The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easte rn Di strict of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 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: 11a0046n.06 No. 08-5752 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. ROBERT E. COL E, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

O P I N I O N BEFORE: M OORE an d ST RANCH, Cir cuit Judges; and COHN, District Judge. * AVERN COHN, Distr ict Judge
. Th is i s a c ri min a l c a se . D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt R ob e rt Col e (“Cole” ) appe als from the custodial sentenc e of 120 months im posed on him following r evocation of his probation. Cole argues that his se ntence is procedur ally and substantively

unrea sonable. F or the re asons that follow, Cole’s sente nce w ill be affir med.
I.
Cole is a native of Kentucky
. For most of his adult li fe, he was a far mer until his retirement in ro ug hly 20 00
. I n 200 2, a t the a g e of 61 , Cole wa s indi c te d, a lon g wi th s e ve ra l c o- de fe nd ants , in the Di str ic t of

Sou th C aro lin a

fo r p art ic ipatio n in a

larg e sc a le c on sp ir a c y

to m anu fa c tur e and

se ll
me tha mph e tamin e . T he c on sp ir a c y op e rate d out of se ve ra l counti e s in South C aro lin a . Co le ’s ro le2

was to supply

anhy drous ammonia used in the manufac ture of me thamphetamine to member s of the conspirac y . As a re tired fa rm er , Cole regularly kept anhydrous ammonia on his far m for use a s fer tiliz er. On September

2, 2003, Cole plead guilty to one count of c onspiracy to manufac ture, distribute, and possess with intent to dist ribute 500 g rams or more of a mixt ure or substance containing a dete ctable a

mount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)( 1). Ac co rd i n g t o t h e p re s en t en ce repo rt , h i s gu i d el i n e r an ge f o r t h e o ff en s e w as 4 6 -5 7 m o n t h s . Al t h o u gh Col e fa c e d a

statut or y min imum te rm of imp ri so nme nt of 12 0 mon ths , Col e qu a lif ie d f or the sa fe ty valve, which allowed f

or a se ntence within the guide line rang e and w ithout reg ard to the statutory minimum . Acc ording to the prese ntence repor t, Cole was not el i g ible for pr obation beca use the offe nse wa s a Class A fe lony
. See 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(1) ; U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1(b)( 1).
On Dec ember 8, 2003, the district c ourt sentenc ed Cole to thr ee y ear s probation with a condition of five months home conf inement. Neither Cole nor the g overnme nt appea led the sentenc e. At the time of se ntencing , C o le had a pending state ca se ag ainst him in Kentucky for manufa cturing methamphetamine. Shortly afte r sentenc ing, Cole’ s p robation super vision was transfe rre d to the Easter

n District of Ke ntucky , wher e Cole re sided.
I n May 2004, Cole was sente nced to ten y ear s custody in the state case . He was re lease d on p ar o l e o nJ u n e 2 , 2 0 0 6
. C o l e ’ s p r o b a t i o n p e r i o d , w h i c h w a s t o l l e d w h i l e h e w a s i ns t a t e c u s t o dy,
commence d ag ain.3

On J anuar

y 24, 2008, Cole’s probation off icer sub m i t t ed a violation repor t char g ing ( 1) a fa ilure to r e po rt

and (2 ) c omm iss ion

of ano ther o ffen se . A s to the fi rs t vi olatio n, Col e fa ile d to repor t to his probation office r upon his rele ase f rom state custody

in J une 2006. As to the sec ond violation, Col e wa s arr ested o n J anuar y 22, 2008 and cha

rg ed in state c ourt with possession of
me tha mph e tamin e , ma

nu fa c tur ingme tha

mph e tamin e , a

nd po sse ssi nganh y dr ou s ammo nia wi th intent to manufac ture methamphetamine. The Probation Violation Report noted Cole’s g uideline sentenc e for

the violations was 24-30 months. I t also noted the d i s t ri ct co urt’s option to revoke Cole’s probation and r e-se ntence him on the orig inal char g e to which he plead guilty
. On Marc h 6, 2008, the district c ourt held a revoc ation hear ing. The probation officer testified as to the nature of Cole’s violations. The probation officer also testified that since the filing of the Pr ob a tio n V iol a tio n Re po rt , it wa s d isc ov e re d th a t Co le wa s c ha rg e d in De c e mbe r 2 00 6 w ith
rec eiving stolen proper

