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: 10a0305n.06 No. 08-6076 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, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MARI NO MAXI MI L I ANO AL MONTE-ROSA, aka Edwin Her

nandez, aka

Ruben Arturo F atu, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF OR E: M AR TIN , SU HR HEI NRIC H, a nd WH ITE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. HELE NE N. WHITE, Circ uit Jud ge. De fe nd ant A lmo nte -R os a ple a de d guil ty

of ill e g a lly
ree nteringthe United States af ter having be en re moved s u b s equent to being c onvicted of a n
a g g rava ted fel ony , in

vio latio n o f 8 U. S.C. §§ 13 26 (a ) a nd 13 26 (b )( 2) . H e a

pp e a ls h is thir

ty -s ix
mon th s e nte nc e , c la imi ngthat it is b oth pr oc e dura lly

and su bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble . We a ff

ir m. I. Almonte-Rosa is a citizen of the Dominican Republic. In 1999, he wa s removed f rom the Un ite d St a te s a ft e r s e rv in g a 2 1 /2- y e ar s e nte nc e in M a ssa c hu se tts fo r p os se ssi on of c oc a ine wi th int e nt t o d istri bute . Alm onte -R os a ill e g a lly re e nte re d th e Un ite d St a te s and wa s a rr e ste d in Tenne ssee on Februar

y 5, 2005, also for unla

wful possession of coc aine with intent to distribute. He plea de d guil ty

in s tate c ourt

and wa s se nte nc e d to nin e y e ars ’ i mpr iso nme nt, wi th r e le a se elig ibilit y at thirty perc ent. The U.S. B urea u of Immigration a

nd Customs Enforc ement (I CE) place dNo. 08-6076

USA v. Almonte -Rosa

At t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g, Al m o n t e- R o s a’ s at t o rn ey as k ed“f o r c re d i tfr o m J u l y

‘0 6 t h ro u gh 1 today [August 20, 2008], which comes up to be by my calc ulation a bout two y ear s and a little over a m o n t h
. ” S e n t ’ g T r . a t1 2
. O na p p e a l , A l m o n t e - R o s a

s t a t e s t h a th i s c o u n s e l r e qu e s t e d o n l y a fiftee n-month varianc e at se ntencing , which would corr espond to the time betwe en Almonte-Rosa’ s parole hear ing in July

2006 and his fede ral indictment in September 2 0 0 8
. The re cord, how ever , does not indicate that the reque sted varia nce c hang ed fr om Almonte-Rosa’s position paper. - 2 - a deta iner on Almonte-Rosa on Ma rch 8, 2006. In J uly

2006, the Tenne ssee Boar d of Probation and Parole c ontinued a hea

ring in order to “ verify” whe ther I CE intended to act on the de tainer. Almonte-Rosa was s t i l l in Tennessee custody when he was indicted in the instant ca se on September 24, 2007. H e wa s then transfe rre d to fede ral custody pursuant to a wr it of habeas corpus ad prosequendum ; he pleade d g uilty to the § 1326 violation on Fe bruar y 14, 2008. His prese ntence repor t (PSR ) ca lculated a

total offense level of twenty -one, which, combined with a c riminal history
c a te g or y I I I , r e su lte d in

a Gu ide lin e s r ang e of

fo rt y -s ix to f if ty -s e ve n mo nth s. Al monte -R os a did no t c ha lle ng e the PSR, but fi le d a po sit ion pa pe r outli nin g argume nts in favor of a va rianc e. Releva

nt to the instant appea l, he ar g ued that he should re ceive “cr edit” for the tim e he sp e nt i n T e nn e sse e c us tod y fo llo wi nghis July

20 06 pa ro le he ari ng . He c la ime d th a t th e I CE detainer preve nted him from beingg rante d parole at his July 2006 hear ing, a nd that he should have be e n tr ans fe rr e d to F e de ra l c us tod y a t th a t po int . B e c a

us e he wo uld

be ine lig ibl e fo r c re dits
c a lc ulate d b y

the B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns (B OP) un de r 18 U .S. C. § 35 85 (b ), he a sk e d th e dis tr ic t c ourt to gra n ta v ar i an ce eq u al t o t h e r o u gh l y t wo y ea rs b et we en J u l y

