T h e H o n o rab le R o b ert H o lm es B ell , U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e W estern * D i s tr i ctof M i chi gan, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 1

NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CA T I ON

F i l e N am e: 10a0791n. 06 N o. 09- 3306 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , ) ) Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee, ) ON AP P EA L FROM THE U NI TED ) S TAT ES DI S TRI CT C OURT F OR v . ) T HE S OUT HE RN DI S T RI CT OF ) O H IO RI CK EY D
. J O N ES, ) ) D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t, )
B E F O R E : M A R T I N and S I L E R , C i rcui t Judges; B E L L , D i s t ri ct Judge. * P E R C U R I A M . Def

e n d a n t - A ppel l antR i ckeyD
. J ones appea l s the s ent ence i m pos ed on hi m fol l ow i ng r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. For the fol l ow i ng r eas ons , w e AF F I RM
. I. In 19 99 , Jones w as con vict ed of conspir acy t o di stri bu t e cocaine and m ari j u a n a in vi ol at i on of 21 U
. S. C
. §§ 846, 841( a) ( 1) and 841( b) ( 1) ( A )
. H i s or i gi nal s ent ence of 120
m o n th s in p ri s o n w a s v a c a te d o n a p p e a l. U n ited S ta tes v . C a m

p b e ll , 2 7 9 F
. 3 d 3 9 2 (6th C ir
.No. 09-3306

United States v. J

ones

2 2002)
. J ones w as s ent ence d on r emand t o 70 m o n ths in p ri s on, fol l ow ed by5 y ear s of
su p e rv ise d re lea se . Jo n e s d id n o t ap p e a l h is a m e n d e d se n ten c e . In 2 0 0 4 , Jo n e s b e g a n h is fi r s tt erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e. H i s s upervi s ed r el eas e w as r evoked i n M ar ch 2006, and he
w a s s e n t e n c e d t o twel v e mon th s i n c u s t o d yf o l l o wed b y3 4 mon th s o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e. J o n e s c o m m e n c e d h is s e c o n d te rm o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e in M a rc h 2 0 0 7
. In A u g u st 20 0 8 , Jo n es trav eled fro m D a y to n , O h io, w h ere h e w as se rvin g h is t erm
o f su p erv ised release , to P h o en ix, A ri zo n a, w ith o u t the pe rm issi o n o f h is pro b ati o n o ff icer. H e tra v e led w ith tw o o th e r c o n v icte d f e lo n s, o n e o f

w h o m w a s a c o -d e f

e n d a n t in h is
u n d e rly in g f

e d e ra l d ru g c o n v ictio n . U p o n a rriv in g a t th e P h o e n ix a irp o rt, Jo n e s a n d h is compani ons w er e s t opped and que s t i oned by pol i ce. T he pol i ce s ei zed appr oxi m at el y$9, 000 in c a sh a n d so m e m a riju a n a re sid u e f ro m Jo n e s. N o c rim in a l ch a rg e s re s u lted f ro m th is i nves t i gat i on, and J ones di d notr eportthi s pol i ce c ont actt o hi s pr obat i on offi cer . J ones w as
arr est ed o n D ecem ber 2 , 20 08 , i n S i err a B l anca, Tex as, on a w arr ant for s up ervi sed rel ease
v io la tio n s . O n M ar c h 1 8 , 2 0 0 9 , J o n e s a d mi t t e d th a th e was g u i l tyo f a l l f i v e v i o l a t i o n s al l eged i n the s upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i on r eport : ( 1) l eavi ng the j udi ci al di s tr i ctw i thoutperm i s s i on; (2 ) a ss o c iatin g w ith k n o w n f e lo n s; (3 ) f

a ili n g to su b m it m o n th lysu p e rv isio n re p o rts f o r Ju ly
a n d A u g u st 2 0 0 8 ; ( 4 ) b e in g in p o ss e ss io n o f m a riju a n a re sid u e ; an d (5 ) f a ili n g to n o tifyh is p robat i on offi cer of hi s ques t i oni ng by Phoeni x, A r i zona, pol i ce. A l l of the vi ol ati o n s areNo. 09-3306

United States v. J

ones

3 G r a d e C v i o l a t i o n s u n d e rC h a p t e r7 o f th e U n i t e d S t a t e s S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s a n d c a rry a g u id e li n e ra n g e o f

