T he H onorabl e Samuel H
. M ay s , Jr
. , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct Ju dge f or t he W es t er n D i s t r i ct of T enn es s ee, * si t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. File Na me: 07a0103n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 8, 2007NOT RECOMMENDE D FO R PUBL I CATI ON No. 05-4111 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A 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. JERO ME CRO SS, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE S O U T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Before: K

EITH , and CL AY, Circ uit Jud ges; and MAYS, Distric t Judge. * SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR., Distric t Judge. J erome Cross appea ls from rese ntencingupon
rema nd in light of United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). He argues that the district cour t violated t he C onstitut ion, fede ral statutes, a nd Booke r by imposing an unr easona ble sentenc e and by fa i l i n g t o b as e a l l U. S
. S en t en ci n g Gu i d el i n es (t h e “ Gu i d el i n es ”) ad j u s t m en t s an d

fa ct u al fi n d i n gs on fac ts proven beyond a re asonable doubt or, in the alternative, by clea r and convincing evidenc e, and found by

the jury . For

the re asons set for

th below, we A F F IRM t he judg ment of the district
c ourt
.-2- I. BACK GR OUND F ro m 19 99 thr ou g h 2 00 2, a dr ug -t ra ff ic kin g c on sp ir a c y

inv olv inge ig ht c o- con spir a tor s, including Cross, wa s headqua rtere d in the Columbus, Ohio hom es of Der rick Billups. Cross served as B illups’s cocaine supplier, bring ing the drug s from Cross’s home in Michig an to Columbus. Cross often would “c ook” the co ca i ne into cra ck for resa le and/or de livery

to lower-le vel drug tr a ff ic ke rs. I n late 20 00 , B ill up s mo ve d th e c on sp ir a c y ’s he a dq ua rt e rs to a dif fe re nt h ome in Columbus, l ocate d at 3232 Fr aming ton. L ike Billups’s first home, t he new location was a

“stash” house used to store dr

ug s. Billups kept a g un in his home for f ellow drugtraff

icker s to use if they neede d to “protec t the drug s” in ca se of a robber y . On April 3, 2002, off

icer s of the F eder al B urea

u of Alcohol, Tobac co, and F irea rms executed
a se arc h w arr ant a

t B ill up s’ s h ome , whe re they dis c ov e re d c oc a ine , c ra c k, and ite ms u se d to manufa cture cra ck. Cross, the onl y person at the home at the time of the raid, wa s found cr awling out of an upstairs be droom. I n that bedroom, the office rs found Cross’s c ellular tele phone, $5,000 in c ash, and a

loaded .45- caliber

pistol. W hen the of

fice rs sea rche d Cross’s person, they discovere d $2,300 in c ash, including two pre- rec orded $100 bills that a conf idential informant had use d for a
cra ck purc hase two da

y s ear lier. The of

fice rs then ar

rested Cross. On May 2, 2002, a fede ral g rand jury returne d a fourtee n-count indictment. Cross was named in f our c ounts and

c ha rg e d w ithc on sp ir a c y

to d ist ri bute and po sse ss w iththe int e nt t o d istri bu te in
e xce ss o f f

if ty g ra ms o f c oc a ine ba se , o r c ra ck, and in e xce ss o f f ive kil og ra

ms o f c oc a ine , in violation of 2 1 U
. S.C. § 8 4 1 (a) (1), (b)( 1)(A) (ii), (b)( 1)(A) (iii), and 21 U.S.C. § 846 (“Count 1”); possession with intent to di stribute in excess of five kilog rams of c ocaine , in violation of 21 U. S.C. § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , (b )( 1)(A) (ii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2 ( “ Count 1 2” ); po sse ssi on wi th i nte nt t o d ist

ri bu te in excess of fifty

g rams of coca ine base, or cr ack, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), (b)( 1)(A) (iii),No. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