2 0 0 6 u n t i l h i s s en t en ci n g. 1 At sentenc ing, dur ing the district c ourt’s consideration of Almonte-Rosa’s Guidelines r ang e, the district court a

nd Almonte-Rosa’s c ounsel eng ag ed in a leng thy discussion of Almonte-Rosa’s parole elig ibilit y in T ennesse e. Sent’g Tr. at 9-12, 18-21. His attorney admitted that it was unclea rNo. 08-6076

USA v. Almonte -Rosa

- 3 - when Almonte- Rosa should have been eligible for parole, and st ated that she had “neve r figured out what for mula they are g oing to [use to] com e u p wi t h t h e [parole elig ibilit y ] dates they come up with.” Id. a t 20. Th e Go ve rnme nt r e sp on de d th a t it wa s c on je c tur e that A lmo nte -R os a wa s a c tua lly elig ible for pa

role at his J uly

2006 hear ing, a

nd that “this cre dit may be better left t o the authorities that Congr ess has set f

or that, and that is the Bure au of Prisons.” Id. at 22. T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt u l t i m at el y agr ee d wi t ht h e G o v ern m en t , s t at i n g: As far as cr edits, I rea lly

believe that the BO P is i n a position to handle that. I ’m not g oing to be providing or determining that. Ihave a difficult time enoug h deter mining what the f eder al sy stems calls for in terms of credit, and thi ng s of t hat nature, or the wa y it h and le s matte rs . I ’m

no t g oin g to b e tr

yingto u nd e rs tand what th e state sy stems [ sic] does. All I know is what I ’m [si c] heard f rom y ou folks who have done wo rk ov e r t he re that th e re is a

se t of ru le s th a t a

lot of tim e s are given 30 p e rc e nt. An d w hat a ll the de ta ils and int ri c a c ie s of that pr og ra

m, o the r t ha n th a t 30 pe rc e nt, Idon’t know. I don’t prete nd to know. The B OP, which handles c redits, does a much be tte r j ob , I ’m

sure , th an I

do . I have no wi sh e s o r d e sir e to g ive Mr . A lmo nte -R os a some cre dit for the time that was de lay ed or that he should have be en in fe dera l c us tod y . I ’m g oin g to l e ave that w iththe m. Sent’g Tr. at 25. Af

ter a cce pting the PSR rec ommended Guidelines ra ng e of f orty -six to fifty -seve n months, the court considere d the § 3553(a) fac tors. Id
. at 38-40. It determined that Almonte-Rosa’s
rea son for re entry

was to t raf

fic narcotics, which impacted the court’s consideration of nearly all of those fac tors. Id. At t he conc lusion of its review of the § 3553(a) fac tors, the cour t considere d Almonte-Rosa’s a

rgument in favor of

a var iance based on his state c ustody and stated: The Court has he ard the ar gu m ents of counse l conce rning the circ umstances surroundingcre dits and delay s, and thing s of that nature . I ’ve a lrea dy addre ssed that howeve r, in that reg ard the Court is g oing to impose the following sentenc e, which are [si c] under the Guide lines. The Court is goingto impose a sentenc e in the matter of 36 months.No. 08-6076

