , arme d bank robbe ry , and using or ca rry ing a firea rm during a cr i m e of violenc e. He was sente nced to sixt y months in prison and six ty months of supervised rele ase. I n April 2003, J ohnson’s supervision was transfe rre d to the Sout h er n Di strict of Ohio. The Uni t ed S t at es P robation Off ice f iled a Jul y

2006 repor

t alleg ing that J ohnson had vio la ted th e ter ms of

his su pe rv isi on . T he re po rt

state d th a t John so n h a d f a ile d to su

bmi t hi s require d monthly

repor ts for Mar ch 2006 throug h J une 2006 and that an Ohio g rand j ury had returne d a thre e-c ount indictment ag ainst him for theft and fo rge ry . The probation officer

rec ommended that no ac tion be taken aga i nst J ohnson until either the offic er ha d completed a n investigation or the cha

rg es we re r esolved; the district c ourt concur red with this re commendation. I n N ov e mbe r 2 0 0 6 , t h e P r o b a t i o n O f f i c e p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o urt t o “ i s s u e an O r d e r t o Appea r and Show Cause and to toll J ohnson’s term of supervise[d] re lease .” (Petition for Warra nt of Oc t. 31, 2006 1, J oint Appendix (“JA”) 9.) T he probation officer recommended re voking J ohnson’s supervision. J o hnson appea red a nd was re lease d on an own- rec og nizance bond. The

co u rt t h en schedule d J ohnson’s revoc ation hear ing f or F ebrua ry 2007, but the hear ing w as later

resc heduled to occ ur in May 2007. Be fore the district court c ould consider Johnson’s init ial revoc ation, the Probation Off ice filed an A

pril 19, 2007 petition requesting that the cour t “is sue a w arr ant” a

nd revoke J ohnson’s supervision. Th is petition ex plained that Johnson had left the judicial district without permission of the c ourt or of a

probation off

icer . The di s t ri ct court ordere d the issuance of a w arr ant forNo. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 3 - John so n’ s arr e st, and

John so n w a s arr e ste d in

Wild wo od , F lor ida

the fo llo wi ng da

y . T he c ourt

a lso

resc heduled Johnson’s revocation hearingfor June 27, 2007. Prior to the J une re vocation hea ring , the Probation Off

ice amended its petition for re vocation of supervision to a lleg e four violations of J ohnson’s supervised rele ase. The first violation alleg ed that J ohnson had left the judicia l district without per mission of the court or a probation officer . The

rema ining violations alleg ed that Johnson had committ ed t h re e s epar ate f eder al, state, or loc al crimes. The second violation re stated the theft and forg ery char g es fr om the November 2006 petition. The third violation a lleg ed that J ohnson had been in posse ssion of a fire arm whe n he wa s

arr ested in F lorida in April. The f ourth v i o l at i o n conce rned Johnson’s alleg ed murde r of Ke va Gazawa y . The probation officer

also prepa

red a Supervised R elea se Viol ation Report (“ SRVS ”) a nd an Amende d SRVS , which re commended that the court re voke Johnson’s supervis ed re lease and sentenc e him “ for 36 months in all counts with the terms to be serve d concur rently with no supervised r elea se.” ( Amended SRVS 1-7, J A 39-47.) At the June 27 , 2 00 7 r e vo c a tio n h e ari ng , th e g ov e rnme nt expl a ine d th a t it wa s p re pa

re d to proce ed on the f

irst supervised re lease violation—leaving the j u d i cial district without permission—but was not in a position t o prese nt proof as to the r emaining three . J ohnson informed the c ourt tha t he wa s a dmi tti ngto t

he fi rs t vi olati on , bu t th at “[ v]io la tio ns 2, 3, and 4 r e la te [d] to pending criminal matters in othe r jurisdictions, and [he], obvi ously , would not be able to make any admissions concer

ning that activity .” (H r’gTr. of June 27, 2007 (“June Tr.”) 2, J A 24.) The e ntirety

of the re cord constituting the district c ourt’s acc eptanc e of J ohnson’s plea a nd the imp os iti on

of his se nte nc e fo llo ws :No. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 4 - The Court: All rig ht. Yo u ar e p l ea ding guilty to the char g e that y ou violated y our c on dit ion of su pe rv ise d r e le a se by