6 to 1 2 m o n th s in p riso n . T h e d istric t co u rt re c o g n ize d th e a p p lica b le g u id e lin e ra n g e , b u t se n ten c e d Jo n e s to th e m a x im u m ter m o f in c a rc e ra tio n , 2 4 m o n th s, w ith
n o su p e rv ise d re lea se to f o llo w , as re c o m m e n d e d in th e su p e rv ise d re lea se v io latio n re p o rt. O n a p p e a l, J o n e s a rg u e s th a t th e s e n te n c e w a s s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le
. I I . W e re vi ew s ent ence s i m pos ed fol l ow i ng r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e “unde rthe
s a m e a b u s e o f d is c re tio n s ta n d a rd th a t w e a p p ly to s e n te n c e s im p o s e d f o llo w in g c o n v ic tio n .” U ni t ed Stat es v. Kontr ol , 554 F. 3d 1089, 1092 ( 6th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B olds , 511 F. 3d 568, 572- 73, 578 ( 6th C i r . 2007) )
. U nderthi s s t andar d of r evi ew , “w e may
overturn a sent ence onl yi f i ti s pr ocedur al l yors ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. ” I d. ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ous t on , 529 F. 3d 743, 753 ( 6th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )). “The es s ence of a
s ubs t ant i ve-rea so nabl enes s cl ai m i s w hetherthe l ength of the s ent ence i s ‘ gr eat erthan
nece s s ary ’ t o achi eve the s ent enci ng goal s s etfor th i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a)
. ” U ni t ed Stat es
v. Tris tan-M

adr igal , 601 F. 3d 629, 632- 33 ( 6th C i r . 2010)
. A d ist ri ctcourthas br oad d isc re tio n to d e ter m in e w h a t se n ten c e w ill b e st s e rv e th e o b jec tiv e s o f

§ 3 5 5 3 (a ), p a rticu lar ly i n the “di s cret ion -fil led cont extof s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” Kontr ol , 554 F. 3d at1093. “A
s e n t e n c e i s s u b s t a n t i v e l y u n r e a s o n a b l e i f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t‘ s e l e c t s a s e n t e n c e a rb i tr a r i l y, bas es the s ent ence on i m perm i s s i bl e fac t or s , fai l s t o cons i derr el evants ent enci ng fac t or s , orNo. 09-3306

United States v. J

ones

4 gi ves an unre as onabl e am ountof w ei ghtt o anypert i nentfac t or . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Lapsi ns , 570 F. 3d 758, 772 ( 6th C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. C onat

s er , 5 1 4 F .3 d 5 0 8 , 5 2 0 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ))
. Jones co ntends that the 24 -m on th sentence w as subst anti velyun reas on able because i t w a s b a s e d o n s p e c u l a t i o n a n d b e c a u s e i t was twi c e th e l e n g th o f th e h i g h e n d o f t he
a p p lic a b le g u id e lin e ra n g e . Jo n e s’s c o n ten tio n th a t th e se n ten c e w a s b a se d u p o n a m ista k e n f a c tu a l f in d in g is
w i thoutm er i t . T he di s tr i ctcourts peci fi cal l yw i thdr ew i t s fi ndi ng that J ones w as att empt i ng to fl ee t o M exico, and rei t erat ed i t s determ i nati on that Jones s ho uld recei ve a 2 4 -m o n th
s e n te n c e e v e n w ith o u t th is f in d in g . J ones ’ s cont ent i on that the di s tr i ct court i m perm i s s i bl yr el i ed on an uns ubs t ant i at ed
a lleg a tio n th a t h e h a d b e e n in v o lv e d in a d ru g tra f f ick in g tra n sa c tio n is a lso w ith o u t m e rit. “[I ] ti s w el l es t abl i s hed t hata s ent enci ng courti s notpr ohi bi t ed fr om cons i der i ng unchar ged
cr i m i nal conduct
. ” U

n ited S ta tes v . M

a y le , 33 4 F. 3d 55 2, 56 5-66 ( 6th C i r. 20 03 ). “C on gress has pr ovi ded that‘ [n] o l i m i t at i on s hal l be pl ace d on the i nform at i on conce rni ng the backgr ound, char act er , and conduc t of a per s on convi ct ed of an of fens e w hi ch a c our tof the U n ited S tate s m a y re c e iv e a n d c o n sid e r fo r th e p u rp o se o f im p o sin g a n a p p ro p ria te
s ent ence . ’ ” I

d. a t 5 6 6 (q u o tin g 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 6 1 ). H e re , Jo n e s a d m itt e d to th e re lev a n t f a c ts
r egar di ng hi s unauthor i zed tr avel t o A r i zona, hi s as s oci at i on w i th fel ons , hi s ques t i oni ng byNo. 09-3306