USA v. Almonte -Rosa

Almonte-Rosa’s brie f on appea l c orre ctly states the Guidelines r ang e and the final sentenc e, 2 but mist akenly

states that he r ece ived a twe lve-month varia nce. Almonte-Rosa did not object to the di strict court’s ex planation of its decision not to gra nt 3 the full amount of the va

rianc e re quested. Sent’gTr. at 41. Where a defe ndant fails to object to a district court’s sente ncin g d eter mination sentence when g iven the opportunity , this court revie ws claims of proc edura l unrea sonablene ss for plain er ror. United States v. Haj-H amed , 549 F.3d 1020, 1 0 2 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 386 ( 6th Cir.) (en ba nc), c e rt. denied , 129 S.Ct . 68 (2008))
. Howeve r, her e, as in Haj-Hame d , the Gover nment does not assert that the standa rd of r eview should be plain err or. We do not ne ed to de cide which standard of revie w applies to Almonte-Rosa’ s proce dural re asonable ness cha lleng e, as the claim fa ils under either standard. - 4 - Sent’g Tr. at 40. Thus, Almonte- Rosa rec eived a t en -m o n t h varia nce be low the low-e nd of the Guideli nes ra

ng e. Almonte-Rosa appe als claiming that his sentence was both proc edura lly and 2 substantively

unrea sonable. II. We revie w t he reasonable ness of a sentence for abuse of discre tion. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007 ). T h i s review “is split int o two parts: proc edura l rea sonablene ss and 3 substantive rea sonablene ss.” United States v. Be nson , 591 F.3d 491, 500 (6th Cir. 2010)
. A sentenc e is p ro c e dura lly

unre a so na

ble if it co nta ins “ sig nif

ic ant p ro c e dura l e rr or , s uc h a s f a ili ngto c a lc ulate (o r imp ro pe rl y c a lc ulatin g ) the Gu ide lin e s ra ng e , tr e a tin g the Gu ide lin e s a s mand a tor y , fai li ng to
c on sid e r t he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, se le c tin g a

se nte nc e base d o n c le arl y e rr on e ou s f

a c ts, or fa ili ngto adequately

explain the chosen sentence- including a n explanation for any

deviation from the Guidelines ra

ng e.” Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. Howev er , s en tencingis an “e x erc ise of judg ment, not ri tua l” and

a dis tr ic t c ou

rt is r e qu ir e d “ on ly

to pr ov ide e no ug h de ta il to a llo w a n a pp e llate c ourt

to conduct ‘ meaning ful appe llate re view’ a nd to conclude that the district c ourt adequately considere dNo. 08-6076

USA v. Almonte -Rosa

- 5 - the re levant statutory

fac tors.” United States v. Grossman , 513 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Mc Gee , 494 F.3d 551, 556- 57 (6th Cir. 2007)). S u b s t an t i v e u n r e a s o n a

b l e n e s s o c c u r s w h e r e th e d i s t r i c tc o u rt“ s e l e c t s a s e n t e n c e ar

b i t r ar i l y, bases the se ntence on impermissible factor s, fails to c onsider rele vant sentenc ing fac tors, or g ives
an unrea sonable amount of weig ht to a ny pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Conaster , 514 F.3d 508, 52 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) (c itatio ns omi tte d) . “ Th e e sse nc e of a su bs tan tiv e -r e a so na ble ne ss c la im i s wh e the r t he le ng th o f t

he se nte nc e is ‘g re a te r tha

n ne c e ssa ry ’ to a c hie ve the se nte nc ingg oa ls s e t f or th in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Tristan-Madrigal , 601 F.3d 629, 2010 WL 1541291, at *3 (6 th C ir . 2 01 0) . We a ff or d a se nte nc e wi thi n th e a dv iso ry Gu ide lin e s r ang e a

“ re butta ble presumption of substantive re asonable ness.” United Sta te s v . E r p e nbeck , 532 F.3d 423, 430 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (c itatio n o mitted). “[S] imple logic c ompels the conc lusion that, if a sentenc e [within t he Guidelines] would have be en pre sumptively rea sonable in leng th, defe ndant' s task of per suading us that [a] more lenient sentenc e . . . is unr easona bly long is e ven more demanding .” United States v. Cur ry , 536 F.3d 571, 573 ( 6th Cir. 2008). III . A. Almonte-Rosa a

r g u e s th a t h is s e nte n c e is p r o c e d

u r ally unrea sonable be cause the district court fa ile d to a de qu a te ly e xpla in its de c isi on to g ra nt his re qu e st f

or a va ri anc e in p art , b ut d e ny

the fu ll extent of the varianc e he r equeste d. We disag ree . B e c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

c ho se to vary be low the Gu ide lin e s, it w a s r e qu ir e d to e xpla in i ts decision. Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 357 (2007) (“ Where the judg e impo s es a se ntenceNo. 08-6076

