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: 07a0181n.06 F iled: Marc h 7, 2007 No. 06-1147 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, Appellee , v. W ILM E R

F E A Z E LL, Ap pe lla nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : CO L E, SUT TO N a nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.
PER CURI AM. Wil mer Fea zell challeng es hi s 125-month sentenc e, im posed after a Booke r
re mand , a rguin g that it

is b oth pr oc e dura lly

a nd su bs tanti ve ly

un re a so na

ble . We c on c lud e that it

is
ne ith e r a nd the re fo re a ff

ir m.
I.
At 4:00 a.m. on October

19, 2002, a Gr and Haven (Michig an) police office r obser ved a c ar trave ling 30 miles pe r hour in a 50-mile- per- hour zone. The of fice r could not see any one inside the
car , so he pulled up along side it. Noticing tha t the dri v er wa s slumped down in his seat and not
wea ring a saf ety belt, the offic er stopped the car .No. 06-1147

Un ite d S tat es v . F e az e ll

- 2 - The off icer walked up to the c ar a nd asked the driver h i s n am e. After F eazell g ave inc on sis te nt a

ns we rs a bo ut w ha t he wa s doin g a nd wh e re he wa s g oin g , the of fi c e r a sk e d if

he c ou ld
sear ch the c ar f

or contra band. F eazell said he ha d nothing to hide a nd ag ree d to the sear ch.
Fe azell exi ted the ca

r, the off icer perf ormed a quick pat down and the of fice r sea rche d the
car ’s interior. The office r then opened the trunk and told F eazell to f ollow him to the back o f t he
c a r. Th e tr

un k a pp e a re d to be e mpt

y , b ut t he of fi c e r n oti c e d th a t th e lin ingon the ri g ht s ide of

it
se e me d to be fa lli ng do wn . Wh e n h e pu lle d b a c k th e lin ing , h e fo un d a wh ite pla sti c ba g stu ff

e d in to th e side wall of the tr

unk. As the off

icer tried to g rab the bag , Fe azell ran to the fr ont of the ca r, jum pe d in to t he dr ive r’ s se a t and

sta rt e d th e c a r. Th e of

fi c e r r e a c he d th ro ug h th e wi nd owto t ry to turn off the car , but Fea zell put i t in drive and hit the acc eler ator, knocking the office r off of his fee t
a nd le a vin g him

ba lanc ingon

the c a r’ s wi nd ow le dg e . F e a zel l c on tin ue d to a c c e le rate , e ve ntu a lly causing the offic er to fa ll and strike the pav em ent, s prain both wrists and suff er multiple cuts and bruises to his body
. The off icer radioe d for backup, got i nto his cruiser and pursued Fe azell. During the cha se, Fe azell sped north on the interstate at speeds ove r 100 miles per hour . Fe azell eventually lost control of his car on an exit ramp and skidded into a g rassy are a. The off icer used his cruiser

to block the bottom of the ramp, while a local sher iff’s de puty

parke d his c ar ac ro s s t h e top of the ramp. Reg a in in g c o n tr o l o f h is c a r , F e a ze ll d r o v e th e w r o n g w a y d o w n th e r a mp a n d s la mm e d into the office r’s c ruiser. Fea zell jumped out of hi s car and fled on foot. The of fice r eve ntually

rele ased a police dog , which ca

ug ht and re strained F eazell.No. 06-1147

Un ite d S tat es v . F e az e ll

- 3 - Th e of fi c e r f ound thr e e pa c ka g e s o f c oc a ine ins ide the tr un k o f F eaz e ll’ s c a r. He a lso discovere d a lea d-filled club unde r the pa sseng er seat of the car. Fe azell admitted that he had be en transporting the coc aine f or a dr ug distributor.
F e a zel l w a s c on vic te d in

