The Honorable David D. Dowd, J r., S enior District J udg e for the Northe rn District of Ohio, * sitti ng by desig nation. File Na me: 08a0663n.06 Filed: Nove mber 3, 2008 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 07-5465 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. J OHN S. B ROWN, 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 KENTUCKY

/ Be fore : MARTI

N and GI L MAN, Circuit J udg es, and D OWD, District J udg e. * BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circuit J udg e. John S . Br own appe als his 144 month sentence fo r p os se ssi on

of c ra c k a nd po wd e r c oc a ine wi th i nte nt t o d ist ri bu te , p os se ssi on

of a fi rea rm in further ance of a dr

ug crime, a

nd p o s s es s i on of a f

irea rm afte r a f

elony conviction. On appe al, he

ar g u e s th a t h is s e n te n c e s h o u ld b e v a c a te d

b e c a u s e it w a s im

p o s e d w it h o u t a p r e s e n te n c e r e p o rt. We fi nd th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y e xer c ise d it s d isc re tio n to imp os e a se nte nc e wi tho ut a prese ntence repor

t under F eder al Rule of Criminal Procedu re 3 2 (c )(1) (A)( ii) and United States SentencingGuidelines Manua l § 6A1.1(a) (2). How ever , we VA CATE Br o wn’s sente nce a ndNo. 07-5465

Un ite d S tates v . B ro wn Pag e 2 REMAND for rese ntencing in light of the 2007 Amendments to the Sentenc ing Guidelines, which apply retroa ctively

to Brown’s ca se. I. On Marc h 22, 2006, J ohn S. Brown w as ar rested in L ouisvill e, KY, on suspicion of drug traff icking . Police found him car rying cra ck and powder coca ine, $918 in c ash, and a loaded .380 handgun. Br own admi t t ed t h at h e int ended to distribute the dr ug s and that he c arr ied the gun for protec tion. He was subsequently char g ed with posse ssion of cra ck and powder coca ine with intent to distribute, possession of a firea rm in further ance of a dr

ug crime, a

nd possession of a fir ear

m after

a fe lony c on vic tio n. At

the a dv ic e of

c ouns e l, B ro wn ne g oti a te d a ple a a g re e me nt, ple d g uil ty to a ll

c ounts and

a g re e d to a re c omm e nd e d se nte nc e of 14 4 mo nth s. Af te r f ind ingthat it

ha d a ll the fa c ts

nece ssary for se ntencing , the district court found this sentenc e to be r easona ble and imposed the

re c omm e nd e d s e nte nc e . B ro wn no w a pp e a ls. II. We re vie w s e nte nc ingde te rm inatio ns fo r b oth pr oc e dura l and

su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss. A sentence is procedura lly unrea sonable if it is marked by “sig nificant proc edura l error , such as failing to calculate (or imprope rly calc ulating) th e Gu i d elines ra ng e, tre ating the Guidelines a s mandatory , failing to consider the § 3553( a) factor s, selec ting a sentenc e base d on clea

rly err oneous fac ts, or failing to a dequate ly explain the chosen sentenc e-inc luding an explanation for a ny deviation from the Guide lines rang e.” Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007). “ [A] sentenc e may be substantively

unrea sonable whe n the district court sele cts the sentenc e ar bitrarily , bases the sentenc e on impermissible fact o rs , fa ils to consider pertinent § 3553( a) f actor s or g ives anNo. 07-5465

Un ite d S tates v . B ro wn Pag e 3
unrea sonable amount of weig ht to a ny pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Borho , 485 F.3d 904, 908 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 7 ) (c i t ati on and quotation marks omitted). The standard of revie w for se ntencing deter minations is abuse of discre tion. Ga ll , 128 S.Ct . at 594. III

