NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0210n.06 No. 08-6426 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. DONAL D R. MARTI

N, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: CO LE, G ILM AN , a nd WH ITE, Ci r c uitJudg e s. HELE NE N. WHITE, Circuit Jud ge. Do na ld R . M art in (“M art in”) wa s c ha rg e d w ith violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) (produc tion of child pornog raphy ) and 2252(a )(4) (B ) (possession of
c hil d p or no g ra ph y ). He ple d guil ty , a

nd ba se d o n a Gu ide lin e c a lc ulatio n r ang e of 32 4- 40 5 mo nth s,
rec eived a sentenc e of 360 months. On appe al, this Court identified an err or i n the calculation of the Guideline rang e, and re manded f or re sentenc ing. United States v. Martin ( Martin I ) , 291 F. App’ x 765, 772 (6th Cir. 2008). On re mand, the Guideline rang e wa s rec alculate d as 235-293 months. The district cour

t imposed a within-Guideline sente nce of 284 months that was never theless hig her than the sente nce Ma

rtin reque sted. Martin appe als, claiming both proce dural and substantive err or. We AF F IRM
. I.No. 08-6426

Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin

Fur ther e x position of t he facts l eading to Martin’s conviction ca n be found in this Court’s 1 opinion in Martin’s first appea l. Martin I , 291 F. App’ x at 766-67. Martin was se ntence d to 284 months on C ount 1 an d 120 months on Count 2, to run 2 concur rently

. The dist rict court also imposed concur rent li fetime sentences of supervised r elea se on eac h count, a $200 a ssessment, and re quired Mar tin to forf eit proper ty he used in the pr oduction of the illeg al photog raphs a

nd videos pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2253.

- 2 - After two juveniles informed the ir school counse lor and the Rockcas t l e C ounty Sheriff’ s Depa rtment that they

had bee n photogr aphed nude , deputies obtained and e x ecute d a sea rch w arr ant for Martin’s residenc e. The sear ch y ielded disks c ontaining photogr aphs and vi d eo s o f n ak ed min or s, pr op s u se d in

the ir pr od uc tio n, and

c hil d p or no g ra ph y ima g e s d ow nlo a de d f

ro m the int e rn e t. Three victims were e ventuall y i dentified, a ll of whom provided information to investi g ators
r e g ar d i n g M art i n ’ s i n v o l v e m e n ti nt h e p r o d u c t i o no f c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y. 1 II. At the re sentenc ing he aring, M ar t in’s attorney argued, without citation or support, that Martin I implied that the district court should impose a “sentence somewher e in the m iddle” of the
corr ecte d G u id e li n e r a

n g e , an d r e qu e s te d a s e n te n c e o f 2 6 0 mo n th s . M arti n a d dr e s s e d th e court him se lf , a po log ize d f

or his c ri me s, and

re po rt e d th a t he ha d b e g un wo rk ingtow ard s o bta ini nghis GED de g ree and wa s on a wa iting list for a se x -off ender class. The g overnme nt r equeste d a sente nce “at the top of [t he] guideline rang e.” The district cour t then addre ssed the sente ncing fac tors and Martin’s request for a mi d-ra ng e sentence, and imposed a sentence of 284 months, finding it to be 2 “suff icient but not gr ea t er than nec essar y to comply

with the purposes of T itle 18, Section 3553(a) (2).” The district cour t also “reco m m en d [ ed] that the def endant dur ing his ter

m ofNo. 08-6426

Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin

- 3 - imprisonment participate in the B urea u of Prisons sex offe nder treatment pr og ram . . . and that he participate in the educ ation prog ram wor king towa rd completion of his GED . . . .” The district court
wa ive d th e fi ne re qu ir e me nt b e c a us e it d id n ot belie ve that Ma rt in h a d th e a

bil ity to p ay . M a rt in timely appea led. III . Martin ar g ues that the district cour t committed both procedura l and s ubstantive err or. I n the dis tr ic t c ourt , M art in o bje c te d to the le ng th o f h is s e nte nc e , b ut s ta te d th a t he ha d n o o bje c tio ns to the se nte nc ing pr oc e dure s. We the re fo re re vie w his c la im of su bs tanti ve e rr or fo r reaso na ble ne ss and his claim of pr ocedur al er ror for pl ain error. United States v. Simmons , 5 87 F .3 d 3 48 , 3 53 (6 th Cir. 2009). A re asonable ness re view is the s ame as a re view for abuse of discretion. United States v. Carter , 510 F.3d 593, 600 ( 6th Cir. 2007). A. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss A re sentenc ing he aringrequire s just as full a consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fa ctors
as does an initial sentencing hear ing. United States v. Thomas , 498 F.3d 336, 340- 41 (6th Cir. 2007)

.