le a vin g the jud ic ia l di str ic t. I s th a t c or re c t? The De fenda

nt: Yes, sir. The Court: All rig ht. The Court f inds that the supervised rele ase is he reby revoke d, and de fe nd ant i s se nte nc e d to pr iso n f or thr e e y e ars . [J ohnson’s attorney ]: Your Honor , can w e addr ess that issue, please ? The Court: Please? [J ohnson’s attorney ]: Can we a ddress that issue, plea se? Th e Court : A dd

re ss w hat? [J ohnson’s attorney ]: Can Iaddre ss the Court before y ou pronounce sentenc e? The Court: Go ahe ad. [ J o h n s o n ’s at t o rn ey ] : Yo u r H o n o r, t h i s i s a G ra d e C v i o l at i o nt h at we ’r e a d m i t t i n g. The guideline rang e is five to eleve n months. The only information pendingbefor e this Court t hat he ha s admitted to is the fact that he left the judicial jurisdiction. Iunderstand that the Court has the ability and the r ight be cause the g uidelines are a dv iso ry

and have a lw ay s b e e n a dv iso ry a s th e y re la te to supe rvis e d r e le a se violations. But this is a Grade C violation, a tec hnical violation, with a ra ng e of f ive to e le ve n mo nth s, and

Ithi nk the Court

sh ou ld c on sid e r t

hat. We d id n ot p le a d guil ty

to t he A o r B vio la tio ns , w hic h a re se t f or th i n Violations 2, 3, and 4. The Cour t : Iunderstand w hat y ou’re saying. I understand the circ umstances surrounding what he’ s pleading g uilty to in Violation number one. He was a sked not to leave the jurisdiction before he lef t and he kne w h e wa s not supposed to, but he went any how. So, I ’m taking that into consideration in the sentenc e, and I ’m imposing what Ithink is appropriate in this case

. Does the G overnme nt have a ny thing it wants to add? [The gove rnment]: I t would not object to the C ourt’s recommended sentence , y ourNo. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 5 - Honor. T h e Co u rt: A ll r ig h t. Y o u r o b je c ti o n ’ s n o te d , [t o Jo h n s o n ’ s a tt o r n e y ]. [J ohnson’s attorney ]: (Nods hea d up and down.) The Court: Any

thing e lse on this matter? [The gove rnment]: Not on behalf of the g overnme nt, y our Honor. [J ohnson’s attorney ]: No, y our Honor. ( Ju n e T r . 3

- 5 , JA 2 5

- 2 7

. ) T h e Co u rt t h e ne n te r e d

a w r it te nju d g me n t s e n te n c in g Jo h n s o nto thr ee y ear s in prison. J ohnson’s timely appea l followed. II. AN AL YSI S This Court reviews a

district court’s sente nce on r evocation of supervised r elea se under a defe rential abuse of discretion standard for rea sonablene ss. United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 575 (6th Cir. 2007)

. The rea sonablene ss inquiry contains both pr ocedur al a n d s u bstantive components. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007). A. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss A s e nte nc e on

re vo c a tio n ma

y be pr oc e dura lly

unre a so na

ble “ if the distri ct judg e fa ils to

c on sid e r t he a pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s r ang e or ne g le c ts to co ns ide r t he oth e r f a c tor s li ste d in

18 U. S.C. § 3553(a) , and i nstead simply selec ts what the judg e dee ms an appropr iate sente nce w ithout such require d consideration.” United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 808 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 06) (inter nal ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ) ( ci t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). The § 3553( a) fa c tor s r e le va

nt t o a re vo c a tio n of sup e rv ise d re le a se inc lud e “ the natur e of the of fe ns e ; th e ne e d toNo. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 6 - de te r c ri min a l c on du c t, t o p ro te c t th e pu bli c , and to p ro vid e De fe nd ant w itha pp ro pr ia te tr e a tme nt; any g ui d el i ne ra

ng e for sentenc ing; guideline policy statements; and avoida

nce of unwar rante d disparities.” United States v. J ohnson , 403 F.3d 813, 815 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). J ohnson arg

ues that the dist ri ct co u rt ’s ac t i o n s we re p ro ce d u ra l l y u n re as o n ab l e b ecause “ [t ]he court did not make a