ty over $300. Although the cha rg e wa s later dismissed, Cole did not report this charg e to his probation offic er. Cole a lso rece ived a tra ffic citation in Septe mber 2007 for whic h he paid a fine; he did not re port this to the probation office r. A detec tive with a state drugtask forc e t es t i fi ed at the violation hea ring . He sa id that law enfor ceme nt office rs re ceive d a ti p that Cole was manuf actur ing me thamphetamine at his residence
. Offic ers, includingthe detec tive, came to Cole’s residenc e. Cole g av e t h em consent to ente r but denied a ny drug activity . After

Cole questioned whether he would sign a wr itten consent to sear ch the premises, the office rs obtained a sear ch war rant. The office rs found two j ar s o f a nhy drous ammonia and va

rious equipment used in the manuf actur e of me thamphetamine. I tems containing trac es of methamphetamine we re a lso found.4

Col e , th e n a g e 67 , te sti fi e d at th e vio la tio n h e ari ng . H e a dmi tte d to fa ili ngto r e po rt to h is probation off

icer , explaining both that he for g ot the probation office r’s instructions y ear s ag o and may have be en conf

used by his state parole status. Cole also admitted to using methamphetamine on the date of

the sea rch; he denied manuf

actur ing me thamphetamine.
At the conc lusion of the hear ing, the district c ourt found that Cole had violated the terms of h i s p ro b at ion by

failing to report to his probation off icer and for possessing a

nd manufa cturing methamphetamine. I

n so doing, the district court fully cre dited the testimony of the probation officer and the de tective. The district c ourt also discredited Cole’s testimony , finding it incorrec t or false
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

fo un d th a t Co le fa ile d to inf or m hi s p ro batio n o ff

ic e r a bo ut h is s tol e n p ro pe rt

y cha rg e and tr aff

ic citation, but did not consider these incidents as a ba sis for dec ision. As to the methamphetamine c harg es, the district cour t f ound “cle ar a

nd convincingevidenc e” to support the state cha rg es. The district c ou rt then re voked Cole’s probation and schedule d the matter f or re sentenc ing. T h e d i s t ri ct cour t asked for

a sente ncing memorandum fr om the probation off icer updating the initial presentenc e re port. The probation office r filed a SentencingMemorandum, e x plaining that Cole’s g uideline rang e for the under ly ing of

fense was 4 6 to 57 months, not 120 months, due to application of the safe ty valve. The probation officer further explained that the di strict court ha d discretion to sentenc e Cole to a ny term of imprisonment up to life on the probation violation, noting that the district c ourt has all options available to it that wer e in pla ce at the time of the or igina l sentence , which included
n o to n l y a gu i d el i n e s en t en ce d

u e t o t h e s af

et y v al v e, b u t al s o a s en t en ce wi t h i nt h e s t at u t o ry ra n ge of 120 months to life.I ndeed, Cole ha s not challeng ed the district cour t’s decision to revok

e his probation. 1 5 When C o l e appea

red f or sentenc ing on Ma

y 27, 2008, he ar g ued for

a sente nce w ithin the rang e of 46 to 57 months. The g overnme nt argued for a sentenc e of at least 120 months. The district
c ourt se nte nc e d Co le to 1 20 mon ths plu s f ive y e a rs su pe rv ise d r e le a se wi th c on dit ion s. Col e a pp e a ls, contendingthe 120 month sentence is both procedur ally and substantively

unrea sonable.
II.
Sentence s imposed for probation and supervised r elea se violations are revie wed “ under the
same a buse of discr etion standard that [ this court applies] to sent en ces imposed f ollowing conviction[.] ” United States v. Kontrol , 5 5 4 F. 3 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 572- 73, 578 (6th Cir. 2007)) (inter nal quotatio n marks omitted). The sentenc e may