-3- and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (“Count 13”) ; and possession of a f irea rm i n fu rt h er ance of a dr ug -traf ficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (“Count 14”) . The indi ct m en t al s o s o ug ht forfe iture of
cer tain proper

ty pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853. On M ay 16, 2002, Cross was a rra igne d and pled not g uilty to all of the cha

rg es ag ainst him. Be fore trial, the g overnme nt and Cross executed seve ral s t ipulations, addressing appra isal of Cross’s jewe lry , admissibili ty of mobile phone , banking , and tax records, fing erpr inting expert’s qualifications, and analy sis of controlled substance s found during t he ar rest. Tria l beg an on Oc tober 28, 2002. At trial, Preston Dempsey , a co- conspirator , testified that over the cour se of f

our or f ive
mon ths in 2 00 1, he ha d p ur c ha se d f ive to t e n k ilo g ra

ms o f “ dope” fr om C ro ss, wh o b e c a me his supplier. Reg inald Randolph, anoth er co -c onspirator, testified that he had known Cross since
c hil dh oo d a

nd tha t he kn e w that Cr os s ha d ne ve r be e n e mpl oy e d. Ra nd olp h a lso te sti fi e d th a t Cr os s was the source of coc aine br oug ht from Detr oit to C olumbus from 1999 until C ross’s ar rest and that Cr os s w a s B ill up s’ s and De mps e y ’s su pp lie r. Othe r ev ide nc e pr e se nte d at tri a l sh ow e d th a t Cr os s, who was unemploy ed at the time of his a rre st, kept a larg e shar e of the drugproce eds, drove lux ury
c ars , a nd wo re e xpe ns ive je we lr

y , whi c h at th e tim e of

his arr e st w a s w or

th a bo ut $ 25 ,0 00 . Cr os s did no t pr e se nt any e vid e nc e . Th e jur y re tur ne d a ve rd ic t on

Oc tob e r 3 0, 20 02 , f

ind ingCr os s guil ty on all four c ounts ag ainst him. Th e Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt

(“ PSR” ), d a

t e d F e b r u a ry 12 , 2 00 3, no te d th a t th e e vid e nc e in t he c a se showed that Cross had rec ruited individuals into the conspira cy , supplied and pre pare d the nar cotics sold by his co-conspirators, and re ceive d a g reater shar e of the proce eds fr om the conspirac y than others. The probation off icer rec ommended a ba se off ense le vel of 38, pursuant to § 2D1.1 of theNo. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

-4- Guidelines, base d on Cross’s acc ountability for twe nty -four

kilogr ams of the c rac k coca ine that the
c on sp iracy distr ibute d. Ad de d to the of fe ns e le ve l w a s a

fo ur -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt, purs ua nt t o Guidelines § 3B 1.1(a) , for Cross’s r ole as a mana g er or supervisor of

the conspira cy . Cross’s one criminal history

point established a cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of I
.. During his sentenc ing hear ing, on A pril 15, 2003, Cross contended that the trial testimony
a bo ut h is r ole in t

he c on sp ir a c y and the a mou nt of dr ug s dis tr ibute d wa s unr e lia ble and inc on sis te nt, and thus should not have been used to increa se his sentenc e under the Guidelines. In response , the district court noted that, based on the evidenc e prese nted, it found no basis to disag ree with the jury ’s fi nd ing . T he dis tr ic t c ourt fu rt he r n ote d th a t th e c a lc ulatio n of th e off e ns e le ve l in

the PSR,
rec ommending the applicable Guidelines ra ng e of 420 months t o life imprisonment, was
conser vative. The court stated that it was convince d, by at least a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, that Cross was a le ader

or a manag er of the conspiracy . The c ourt adopted the rec ommendations of the PSR, incl udingthe fo ur -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt, and imp os e d a

se nte nc e of

42 0 mo nth s’ im pri so nm ent , t he m in im um amo un t al lo wab le u nde r t he Gu ide lin e s. T h e d istrict court also imposed a five -y ear