USA v. Almonte -Rosa

- 6 - ou tsi de the Gu ide lin e s, the jud g e wi ll e xpla in why he ha s d on e so .” ). Th e dis tr ic t court fu lf ill e d th is ob lig a tio n. Th e re c or d r e fl e c ts that th e dis tr ic t c ourt c are fu lly con sid e re d th e § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s, acknow ledg ed Almonte-Rosa’ s reque st f or a varia nce and g rante d the varia

nce in pa rt. I n doing so, the cour t impli citly

acc epted the a

rgument that Almonte-Rosa shoul d rec eive some leniency based
on the tim e he sp e nt in Te nn e sse e c us tod y . Ho we ve r, the c ourt a lso ma de c le ar, by re fe re nc e to i ts
ear lier discussion of the issue, that it was unc omfortable w ith acce pting Almonte- Rosa’s ca lculation of whe n he would other

wise have been elig ible for rele ase. Simi larly , it is clea r that the district court
was c oncer

ned with the need to adequately punish Almonte-Rosa for r eturningto the United States illega lly for the pur

pose of tra ffickingin narc oti cs . Take n in context, t he district cour t’s car eful consideration of t h e § 3 5 5 3 (a) fac tors and its expl icit refe renc e to its earlier statements re g arding Almonte-Rosa’s va

rianc e re quest provide a

sufficie nt bas i s for meaning ful appe llate re view. See United States v. Lalonde , 5 09 F .3 d 7 50 , 7 70 -7 1 ( 6th Cir . 200 7) . Thu s, Al monte -R os a ’s se nte nc e is not proce durally

unrea sonable. B.

“ As sumin g that th e dis tr ic t c ourt ' s se nte nc ingde c isi on is p ro c e dura lly

so und, [we ] sho uld then consider

the substantive re asonable ness of the se ntence imposed under a n abuse- of-discr etion standard.” Ga ll , 5 52 U. S. at 51 . A lmo nt e-R os a c on te nd s th a t hi s se nte nc e is s ub sta nti ve ly
unrea sonable be cause it failed to fully discount his sentence for the time h e spent in Tennesse e
c us tod y , r e su lti ngin a se nte nc e lon g e r tha n ne c e ssa ry to ac hie ve the g oa ls o f § 35 53 . T his c la im i s wi tho ut m e ri t. A lmo nte -R os a ha s not re butte d the pr e sumpt ion of re a so na ble ne ss a c c or de d to his below-G uidelines sentenc e, nor c ould he pre vail in the absenc e of suc h a pre sumption.No. 08-6076

USA v. Almonte -Rosa

- 7 - The re cord doe s not clear ly indicate that Almonte-Rosa wa s entitled to any reduc tion based on his imprisonm ent in Tenne s s ee. Whi le Almonte-Rosa’s attorney asser ted that he would have been pa roled in 2006 abse nt the I CE detainer , there is no evidenc e in the re cord to substantiate suc h
a c la im. Ev e n a c c e pti ngAl monte -R os a ’s a rgum e nt, the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se nte nc e re fl e c ts i ts
c on sid e ratio n o f a ll o f t

he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, inc lud ingthe se ri ou sn e ss o f th e of fe ns e , th e ne e d to deter others fr o m simi lar c rimes, and the ne ed to protec t the public from future illega l activity by Al mon te -R os a . I ts u lti mate de c isi on to i mpo se a

thi rt y -s ix mon th s e nte nc e in a dd iti on to t he tim e
serve d in Tennesse e re flec ted an appropriate bala nce of the var ious factor s and re sulted in a
rea sonable sente nce. T he district cour t did not abuse its discretion and, ther efor e, we AF F IRM
.