be over turned only

if it is procedura lly

or substanti v el y u n re as o nable. Id . (citing United States v. Houston , 529 F.3d 743, 753 ( 6th Cir. 2008)). Upon a f inding of a probation violation, the district c ourt may either (1) continue probation with or without modifications or (2) r evoke pr obation and sente nce the def endant to any

sentenc e within the statutory

maxi mum for the orig inal offe nse. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a). Where , as her e,
a de fe nd ant vio lat es pr ob a tio n b y po sse ssi nga

c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e , r e vo c a tio n o f p ro batio n is require d. See 18 U. S
. C
. § 3565(b)( 1). I n other wor ds, when a ssessing the penalty for Cole’s 1 pr ob a tio n v iol a tio n w hic h r e qu ir e d h is p ro batio n b e re vo ke d, the dis tr ic t c ourt wa s n ot r e str ic te d to the ra ng e applica

ble at the time of the initial sentencing . I nstead, Cole’s sentenc e nee d only be consistent with the provisi ons of subchapter A, the gene ral provisions for sentencing set out at 186

U.S.C. § 3553. See United States v. Hudson , 207 F.3d 852, 853 (6th Cir. 2000). I n this sense, when sentenc ing f

ollowing the r evocation of probation, a district cour t is free t o impose anysentenc e within the statutory

maxi mum for the orig inal offe nse, g i v i n g co n s i deration to the section 3553 fac tors. The que stion o n ap p eal is whe ther Cole’s 120 month sentenc e, which w as below the statut or y ma ximumof

lif e , w a s in ke e pin g wi th t

ho se fa c tor s.
A.
When review ing a

sentenc e for

proce dural re asonable ness, this c ourt considers: whe ther the district court “( 1) proper ly calc ulated the applicable advisory Guidelines ra ng e; (2) c onsidered the other § 3553(a ) fa ctors as well as the parties’ arguments for a sentenc e outside the Guide lines rang e; and (3) adequa

tely articulated its reasoningfor imposing the par ticular sente nce c hosen[.] ” Bolds , 511 F.3d at 581.
Her e, the district cour

t asked whe ther Cole had a ny objections to his sentence . Cole did not raise any . As a result, we revie w the issue of proc edura l rea sonablene ss for plain er ror. See U

nited States v. Bailey , 488 F.3d 363, 367 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that wher e a district c ourt asks whe ther the re are any

ob je c tio ns a t se nte nc ing and no ne are ra ise d, the pla in e rr or sta nd ard a pp lie s) . F or

thi s
c ourt to f ind pla in e rr or , “ the re mus t be (1 ) ‘error ,’ (2 ) t hat is ‘p la in, ’ a

nd (3 ) t hat ‘ a ff e c t[s] substantial rig hts.’” Johnson v. Un i t ed States , 5 20 U. S. 4 61 , 4 67 (1 99 7) (a lte ra tio n in or ig ina l) (q u o t i n g United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732, (199 3 ))
. T he er ror “ must have af

fec ted the outcome of the district court proc eeding s.” Olano , 507 U.S. at 734. The defenda nt bear s the burden of per suasion that the er

ror wa s prejudicial. Id . I f the fi rs t thr e e c on dit ion s f or pla in e rr or

are me t,7

“an a ppellate c ourt may

then ex erc ise its discretion to notice a forf eited error, but only if (4) the e rror ‘ser iously aff ect[s] the fa irness, integ rity , or public reputation of judicial proce eding s.’” Johnson , 5 2 0 U. S
. at 4 6 7 (a l t er at i o ni no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Olano , 507 U.S. at 732) (inter nal quotation marks omitted). Cole argues that his sentenc e is pr ocedur ally unrea sonable beca use he say s the district court “sca rce ly discussed” the g uideline ra ng e at se ntencingand it is “unclea r” w hat the district cour

t
c on sid e re d th e g uid e lin e ra ng e to b e . Col e a lso sa

y s that the dis tr ic t c ourt “ imp lie d” that th e sa fe ty valve no long er a

pplied.
The recor d be li e s Co le ’ s a s s e rti o n s . A r e v ie w o f th e s e n te n c in g tr an s c r ip t s h o w s th a t t he district c ourt understood Cole’s g uideline rang e to be 46-57 months, a s stated in th e o ri gi n al pr e se nte nc e re po rt

