The Honor able Ar thur J . Tarnow , United States Dist rict Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. NOT RE COM MEN DED FO R F ULL -TEX T P UBL ICA TION

Fi le N am e: 07a 0326 n. 06 Fi le d: May

9, 200 7 N o. 05- 4529 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE SIX TH CIRC UI T
UN IT ED ST AT ES , Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. TURHAN MITCHELL, D ef en da nt- Appe llant.

___ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ________ ____ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITE D STATES DISTRIC T COURT FOR THE N ORTHERN DISTRICT OF OH IO
OPINION

Be fo re : G IL MA

N , S U T T O N , Ci rc uit Judg es ; an d T A RN O W , D istri ct Jud ge * PE R CU RIA M. De fendant-Appellant T urhan Mit chell wa s convicted after pleading g uiltyto poss ession o f a f irear m and am m uniti on in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. § 922( g ) ( 1 )
. H e w a s s e n t e n c e dt o 9 0 m o n t h s ( 7 y e a r s , 6 m o n t h s ) i n c a r c e r a t i o n. Mi tc he ll ap pe al s his se nte nc e as unr ea sona ble , be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt i m

pose d a
se nte nc e ne ar

th e hi gh end of

the S en te nc ing G uid el ine s, a nd f ai le d to a ddr es s a defense re quest for a low- end Guidelines sentence.- 2 -

Be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ing r ec or d w as a de quate , a nd b ec au se the
cour tw a s no to bl i ga t e d t o e xp l a i n i t s r e f us a l t o i m

po se a n a l t e rna t i ve , r e qu e ste d
se nt en ce, we AFFI RM t he di st ric t co ur t’s s en te nc in g d eci si on . I. Whe n C le ve land p oli ce of fi ce rs e xecu te d an arr es t w ar rant f or Mi tc he ll, on January 12, 200 5, he w as f

ound in poss es sio n of

aloa de d .38 0 c al ibe r se m i- au tom at ic pis tol
. Bec au se of a num be r of pr ior fe lon y co nvi ct ion s, Mi tc he ll w as ch ar ge d w ith
on e co un t o f vi ol at in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 92 2( g) (1 ). Re pr es en te d by

c ouns el , Mi tc he ll ple ad ed gui lty
. H is p le a w as ap pr ove d by the district court. A sentencing hear ing, at which defense counsel w as also present, w as he ld o n M ar ch27, 200 5. T he se nte nc ing he ar ing la ste d 45 m inu te s. T he dis tr ic t co urt m ad e a poi nt o f revi ewin g th e pr e- se nte nc e re port i n de ta il to p er m it the de fe ndant t o br ing to the
co u rt 's at t en t i o n an yth i n g h e co n s i d er ed i m p o rt an t
. Th e co u rt co n fi rmedd ef en d an t ’s age (22 at the tim e of sentencing), his 9th -grade education, and that he was a father
o f o n e, wi t h an o t h erch i l do n t h e w a y. Th e c o u rt al s o re v i ew ed t h e d ef en d an t ’s fam i l y hi st or

y . D e f e nd a nt w a s r a i se d by hi s gr a ndm othe r s. H i s f ather w as inc ar ce rate d m ost of de fe ndant’ s lif e, an d died in pri son, an d his m oth er w as adr ug- 3 -

ab us er wh o h adon ly a lim it edrol e in hi s l ife
. T he c ourt dis cu sse d Mi tc he ll’ s ow n subs tanc e ab use , his m ini m al e m plo ym en t h i s t o ry, a n da d i ag n o s i s o f d ep re s s i o n . It ag re ed wi t h d ef en s e c o u n s el t h at Mi t ch el l ’s ab ili ty to re ad a nd wr ite A ra

bic w as not ew orthy , a nd i ndi ca te d po te nti al e m plo ym en t op po rtu ni ti es . D ef en da nt’ s c ri m inal hi story w as c al cu la te d to be aCate gor y V I, a nd the of fe nse le ve l po int s, 21. A s a res ult , the gui de lin e range w as c al cu la te d to be 77 t o 96 m onth s (6 y ears, 5 m onth s to 8 y ears)
. Ther e w ere no ob j ections to th at calculated
ran ge . T he dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed Mi tc he ll to 90 m onths (7 y ears , 6 m onths) , ne ar the hig h e nd o f the r an ge , de spi te his r eq ue st for alowe nd s en te nc e. Whil e acknowl ed g i n g the fac tors defendant argued supp orted a lesser sentence , the c ourt found hi s record to d ate “ appalling ,” a “ serious violent crim inal histo ry ” developed by the ag e of 22. Re vie w ing that r ec or d, the c ourt ob se rv ed that i t “ loo k[ ed ] a t ho w
m any tim es y ou were in front of a court and people just sort of gave y ou a sentence and then let y ou go , and y ou went right back to doi ng what y ou were doing .” T he c ourt w en t onto re vie w the se nte nc ing f ac tor s, inc lud ing the na tur e of the of fe nse , the de fe ndant’ s chara ct er ist ic s, his thr ea t t o th e co m m uni ty , a nd the ne ed