ny find i n gs re gar d i ng the prope r g uideline sentenc ing r ang e and g ave no explanation for its sentence .” (F inal Br . of De fenda nt-Appellant Johnson 9.) The Supreme Court

rec ently provided instructions for our review of such issues. Se e Ga ll , 1 28 S. Ct . at 59 7- 98 . T his Court must “ensur e that the di strict court c ommitt ed no sig nificant proc edura l error , such as f ailing t o c a l c u l a t e ( o r i mp r o p e r l y c a l c u l a t i n g ) t h e G u i d e l i n e s r an g e , t r e a t i n g t h e G u i d e l i n e s a s m an d a t o r y, failing to consider the § 3553( a) f actor s, selectinga sentence ba sed on cle arly err oneous fa cts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenc e-- including a n explanation for any

deviation from the Guidelines ra

ng e.” United States v. J

ordan , 544 F.3d 656, 2008 U.S. App. L EXI S 21572, at *44 (6 t h C i r. Oc t
. 1 5 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Ga ll , 1 2 8 S. Ct

. a t 597) ; s ee also United States v. Grossman , 513 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). And while it is true that the district cour t has no obligation to eng ag e in a “ ritualistic incantation of the r eleva nt § 3553(a) f

actor s,” United St ates v. Trejo-Martinez , 4 81 F .3 d 409 , 413 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) , th e re vie wi ngc ourt mus t pr ov ide e no ug h d e ta il in im p o s in g a p arti c u la

r s e n te n c e “ to p e r

mi t r e a s o n a

b le a p p e ll a te r e v ie w.” Uni ted States v. Richardson , 4 37 F .3 d 550 , 554 (6 th Cir . 200 6) (c itatio n o mit te d) ; see also Grossman , 513 F.3d at 595. 1. The district court’s consideration of the proper Sentenc ing-Guidelines range Fi rs t , we d i s agr ee wi t h J o h n s o n ’s ar gu m en tt h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i d n o tm ak e a n y

fi n d i n gsNo. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 7 - re g ard ingthe pr op e r s e nte nc e , a nd fi nd that th e c ourt

pr op e rl y a llo we d Joh ns on an op port un ity to addre ss the sentenc e. ( See J une Tr. 3- 4, J A 25-26.) B efor e Johnson obj ecte d, the di s t ri ct cour t’s finding s on the revoc ation of Johns on’s supervise d rele ase inc luded only that, “[t] he Court finds that the supervise d rele ase is her eby revoke d, and def

endant is sentenc ed to prison for thr ee y ear s.” ( Id

. 3, J A 25.) This limited analy sis alone would have been pr ocedur ally unrea sonable. How ever , J oh n s o n ’ s o b

je c ti o n s c la

r if ie d th a t th e v io lati o n w a s a “ G r a d e C v io lati o n , ” th a t th e re levant Guidelines ra

ng e wa s “five to e leven months,” a nd that J ohnson was not pleadingg uilty to any other violations. (

Id . 4, J A 26.) The court then state d that it understood J ohnson’s arguments and the circ ums ta n c e s s u r r o u n d in g Jo h n s o n ’ s g u il ty p le a , an d

im p o s e d th e s e n te n c e it

th o u g h t w as “appr opriate in this case .” ( Id .) Whil e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing re g ard ingJohn so n’ s Se nte nc ing -Guid e lin e s r ang e wa s le ss than i deal, we are not inclined t o find it proce durally unrea sonable. In Un ite d S tat es v . B os tic , 371 F. 3 d 8 6 5 , 8 7 2

- 7 3 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , th is Co u rt a

n n o u n c e d a n e w p r o c e d

u r a l r u le r e qu ir in g d is tr ict courts to enter

tain, in fac t to reque st, any objections afte r pronounc ing the defe ndant’s sente nce a nd befor e adjour

ning the sentenc ing he aring

. Id . at 872. Ther e, we stated, “[p]roviding a f inal opportunity

for objec tions after the pronounce ment of a sentenc e, ‘will serve the dual purposes of permitting the district court to corr ect on the sp o t an y er ro r it may have ma de and of

g uiding ap p el l at e re v iew.’” Id . at 873 (c itation omit ted). As this Court anticipated in Bo sti c , J ohnson’s t i m e l y o b j e c t i o np r o v i d e d t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtw i t h ano p p o rtu n i t y t o c o r r e c ti t s e r r o r . S p e c i f