and the su bs e qu e nt se nte nc ing me mor and um. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

no te d th a t th is g uideline ra

ng e wa s as a result of the safe ty valve and that without it, C ole would have been subje ct to a minimum of 120 months. Although at the time of the revoc ation hear ing, the distric t co urt appea red to indicate Cole’s g uideline ra ng e may chang e, the district cour t did not reca lculate the g uideline ra

ng e at the time of

re- sentenc ing. T his was not proce durally unrea sonable. Cole also argues that the district c ourt err ed in f ailing to tr eat the r e-se ntencingon the orig inal char g e separate from the pr obation violation. Not only does Cole fa il to provide any authority for the proposition that the orig inal crime a nd probati o n

v iolations be viewed se parately , section 3553(a ) counsels other

wise. As noted above, a rese ntencingfollowing a probation revocation requires, a s does any sentenc e, application of the section 3553(a ) fa ctors. The se fa ctors include the defe ndant’s8

history and violation conduct. Moreove r, beca use the district court wa s fre e to consider any sentenc e wi t h i nt h e s t at u t o ry

m ax i m u m o f t h e o ri gi n al ch ar ge, i tcl ea rl y wa s ab l e t o v i ew t h e o ri gi n al ch ar ge wi thi n th e c on te xt of

the pr ob a tio n v iol a tio n. Thus , th is a rgume nt l a c ks me ri t. Finally , even if the district c ourt proce durally err ed, Cole has not pr ovided argument alleg ing that his substantial rights we re a ffe cted by any err ors. B eca

use Cole has fa iled to meet his burden to sho w that his sub sta

nti a l rig hts we re a ff

e c te d, the dis tr ic t court did no t com mit pla in e rr or

wi th respe ct to the proc edura l rea sonablene ss of Cole’s sentenc e.
B.
Withre g ard

to s ub sta nti ve re a so na

ble ne ss, “ [t]he e sse nc e of a su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss
c la im i s whe the r the le ng th of the 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 set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United St ates v. Tristan-Madrigal , 601 F.3d 629, 632- 33 (6th Cir. 2 0 1 0 )
. “ ‘ A s e n t e n c e i s s u

b s t an t i v e l y u n r e a s o n a

b l e i f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt s e l e c t s t h e s e n t e n c e ar b i t r a r i l y, bases the sentenc e on impermissible fac tors, fails t o consider pertinent § 3553(a) fa ctors or g ives an
unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.’” Id
. at 6 3 3 (q u o t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . W all s , 546 F.3d 728, 736 (6th Cir. 2008)). Where the sentenc e imposed is outside of the g uideline ra ng e, this court must give “ due defe renc e” to the district court' s determination that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors justify the var iance
. Gall v. United States , 552 U. S. 3 8, 51 (2 00 7) . “ Th e fa c t th a t [th is c ourt ] might have rea sonably

conclude d that a differ ent sentenc e wa s appropr iate is insufficient to justify
reve rsal of the district court.” Bolds , 5 1 1 F. 3 d at 5 8 1 (q u o t i n g Ga ll , 552 U. S
. at 5 1 ) ( i n t erna l quotation marks omitted).9

Her e, the district cour

t provided a suf

ficiently compelling justification for its depar ture fr om the g uideline rang e. The district c ourt first noted that Cole rec eived “ quite a bre ak” initially with a sentenc e of pr obation and he did not take advanta g e of that break, noting his continued involvement wi th m e tha

mph e tamin e . T he dis tr ic t court a lso c omm e nte d o n it s f ind ingthat Co le ha d g ive n f a lse testimony at the re vocation hea ring , admitting only

to u s i n g m ethamphetamine but not manufa cturing it. The district court then considere d the s ection 3553(a) fa ctors and f ully articulated why a 120 month sentenc e was justified. A re view of the sentenc ing tr anscr ipt shows that the district court fa shioned what it be lieved to be a n appropr iate sente nce unde r the c ircumstance s. We do not find Cole’s sentenc e substantively unrea sonable.

III . For the re asons stated a

bove, Cole’s sente nce is AF FI RMED.