period of supe rvised re lease , a $2,000 fine, and a mandatory specia l assessment of $400. Cross timely

appea led his conviction, arguing that the jury ’s finding s wer e not suppor ted by sufficie nt e vidence and that the district c ourt err ed in its application of the Guide lines. This Court aff irmed his conviction on J anuar y 12, 2005. This Court opined that the ev i dence prese nted was more than suf

ficient to justify

eac h conviction bey ond a reasonable doubt and that the district court did not clear ly

err when it applied the f

our-leve l leader ship-based e nhance ment beca use the g overnme nt had prove n the applica bility of § 3B 1.1(a) of the Guide lines by a pre pondera

nce of theNo. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

-5- evidenc e. On F ebrua

ry 14, 2005, this Court gra nted Cross’s petition for re hear ing c oncer ning the sentenc e only

and re manded the c ase to the district c ourt for resentenc ing in light of Booke r . Cross’s petition for a wr it of cer

tiorari wa s denied by

the Supreme Court on May 16, 2005. The district cour

t held a re sentenc ing he aringon Aug ust 25, 2005. Ag ain, C ross argued that the testimony

adduce d at trial about his leade rship ro l e in t he conspira cy was unre liable. Afte r consulting the adviso ry Gu i d el ines rang e and disc ussing the f actor s enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a ), the dis tr ic t c ourt

no te d th a t Cr os s’ s or ig ina l se nte nc e of 42 0 months in pr iso n wa s to o h ars h beca use the off

en s e did not involve violence. T he district cour t also considere d the likelihood of deter renc e, as w ell as Cross’s ag e, fa mily , and lac k of an e x tensive criminal rec ord. Not chang ing any of the finding s made at the first sentenc ing he aring in calculating the Guidelines, the district court re duced Cross’ s sentence to 240 months in prison. The district cour t ag ain imposed a five -y ear period of supe rvised re lease , a $2,000 fine , and a $400 s pecia l assessment. Cross’s new se ntence is f if te e ny e ar s b e lo w th e a

p p li c a b le G u id e li n e s r an g e an d f if te e ny e ar s le s s th anh is o r ig ina l sentenc e. Cross filed a

timely notice of a

ppeal on August 30, 2005.
II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of Review After Booke r , this court will not overturn a sentenc e imposed by a district cour

t unless that
s entence is unrea sonable. United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 553 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Reasonable ness re view has “ both substantive and proc edura l components.” United States v. Jone s , 445 F.3d 8 6 5 , 8 6 9 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. A s e n te n c e ma y b e p r o c e d

u r a ll y u n r e a s o n a

b le if “ th e districtNo. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

-6- judge fails to ‘consider ’ the a pplicable Guide lines rang e or ne g lects to ‘conside r’ the othe r fa ctors lis te d i n 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ), and ins te a d s imp ly

se le c ts what th e jud g e de e ms a n a pp ro pr iate sentenc e without such re quired c onsideration.” United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir. 20 05 ); see a l

s o Un i t ed Stat es v. M

cBride , 434 F.3d 470, 476 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (noting that “[a] district court’s fa ilure to expli citly consider the section 3553(a ) factors without other evidence in the
re c or d d e mon str a tin g that th e y we re tho ro ug hly

c on sid e re d .
. . wo uld

re su lt i n a

pr oced ural ly
unre a so na

ble ” se nte nc e ). A d istri c t c ourt ’s a pp lic a tio n o f p ro vis ion s of the Gu ide lin e s to t he fa c ts is treated defere ntially under the clea rly -er roneous standard. United States v. W ebb , 335 F.3d 534, 536-37 (6th Cir. 2003). B. Discussion 1. Se nte nc eba se d o n jud ge-f ound fa c ts Booke r did not e liminate judicial fac t-finding
. United States v. Stone , 432 F.3d 651, 654- 55 (6th Cir. 2005). Instead, dist rict cour ts have the option, af