i c a l l y, J ohnson’s objection cla

rified the a

pplicable Guide lines rang e of f i v e- t o -ele ven months. And the district court indicate d its ag ree ment with that rang e. Thus, thoug h the distr i ct co u rt ’s initialNo. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 8 - pr on ounc e me nt w a s p ro c e dura lly un re a so na

ble , w he re John so n’ s Bo sti c -objec tion se t out the pr oper Guidelines ra

ng e, the district cour

t demonstrated its understan d i n g o f J ohnson’s objection, and J ohnson does not argue that the c ourt applied the wrong Guidelines rang e, we do not find the district court a cted pr ocedur ally

unrea sonably

in determining J ohnson’s Guidelines ra ng e. 2. The district court’s explanation of its variance from the Sentenc ing Guidelines John so n a lso argue s th a t the dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to e xpla in i ts s e nte nc e , b y fa ili ngto a

rt ic ulate how the § 3553(a ) fa ctors applied to his out-of -Guidelines sentenc e or to expl ain how it arr ived at its determination. For

the re asons set for

th below, we a g ree . Undoubtedly , the re commendation and imposition of an appr opriate sentence is the province of the district cou rt . Our standa rd of r eview f

or sentenc ing r efle cts the def ere nce a llotted to such de c isi on s. Ho we ve r, in or de r to a llo w me anin g fu l re vie w, the dis tr ic t c ourt mus t pr ov ide a pp e llate courts with suf

ficient information about the justification f or the imposed sentenc e. United States v. Kirby , 418 F.3d 621, 626 ( 6th Cir. 2005). I n this case, we have nothingto review —no discussion of § 3 5 5 3 (a ) nor any other explanation. As stated above, the co u rt ’s first deter mination provided, “[t] he Court finds that the supervised r elea se is here by revoke d, and defe ndant is se ntence d to pr ison for three y ear s.” (June Tr. 3, JA 25.) This statement is procedur ally unrea sonable a

nd J ohnson proper ly

objected to the sentenc e on those g rounds. Yet, even after J ohnson’s objection, t he cour t failed to cor

rec t its error. J ohnson expl ained that he had only pleade d g uilty

to a Gra de C Violation with a five- t o -elevenmon th G uid e lin e s r ang e , b ut t he c ourt re pli e d a s f

oll ow s: Iunderstand w hat y ou’re saying. Iunderstand the circ umstances surr ounding w hatNo. 07-3870

USA v. J ohnson

- 9 - he’s plea ding guilty

to in Violatio n n u m b er one . He wa s asked not to leave the jurisdiction before he lef

t and he knew he was not supposed to, but he we nt any how. So, I ’m taking that into consideration in the sente nce, a nd I ’m imposing what Ithink is appropriate in this case. ( Id . 4, J A 26.) In s um, the district court base d its sentencing decision solely on its own unspoken deter mination of what it deeme d to be appr opriate in this case . But that is not enoug h. We are unable to re view whe ther the district c ourt abused its discr etion wher e the c olloquy leave s us nothing to review

. Under these circ umstances, our prec edent require s a deter mination that the district c ourt’s sentenc e is proce durally

unrea sonable. B. Subst ant ive r e as ona ble ne ss I t is un c le ar w he the r t

he se nte nc e imp os e d by the dis tr ic t c ourt in thi s c a se is s ub sta nti ve ly

rea sonable. This Court conclude s that there is simply not enoug h information in the re cord to a llow fo r ame an i n g f

u l r e v i e w . T h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt f a i l e d t o e xp l a i n t h e r e l e v an t § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c t or s, its

rea soning, or

its justification for makingan upwa rd var iance from the Sentenc ing G uidelines. Given the lack of information re g ardingsubstantive rea sonablene ss and our findingthat Jo hn s o n ’ s sentenc e was pr o c e d

u r a ll y u n r e a s o n a

b le , w e mu s t v a c a te Jo h n s o n ’ s s e n te n c e an d r e ma n d h is c a s e to the d i s t ri ct co u rt fo r r es en t en ci n g. III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons set for

th above, we VA CA TE J ohnson’s sentenc e and REMAND the c a se t o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt fo r a n ew s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g.