Mic hig a n s ta te c ourt of a ssa ult ing a po lic e of fi c e r, fl e e ingfr om a police off icer and possessing an assault wea pon. State law enf

orce ment office rs re fer

red the drug char g es to the DrugEnforc ement Ag ency for f eder al prosec ution.
F e a zel l e ve ntu a lly

ple a de d gui lt y to the fe de ra l c ha rg e of po sse ssi ng wi th t

he int e nt t o distribute 500 gr ams or more of coc aine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B) (ii). CalculatingFe azell’s of fe ns e le ve l a s 2 7 a

nd his c rimi nal hi sto ry

a s c a te g or

y V, the dis tr ic t c ourt

de te rm ine d th a t hi s g uid e lin e s se nte nc ingra

ng e wa s 1 20 –1 50 mon ths . T he c ourt se nte nc e d F e a zel l to 12 5 mont hs ’ imprisonment. A p a ne l of

thi s Co ur

t g ra nte d a joi nt m otion by Feazel l and the g ov e rn me nt t o v a c a te thi s sentenc e afte r the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and
rema nded the c ase t o the district court for rese ntencing . The re sentenc ing took plac e bef ore a differ ent district judge , who also found that F eazell’s g uidelines rang e wa s 120–150 months. The judge sentenc ed F eazell to 125 months’ imprisonment.No. 06-1147

Un ite d S tat es v . F e az e ll

- 4 - I I
. F e a zel l fi rs t c on te nd s that his se nte nc e is pr oc e durally un reas on a

ble . See U

nited States v. Da v is , 458 F.3d 491, 495 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (noting that courts of a ppeals re view cr iminal sentence s for “ proce dural” and “substantive” rea sonablene ss). A sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable whe n a district cour

t miscalculates the guidelines sentenc ing r ang e, fa ils to consider the fa ctors e n u me r a te d in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) or de ems the guidelines mandatory instead of a dvisory
. Un i t ed Stat es v. W ebb , 4 03 F .3 d 3 73 , 3 83 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . In c on tend ingthat hi s se nte nc e is p ro c e dura lly
unrea sonable, F eazell ar g ues that t he district cour t failed to consider

his post-sentencing
re ha bil itativ e e ff

or ts d ur ingthe pe ri od

be tw e e n hi s fi rst a nd

se c on d s e nte nc inghe a ri ng s. He is wrong as a ma tter of f

act a nd as a ma tter of law
. As a ma tte r of fa c t, the dis tr ic t c ourt did c on sid e r F e a zel l’ s att e mpt s to be tte r h ims e lf wh ile imprisoned—and it did so in a way that helped F eazell. B efor e im posing the sentenc e, the district court said: My inclination is to think, fra nkly , that [a] sentenc e of 145 or 150 m onths with y our backg round is a more appropr iate sente nce tha n the sentenc e of 125 months that was orig inally imposed; but beca use of y our productivity in prison, Iam per suaded tha t y ou have done at least what is ex pect[ed] of someone in y our position in prison to try to better y ourself, a

nd I will not think a

ny further about the imposition of a sentenc e highe r than the 125 months that was or igina lly imposed.
J A 121–22.No. 06-1147

Un ite d S tat es v . F e az e ll

- 5 - As a matter

of law, the district court had no oblig ation to consider F eazell’s post-sente ncing
re ha bil itativ e e ff

or ts. I n poin t of fa c t, our c a se law pr e c lud e s a dis tr ic t c ourt

fr om c on sid e ri ng po stsentenc ing r eh ab i litation after a Booke r rema nd as a ba sis for re ducing a def endant’ s sentence . United States v. W

orley , 453 F.3d 706, 709 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“The g oal of the Bo ok e r re mand

is t o deter mine if, at the time of sentenc ing, the district judg e would have imposed a diffe rent sente nce in the absenc e of mandatory g uidelines. Post-sentencing events or conduct simply are not releva

nt to t ha t in qu ir y .” ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s and br a c ke ts o mit te d) ; see U

nited States v. Adams , No. 06 -1 18 5, 20 06 WL 37 91 31 7, a t *5 (6 th Cir
. De c . 26 , 20 06 ) (h old ing that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr op e rl y declined to c onsider post-sente ncing reha bilitative effor

ts); Un ite d S

tat es v . S mi th , No. 0 5 -4644, 2006 WL 3717660, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec . 18, 2006) (r ever sing a district court’s sente ncing deter mination because the court’s “only expli cit justification for [ the] varia nce [ was] its relianc e on [the de fe nd a nt’ s] po st- se nte nc ingre ha bil itatio n e ff