. Br own a r g u e s th a t the district court’s fa ilure to consult a pre sentenc e re port befor e sente ncing him was proce durally

unrea sonable. We disag ree . Presentenc e re ports, while oft en an important

resour ce, a

re not a mandatory

part of the sentenc ing pr ocess. Bo t h t h e Fe dera l Rules of Criminal Procedur e and the S en t en cing Guidelines e x pressly provide that a

district judge may

sentenc e a defe ndant without a pre sentenc e re port “[if] t he court finds that the information in the re cord e nables it to meaningf

ully exercise its sente ncing authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, and the court e x plains its finding on the r ecor d.” F ed. R. Crim. Pro 32( c)( 1)(A) (ii); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(a )(2)

. This makes

s en s e. T h e p u rp o s e o f ap re s en t en ce re p o rt i s t o i n fo rm t h e ju d ge of t h e fa ct s re l ev an tt o s en t en ci n g. As Rul e 32 (c )( 1) (A )( ii ) and U. S.S. G. § 6 A1 .1 (a )( 2) re c og nize , w he re the jud g e a lr e a dy ha s th os e fac ts in front of him, a pre sentenc e re port is unnece ssary . Cf. U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1 cmt . (“ A t h o ro u gh prese ntence investigation or din ar ily is e sse nti a l in

de te rm in i n g

t h e fa c ts r e le va

nt t o s e nte nc ing . Ru le 32(c) (1)( A) pe rmits the j u d ge t o d i s p en se with a pre sentenc e re port . . . when the court finds

su ff ic ie nt i nf or matio n in the re c or d to e na

ble it t o e xer c ise its statut or y se nte nc inga

uth or ity meaning fully

and explains its findi ng on the re cord.” ) (e mphasis added)

. Br own cor

rec tly notes that U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(b) provide s that a d ef endant may

not waive prepa ration of a prese ntence repor

t. Howeve r, U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(b) must be rea d in light of U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(a ), which empower s the judg e to sentenc e a de fenda nt without a presente nce r eport. ThatNo. 07-5465

Un ite d S tates v . B ro wn Pag e 4

Th e re c or d in dic a te s that B ro wn ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry wa s mo st l ike ly

V, bu t c le arl y

no t le ss 1 that I V. Th e ple a ba

rg a in stip ulate d cate g or

y V, and the dis tr ic t court fo llo we d th is. Ho we ve r, to the extent there is a

ny uncer tainty , it is worth noting that the sentenc e of 144 months fa lls withi n the rec ommended ra

ng e for both. The off

en s e l ev el fo r t he drugchar g e wa s 23, with a five y ear minimum . For

a cr iminal hist ory

of I V, the Guidelines Ma nual ra ng e wa s 70-87 months. For a criminal history

of V, it would have been 84-105. The firear m count carried a

60 month mini mum t o b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e t o t h e f

i r s t , s o a t o t a l o f 1 4 4 m o n t h s f

a l l s w i t h i ne i t h e r

c a t e g o r y. is to say , U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(b) does not limit the judge’s a uth or ity to i ssue a sen ten ce wit

ho ut a prese ntence repor

t if he complies with Rule 32(c) (1)( A)(ii) a nd U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1(a)( 2). He re , B ro wn

e nte re d in to a

bindi ng plea

ba rg a in w iththe Un ite d St a te s p ur su ant t o Ru le 11(c) (1)( C) of the F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e. He ag ree d to the facts that wer e conta ined t h er ei nan d

wh i ch we re i n d ep en d en t l y r e v i e w edb y

th e d i s t ri ct co u rt at h i s s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g. L ikewise, he ag ree d to a sentenc e of 144 months. Consistent with U.S .S.G. § 6B1.2(c ), the district

c ourt a c c e pte d the ple a ba

rg a in up on fi nd ing that the a g re e d- up on se nte nc e fe ll wi thi n the a pp lic a ble rang e. I t then asked Mr. Brown whether he would like to be sentenced that day or dela y sentenc ing 1 fo r “ a c ou ple of mon ths ” wh ile a pr e se nte nc e re po rt wa s pre pa re d. I n doin g so the dis tr ic t court did not in any way limit its authority

to impose a sentence without a presentenc e report. When Brow n ind ic a te d h e did