United States v. J

ones

5 p o lice o f f ice rs, a n d th e se izu re o f c a sh a n d m a riju a n a re sid u e f ro m h im . It w a s re a so n a b le
an d ap p rop ri ate f

o r th e d istri ct co u rt to view this ev iden ce as sig n ifi ca n t i n li g h t of Jo n es’s p ri o r c o n v ic tio n f

o r c o n s p ir in g to d is tr ib u te c o c a in e a n d m a ri ju a n a . E ven i f the s ent ence w as notbas ed upon i m perm i s s i bl e fac t or s , J ones cont ends that the s heerl ength of the s ent ence m akes i ts ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e. I n r evi ew i ng a s ent ence fors ubs t ant i ve r eas onabl enes s , w e cons i der the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , i ncl udi ng the
e x te n t o f a n y v a ri a n c e f ro m th e g u id e lin e ra n g e . U ni t ed Stat es v. P ol i honki , 543 F. 3d 318, 32 2 ( 6th C i r. 20 08 ). A l tho ug h w e do no tapp l ya presum pti on of sub st anti ve reasonab l eness to a se n ten c e th a t f

a lls o u tsid e o f

th e g u id e lin e ra n g e , w e m u st s til l g iv e “ d u e d e f e re n c e ” to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d e c is io n th a t th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs ju s tif

yth e v a ri a n c e . I

d. at322 ( quot i ng G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 552 U
. S. 38, 51 ( 2007) )
. T he gr eat erthe depa r tur e fr om the gui del i ne
s e n te n c e , “ th e m o re c o m p e llin g th e ju s tif ic a tio n b a s e d o n f

a c to rs in § 3 5 5 3 (a ) m u s t b e .” Un i t e d S ta t e s v . Br o wn , 501 F. 3d 722, 726 ( 6th C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 4 5 8 F .3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ))
. T h e d istr ic t co u rt w a s w e ll aw a re th a t th e 2 4 -m o n th se n ten c e w a s “ su b sta n tially above” the gui del i ne r ange but i ndi cat ed that i t w oul d have i m pos ed an even hi ghers ent ence i f i t w er e not cons tr ai ned bythe maxi m um s etfor th i n 18 U
. S. C
. § 3583( e) ( 3)
. T he di s tr i ct
courtnot ed thati tappea r ed fr om J ones ’ s conductthathe w as r eturni ng t o b eh av i orand
asso ciati o n s co n sist en t w ith h is un d erly in g c ri m in al co n v ict ion
. In li g h t of Jo n es’sNo. 09-3306

United States v. J

ones

6 under l y i ng cr i m i nal convi ct i on, the s er i ous natur e of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i ons , and h is re v o c a tio n h isto ry , the d istric t c o u rt f o u n d th a t h e w a s u n a b le o r u n w ill in g to c o n f o rm to the r equi r ement s i m pos ed upon hi m dur i ng s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he di s tr i ctcourtw as convi nced that“nothi ng s hor tof a s i gni fi cantaddi t i onal t erm of i m pr i s onm ent ” w oul d s erve the § 3553( a) s ent enci ng goal s of re fl ect i ng the ser i ous nes s of t he vi ol at i ons and pr ovi di ng ju s t p u n is h m e n t th a t p ro m o te s re s p e c t f o r t h e la w . A l though the 24-mont h s ent ence i m pos ed i n thi s cas e i s s ubs t ant i al l yhi gherthan the 6 t o 12 m ont h g u i d e l i n e r a n g e , we h a v e u p h e l d s i mi l a rv a r i a n c e s i n o th e rc a s e s whe r e the d e f e n d a n t e n g a g e d in re p e a te d s u p e rv is e d re le a s e v io la tio n s . See , e. g. , Br o wn , 501 F. 3d at 726 ( fi ndi ng a s ent ence t en m onths above the t op of the r ecomm ended s ent enci ng range
re a so n a b le w h e re th e d e f e n d a n t w a s b e f

o re th e c o u rt o n h is th ird re v o c a tio n h e a rin g ); U ni t ed Stat es v. K i r by , 418 F. 3d 621, 628 ( 6th C i r . 2005) ( fi ndi ng that , des pi t e a gui del i ne r ange of 4 t o 10 m onths , the s t atut orym axi m um t erm of 20 m onths “w as m o re than j us t i fi ed by [ d e f e n d a n t’ s ] r e p e a te d tr a n s g re s s io n s .” ). T he di s tr i ctcou rt pr ovi ded a s uffi ci ent l ycompel l i ng j us t i fi cat i on fori m pos i ng the
s t atut orym axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , and w e conc lud e thatthe s ent ence w as not
s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le
. III .No. 09-3306

United States v. J

ones

7 Forthes e r eas ons , w e AF F I RM