ter c alculatingthe sentenc e ra ng e pursua

nt to the Guidelines, to sentenc e a de fenda n t o u t s i de the r esulting r ang e. Booke r , 543 U.S. at 258; United States v. W

illiams , 4 36 F .3 d 7 06 , 7 08 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; Stone , 432 F.3d at 655. A district court must c alculate the Guidelines ra ng e as it would have prior to Booke r , but then must take into acc ount all of the fa ctors enume rate d i n 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Stone , 432 F.3d at 655. Prior to Booke r , calc ulation of the Guidelines ra ng e wa s based on se ntencingfac ts found by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Un ite d S

tates v . W att s , 5 19 U. S. 1 48 , 1 57 (1 99 7) ; United States v. Esc obar , 106 F. App’ x 44 6, 45 1 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 4) ; Un ite d Sta te

s v . R e id , 357 F.3d 574, 577 (6th Cir. 2004). Stone pe rm its this evaluation to be per formed in the same manne r today —that is, under a pr eponder ance -of- the-No. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

-7- evidenc e standa

rd—as longas the re levant § 3553(a ) fa ctors ar e take n into account. Stone , 432 F.3d at 655. I n d eed, the Booke r court noted that a sentenc ing e nhance ment can be based on a court finding as long as the Guide lines are treated as a dvisory
. Booke r , 543 U.S. at 258-59. During Cross’s rese ntencing , the di strict court ex plicitly treated the Guidelines a s advisory
and no te d th a t no thi ngbe fo re the c ourt wo uld wa

rr a nt c ha ng ing any of

the fi nd ing s ma de a t th e fi rs t sentenc ing he aringin c alculating the applicable Guidelines rang e. (J.A. 432-36.) After considering the Guidelines ra

ng e base d on fac ts proven by at least a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, the district court, e x erc ising it s discretion, evaluated the § 3553(a) fac tors, including the circ umstances of the offe nse, the ne ed for

deter renc e and just punishment, as we ll as Cross’s ag e, fa mily support, need for voc ational training , and lac k of an e x tensive cr iminal recor d. (J.A. 433-35.) Ba sed on the PSR ’s
rec ommendation and it s own findi ng s, the di strict court refused to chang e any of the finding s that
wer e made at the first sente ncing hear ing a bout t h e ap p licable Guide lines rang e and sc ores, a nd reduc ed Cross’s initial sentence by 180 months to a total of 240 months. Cross’s Six th Amendment rig hts were not violated when the district court de termined Cross’s sente nce ba sed on judg e-f ound f a c t s b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtt r e a t e d t h e r e s u l t i n g a

p p l i c a b l e G u i d e l i n e s r an g e a s a dv i s o r y. 2. Guidelines adju stm ents on facts proven by a preponderance of the evide nce Cross argues that, bec ause the senten cing statutes and r ules do not specify

the standar d of proof f or Guidelines e nhance ments, the court should construe the sentenc ing statutes to r e q u ire proof of conte sted fac ts bey ond a re asonable doubt. I n his brief, Cro s s cites to other c ircuits, to J ustice T homas’s dissent in Booke r su g g e sti ngthat th e F if

th A me ndme nt r e qu ir e s p ro of be y on d a re a so na ble doubt of any

fac t that increa ses the sentence be y ond what could have bee n imposed on the basis ofNo. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