f or- 4 -

de te rr en ce . I n addi tio n to the 90- m onth se nte nc e, the c ourt or de re d am en ta l he al th evaluation in prison, and a substance abus e o u tpatient program during su pervised relea se. II. Mi tc he ll ch al le nge s th e se nte nc e im pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt onthe gr ound s tha t i t i s un re as ona

ble
. H e arg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by not e xpr es sly addressing why

it rej ected his request for a low end sentence. Sentences ar e re viewed on appeal for “ reasonableness.” United S t a tes v. Jo hnso n , 467 F
. 3d 5 59, 563 ( 6thCi r. 200 6)
. W he n ase nte nc e is r ev ie w ed f or
re as ona ble ne ss, the c ourt l ooks a t bo th s ubst an tiv e an d proc ed ur al r ea sona

ble ne ss. U nit ed Sta tes v . D ex ta , 470 F
. 3d 6 12, 614 (6 th C ir
. 200 6)
. T ha t i nqui ry “ re qui r[ es ]
re vie w of

both th e pr oc ed

ur es use d and f

ac tor s c onsi de re d inde te rm ini ng the sentence and the punis hm ent itself.” Id

. A se nte nc ing c ourt m

ust doc um en t i ts r ea soni ng o n th e re co rd , to pe rm it
reas on ab le ap pe ll at e rev ie w. Id

. A se nte nc e w ill be fo und pr oc ed ur al ly r ea sona ble if t he reco rdin di cat es th atth e co ur t co ns id ere d t h e r e l e v an t fa ct or s. Id
. a t 61 4- 15 (i nte rn al c itatio ns om it ted)
. T he f ac tor s ge ne ra lly

c onsi de re d inar ea sona

ble ne ss
rev ie w in cl ud e, int er

ali a , the na ture a nd c ir cu m stanc es of the of fe nse ; the- 5 -

defendant’ s histo ry

and charac teris t i cs ; appropriate considerations o f the sentence itself, such as deter

rence and protect i n g t h e p ublic; and v ocational and education al
s u p p o r t fo r th e d efen da nt , as wel l as m ed ic al or o th er t reat m en t. United States v. R ic hard son , 43 7 F .3d 55 0, 5 54 n.1 (6t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) (qu ot in g 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553 (a )( 1) -( 2) ). T he c ourt ne ed not e xpl ic itl y

a ddr es s e ac h f

ac tor , nor is a “ ro te li st in g” or “ rit ua li st ic in can ta ti on ” req ui red
. D ex ta , 470 F
. 3d a t 61 5. Ina ddi tio n, if

a se nte nc ing co urt pr ovi de s an ad equa te r ec or d th at e xpl ai ns w hy a particular sentence w as i m p o s ed , it nee d not “ exhaustiv ely explain” why

an al te rn at iv e se nt en ce was no t ch os en . U nit ed Sta tes v . G ale , 468 F. 3d 9 29, 940 ( 6th Ci r. 20 06 ). G ale acknowledged that rem and m ay be appropriate if the district court
re co rd sug ge sts that a

m er ito ri ous ar gum en t for a le sse r se nte nc e w as not c onsi de re d. Id
. H ow ev er , dis tr ic t c ourts are not obl iga te d to a ddr es s exp ressly e ve ry a rg um en t
ra ise d by the defen dant. “ A se nte nc ing j udge ha s no m or e duty than w e ap pe llate j udges do to discus s every argum ent m ade by a litigant .” Id
. ( quot ing United States
v. Cu nni ngha m , 429 F. 3d 67 3, 678 (7th Cir. 2005)). Co ntr ar y to Mitc he ll ’s c la im

that the c ourt di sr eg ar de d hi s arg um en ts, the
re co rd ind ic at es tha t it di d a ddr es s th em . O n th e iss ue of his f am ily r es pons ibi lit ie s, the c ourt e nc our ag ed

him to ge t his G E D w hil e in pr iso n, an d co nti nue to d ev el op h is- 6 -

langua ge sk il ls , to be able to supp ort hi s c hil dr en . I t or de re d am en ta l he al th
ev al ua tio n, in re spon se to de fe ndant’ s di ag nosi s of de pr es sio n. A nd i t e xpr es sly
co nfirm ed

w iththe de fe ndant the inf orm at ionr el at ing to his c hil dhoo d and upbr ing ing
. The district court r eviewe d the relevant factors before sentencing. I t provided its r ea soni ng f

or the se nte nc e cho se n, e spe ci al ly the de fe ndant’ s se ri ous re co rd , the pot en tia l f

or r eh ab ili ta tion inpr iso n, a nd the ne ed f or de te rr en ce . F oll ow ing G ale , be ca use the r ec or d su

ppor tin g th e se nte nc e is ad eq uate , the c ourt di d no t ne ed to

“ ex haust ive ly

e xpl ai n” w hy

a nothe r se nte nc e w as not se le ct ed
. III. W e A FF IRM the dis tr ic t c ourt.