no t de sir e to w a it, he sig ne d a fo rm me mor ia lizin g thi s p re fe re nc e a s an inc ide nt t o thi s e xch ang e . T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n f ound tha t th e re c or d en a

ble d it to me anin g fu lly e xer c ise its

sen t en ci ng authority

under 18 U .S.C. § 3553, and sentence d Br own to the ag ree d-upon sentenc e. To the ex tent the di strict court treated Brown’ s pref ere nce as controlling , it was within its discretion to do so. This in no way

violated the Sentenc ing Guidelines.No. 07-5465

Un ite d S tates v . B ro wn Pag e 5

This reduc ed the manda tory minimum of his sentenc es fr om fifteen year s to ten. 2 Even if the district court ha d committed error here , that err or would not be re versible unde r 3 Fe d. R. Crim. Pro. 52, beca use Brown did not object to it at hi s sentenc ing hear ing and t here is no evidenc e that it “aff

ects substantial rig hts.” Un ite d S tates v . W ar d , 190 F.3d 483, 492 ( 6th Cir. 1998). Fur thermore , it is clear f

rom the re cord that the district court had suf ficient infor

mation befor e it to “exercise its sentenc ing a u t h o ri ty meaning fully .” The district court had discusse d B ro wn ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry

wi th B ro wn ’s c ouns e l, as we ll as the str uc tur e of B ro wn ’s ple a

a g re e me nt,

un de r wh ic h the Un ite d State s a g re e d to dr op the se c on d dr ug c ha rg e a g a ins t hi m if

he ple d guil ty to all counts and ag ree d to a 144 month sentence

. 2 Ha vin g ma de the fi nd ingre qu ir e d b y Rul e 32 (c)(1 )( A) (i i) , th e dis tr ic t c ourt we nt o n to

e xpla in i t on the re c or d at B ro wn ’s se nte nc inghe ari ng . T his e xplanatio n w a s b ri e f b ut s uf fi c ie nt i n the broa der c ontext of the he aring : no fac ts releva n t t o s entencing w ere in dispute and Br own’s sentenc e had be en neg otiated to three y ears l es s t h an the mandator y minimum for the c harg es he fac ed. 3 Se nte nc ingB ro wn witho ut a pr e se nte nc e re po rt

wa s p ro c e dura lly

re a so na ble un de r t

he se circ umstances. I V. Whil e B rown’s se ntence was p r o c e d u r a ll y r e a s onable, it was imposed pur suant to sentencing g uid e lin e s th a t ha

ve sin c e be e n a me nd e d re tr oa c tiv e to B ro wn ’s c a se . B e c a us e of thi s, we va c a te his sentenc e and r emand his ca se for rese ntencing

.No. 07-5465

Un ite d S tates v . B ro wn Pag e 6 Br own’s sente nce wa s i mposed on May 17, 2007. On Novembe r 1, 2007, the sente ncing g uidelines wer e amended to decr ease the offense level for drug convictions involving cr ack by two points. I n an appa

rent ove rsig ht, the drugequivalenc y table in the commentar

y to U .S.S.G. §2D1.1 did not incorporate this chang e. The g uidelines wer e later am en d ed to corre ct this anomaly and make the r esulting c hang es re troac tive. See 73 Fe d. Reg . 217-01 (Jan. 2, 2008); § 1B1.10( a)( 1),(c ) (Supp. 2008). Be cause of t his, defe ndants servinga sente nce f or a c rac k offe nse imposed under the prior guidelines ca

n file a motion for a sente nce r eduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

. See United Sta te s v . P oo le , 5 38 F .3 d 64 4, 64 5 (6 th Cir

. 20 08 ). B ro wn wa s se nte nc e d un de r the pr ior g uid e lin e s, so he is elig ible for r esente ncing under the new pr ovisions. V. Fo r t h e f o re go i n g re as o n s , we VA C AT E Br o wn ’s s en t en ce an d R E M AN D fo r r es en t en ci n g.