-8- fac ts found by

the jury or admitted by the defendant, and to g ener al requirements of procedur al due proce ss. I n Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 484-91 (2000) , the Supreme Court disca rded a ny distinction b etwee n elements a nd sentenc ing f

actor s, concludingthat any fac t (other than a

prior conviction or fa cts ag ree d to in a pl ea ag ree ment) that incre ases the max imum sentence must be proven to a jury

bey ond rea sonable doubt. This court in Un ite d S tates v . H arris , 39 7 F .3 d 40 4 ( 6th Cir. 2005), n o t ed t hat under Booke r , the Six th Amendment pre vents judg es fr om making f actua l deter minations that increase a def endant’ s sentence beyond the applicable statutory rang e base d on fac ts found by the j ury or admit ted by the def endant. Id. at 409. Such fac t de terminations leading to sentence enhanc ements bey ond the maxi mum a uthorized by the fac ts established by a jury verdic t or a guilty

plea, other

than base d on a prior c onviction, must be submi t t ed t o t h e j ury and prove n be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. Id. ; s ee also Booker , 543 U.S. at 244. This court in Ha rri s , howeve r,
e mph a size d th a t it s hold ing wa s nar ro w, a pp lic a ble on ly to fi nd ing s of e le me nts of se pa ra te c ri me s,
n o t to traditional sentencingfac tors. Ha rri s , 3 9 7 F
. 3 d a t 4 1 3

- 1 4
. T h e r e f o r e , “ t h e r e i s n o Sixth Amendment violation when a sentenc ing judge exercises g enuine discr etion within a clea rly define d statutory rang e.” Id. a t4 1 1 ; s ee a l so Booker , 543 U.S. at 233. I ndeed, Booke r did not overturn W att s , which stands for

the proposition that se ntencing fac ts ne ed be prove n only by a pre pondera

nce of the e vidence
. Booke r , 543 U.S. at 240-41. I n th e p re s ent ca se, the jury found Cross g uilty

on all counts with which he w as cha rg ed, resulting in an offe nse leve l under the Guidelines of 38. The district court added four le vels for Cross’s leade rship role in the c onspiracy , as shown by at least a preponde ranc e of the evidenc eNo. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

I n United States v. J

ohnson , 467 F.3d 559 ( 6th Cir. 2006), howeve r, this court 1 declined to f

ind that a sentenc e within the Guidelines ra ng e wa s rea sonable. On O ctober 13, 2006, this court g rante d en banc revie w of Un ite d S tates v . V on ne r, 452 F.3d 560 ( 6th Cir. 2006), to e xplor e thi s c ourt ’s a

pp ro a c h to po st- Booke r

rea sonablene ss review
. The Supreme Court has ag ree d to decide whether a cr iminal sentence that is within t he 2 Guidelines is to be treated as re asonable , and thus valid, and whe ther a sentenc e below the Guidelines ra

ng e is rea sonable. In Un ite d S tate s v . R ita , 177 F. App’ x 357 (4th Cir. 2006), c e rt. granted , 75 U.S.L .W. 3246 (Nov. 3, 2006) (No. 06- 5754), the Court will decide whether a -9- prese nted at trial. B eca

use this e nhance ment based on a traditional sentenc ing fac tor need not be proven be y ond a re asonable doubt, Cross’s Fifth Amendme nt rig hts were not violated. 3. Reasonableness of the sentence Pos t- Booke r , we will af

firm a de fenda

nt’s sentenc e if it is rea sonable. Richardson , 437 F.3d at 553; United States v. Christopher , 415 F.3d 590, 594 (6th Cir. 2005)

. Although the Guidelines
ar e n o l o n g e r

m an d a t o r

y, sentenc es imposed within the applicable Guidelines rang e ar e pre sumed to be re asonable
. W

illiams , 436 F.3d at 708. The sentencing court must consider the sentenc ing 1 fac tors enumer ated in § 3553(a ). United States v. Kirby , 418 F.3d 621, 626 (6th Cir. 2005). I t need not, how ever , expli citly state that it ha s considere d eac h § 3553(a) fac tor. W illiams , 436 F.3d at 708;
s ee also United States v . Chandler , 4 1 9 F. 3 d 4 8 4 , 4 8 8 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g United S t a t es v. W ashington , 147 F.3d 490, 491- 92 (6th Cir. 1998)) (notingthat there is n o re q u i reme nt that the district court eng ag e in a “ritualistic incantation” of the § 3553(a) fa c tor s it c on sid e rs ); United States v. Johnson , 403 F.3d 813, 816 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Although a