or ts” ); se e als o U. S.S. G. § 5 K2 .1 9 ( “ Postsentenc ing r ehabilitative ef forts, eve n if exceptional
. . . are not an appropriate basis for a downwar d depar ture whe n rese ntencing the def endant fo r that offe nse.”) . I f there was e rror here , in other words, it favor ed the de fenda nt, not the gove rnment (whic h does not cha lleng e his sentenc e).
Fea zel l r e sp on ds tha

t on e of the se c a se s— W

orley— was a straig htforwa

rd Bo ok e r r e ma nd, while his was “mor e than a simple rema nd” because we vacate d his orig inal sentenc e. Reply Br . at 1. But in va cating Fe azell’s sentenc e we expli citly noted the limit ed scope of the re mand—a sc ope the par ties themselves embra ced w hen they moved for r esente ncing
. See J A 30 (“ The pa rties now jointly move to vacate the defe ndant’s sentenc e and to re mand his case . . . for r esente ncing in lightNo. 06-1147

Un ite d S tat es v . F e az e ll

- 6 - of United States v. Book

er .” ); see Adam s , 2006 WL 3791317, at *1, *5 (noting that orig inal sentenc e
was “vac ated and rema

nded by this court in light of United States v. Book er ” and a ffirming district court’s de cision not to consider post-sentenc ing r ehabilitation).
I n his opening brief, F eazell also sugg ests, with litt le elabor ation, that the district court fa iled to take into acc ount the time he had alre ady serve d in sta te prison for the state c onvictions stemming from this incident. Br . at 20–21. Contrary to h i s s u ggest ion, our dec ision in United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550 ( 6th Cir. 2006), does not compel dis trict courts to addre ss ever y argument the def endant r aises—no matter

how non-meritorious or undevelope d it is—in imposing a sente nce. See U nited States v. Jone

s , 445 F.3d 865, 871 (6th Cir. 2006) (conc luding that a sent en ce i s n ot
unrea sonable “ whene ver a district judge does not expli citly ad d ress e very defe nse ar g ument”); Un ite d S tat es v . G ale , 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Asentenc ing judg e has no more duty than
we a pp e lla te jud g e s d o to dis c us s e ve ry a rgume nt m a de by a lit ig a nt; a rgume nts c le a rl y wi tho ut m e ri t can, a nd for the sa

ke of judicia l economy

should, be passed ove r in silen ce . ”) (i n terna l quotation
mark s o mit te d) ; see also United States v . Oglesby , No. 05-6528, 2007 WL247890, at *6 (6th Cir. Jan. 30 , 2 00 7) (f

ind ing “ c on sid e ratio n of De fe nd a nt’ s mit ig a tio n a rgume nt un ne c e ssa ry” be c a us e it “wa s woefully

unsupported”)
. At any rate , even if

it were err or not to addre ss this arg ument specific ally , the er ror wa s harmless. The g uidelines instruct district courts to incre ase a n individual’s criminal history cate g ory ba se d o n p ri or

state a nd fe de ra l c on victio ns , mo st o f w hic h le a d to pr iso n ti me . F e a zel l f a ils toNo. 06-1147

Un ite d S tat es v . F e az e ll

- 7 - e xpla in w hy

his state c on vic tio ns —in de e d, state c on vi cti on s n ot c on sid e re d in de te rm ini nghis criminal history

—oug ht to mit igate (rather than e x ace rbate ) the leng th of his sentence
. Fe azell f inally argues (in two sente nces) that his sentence is substantively unrea sonable for the same re as o n s h e claims that it is procedura lly unrea sonable. B r. at 22. In view of F eazell’s

“ e xtre me ly

tr ou bli ng ,” JA 12 0, e xten siv e a nd vio le nt c ri min a l hi sto ry

—in c lud ingmul tip le a ssa ult s and an attempted murder c onviction that occur re d while he wa s incarc erated—the district cour t
rea sonably

conclude d that a 125-month sentenc e wa s appropr iate.
III
. For these re asons, we a ffirm.