sentenc e within the applica ble Guidelines ra

ng e is presumptively

rea sonable, a sentenc e above or below the rang e, as in this case , is not presumptively unrea sonable. United States v. Forem an , 436 F.3d 638, at 644 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 6). I n revie wing a sente nce be low the Guidelines 2No. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

sentenc e within the ra

ng e is rea sonable, whe ther such a sentenc e may

be pre sumed to be rea sonable, a

nd whether

such a se ntence may

be imposed without full analy sis by the judg e of fac tors that might justify

a lesser sentenc e. In United States v. Claiborne , 439 F.3d 479 ( 8th Cir. 2006), cert. granted , 75 U.S.L .W. 3246 (Nov. 3, 2006) (No. 06- 5618), the Court will examine whether a sente nce be low the Guidelines ra ng e is rea sonable, a

nd whether

a sente nce that varies substantially

from the Guide lines can only be imposed in extraordinary situations.
-10- ra ng e fo r r e a so na

ble ne ss, thi s c ourt

loo ks to whe the r t

he dis trict cou rt c on sid e re d th e re le va nt § 3553(a) fac tors. Id. I n g ener al, af ter Booke r , th e dis tr ic t c ourt is t o im po se a sente nc e that is sufficie nt, but not g reater than nece ssary , to comply with the purposes of sec tion 3553(a). Id. at 644, n.1. An explicit m ention of the § 3553( a) fa ctors, althoug h not nece ssary , fac ilitates this court’s revie w. Johnson , 403 F.3d at 816. I n United States v. J

ackson , 408 F.3d 301, 304 ( 6th Cir. 2005), this court held that a be lowGuidelines sentenc e was rea sonable because the di strict court had adequately considere d the fa ctors set forth in § 3553(a ). “B oth district courts im p o s i n g s en t en ces in the f irst instance a s well as
a pp e llate c ourt s r e vie wi ngse nte nc e s o n a pp e a l are to be g uid e d by the fa c tor s set fo rt h in 18 U .S. C. 3 5 5 3 (a ).” Jack

son , 4 0 8 F
. 3 d a t 3 0 4
. T h e a p p li c a b le G u id e li n e s r an g e is o n ly o n e f a c to r among
sever al desc ribed in § 3553(a ). Id. Wit hout articulation on the re cord that the § 3553(a ) fa ctors had been c onsidered, this court is unable to review a sente nce f

or re asonable ness. Johnson , 408 F.3d at 305. The district cour

t imposed a sentence that is 15 y ear s below the a pplicable Guide lines rang e. The re cord de monstrates that the dis t ri ct cour t properly calc ulated the a dvisory

Guidelines ra

ng e, deeme d the ra

ng e to be only one of the fac tors to c onsider, and ade quately and explicitly

articulatedNo. 05-4111

Un ite d S tates v . Cr os s

-11- all of the other

§ 3553(a) fac tors. Specifica lly , the district court noted the seriousness of the offe nse, Cross’s ag e, the ne ed for d et er re n ce and to protec t the public, the lack of an extensive criminal
rec ord, and Cross’s suppor tive family . (J.A. 434-35.) I n addition, the PSR , which the district court expressly adopted, contained a detailed rec itation of these fac ts a nd an ample evide ntiary

basis for finding them. The district cour t’s application of the Guidelines ra ng e and the other § 3553(a) fa ctors to t he fa c ts o f C ro ss’ s c a se wa s a de qu a te and e xplic it, and the se nte nc e imp os e d h e re is r e a so na ble and suff icient but not gr eate r than ne cessa ry to comply

with the purposes of § 3553( a).
III . CO NC LU SION For all of the re asons set for th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he d is tr ict c ourt
.