“ [A] se nte nc e may

be pr oc e dura lly

un re a so na

ble if the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t c on sid e r t

he a pp lic a ble Guidelines ra

ng e or neg lected to consider the fac tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a nd instead simply chose a sentenc e that the judg e dee med appr opriate.” United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 51 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 8) . Adis tr ic t c ourt ’s c on sid e ratio n o f t he 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) fa c tor s mu st “ e xpla in i t s re as o n i n g t o a s u ff

i ci en t d egr ee t o al l o w fo r m ea n i n gfu l ap p el l at e re v i ew ” an d “s et fo rt h en o u gh fac ts to satisfy

this court that it con s i d er ed the pa rties’ a rg uments and had a

rea soned basis forNo. 08-6426

Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin

- 4 - exercising its own leg al dec ision-making a uthority .” Id. at 510. Thi s Court has also held that when

a se nte nc e imp os e d b y

a c ourt is w ith in t

he Gu ide lin e s, the e xplanatio n f or the se nte nc e g e ne ra lly “nee d not be leng thy .” United States v. W ilms, 49 5 F. 3d 27 7, 28 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 7) . A s r e fl e c te d in the sentenc ing tr anscr ipt, the district court expressly considere d: “[t] he harm in this particular c ase,”

see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) & ( a)( 2)(A) ; that Martin’s cr imes were a “ve ry serio u s o ffe nse,” a

nd there fore an off

ense that neede d a “le ng thy sentenc e in orde r to deter not just t he def

endant . . . but to deter othe rs as we ll,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) , (a) (2)( A) & (a) (2) (B ); that “[s] tatistical inf or ma tio n tha t is a va ila

ble ind ic a te s th a t in div idu a ls that c omm it the se ty pe s o f c ri me s . . . te nd

to be re peat of

fende rs,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2)( C); that the cour t hoped that “whe n the def endant
c omp le te s th e pr og ra

m th a t he ’s no t e nr oll e d in y e t, b ut ho pes to enrol l in , th e n h e wi ll b e a ble to avoid future problems when he is relea sed . . . ,” a nd rec ommended that Mar tin “participate in the Bur eau of

Prisons sex offe nder tre atment prog ram . . . and that he pa rticipate in the e ducation prog ram wor

king towa rd completion of his GED,” see 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a )( 2) (D ); “ the ne e d to a vo id
unwar rante d sentenc ing dispa

rities,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) ; the Guidelines ra ng e, see 18 U. S.C. § 3553(a) (4); and that a fine would be futile be cause “this defe ndant does not have the ability to pay a fine ,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1) . Thus, the district court e x pressly addre ssed the majority

of the §3553(a) fac tors, and also stated that it had considere d all of t he § 3553(a) fac tors, there by providing sufficie nt analy sis to facilitate our r eview. Martin also ar g ues that the district cour t failed to consid e r his arguments for a lower se ntence
. Th e e xten t of Mart in’ s att or ne y ’s a rgume nt r e g a

rd ingwh a t se nte nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld i mpo seNo. 08-6426

Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin

- 5 - was that he interpre ted this Court’s prior opinion to im ply a “sentence somewher e in the middle” of the Guideline r ang e. He th en s t at ed : “A se ntence of 260 months would be dea d cente r of the g uidelines, and we would ask the Court to impos e that fa ctor [ sic ].” Martin then addre ssed the cour t
on his ow n b e ha lf

. T he e nti re ty

of his state me nt w a s: Yo ur Ho no r, the fi rst th ingIwa nt t o d o is a

po log ize to t

he c ourt s o n my be ha lf . Wh a t I did wa s w ro ngand I kn ow it, and do my pr iso n ti me . In th e la st c ou ple of y e ars , I ’v e ha d ti me to t

hink a bo ut w hat I

have do ne and

I ’m ve ry so rr y it happene d and I ’ve be en doing eve ry thing in the pr ison that Ican possibly do, I ’ve been p ro g ramming and doing what I need to do a

nd keep my self cle an and doing ever y thing you’ve a sked of me. I ’ve g ot into education for my GED a nd Isigne d up for the sex educa

tion class, and there is a waiting period there , so—but I am on the list, and, once a g ain, I

apolog ize. Martin’s attorney ’s reque st f or a sentenc e of 260 months wa s a reque st w ithou t s u p p orting argument. The district cour t adeq u at el y

addre ssed the re quest when it stated that it would “not impose a sentenc e at the mid-r ang e that has be en re quested by the def endant . . . .” Fur

th er, the tr ans c ri pt of the re se nte nc ing he ari ng sh ow s that the c ourt did a dd re ss the po int s ra ised by

Mart in himself. Specifica lly , the district court stated:

Mr. Martin has e x presse d reg ret a nd remorse for his ac tions, and the Court take s h im at his wo rd wh e n he say s that he ’s so rr y and he ’s a tte mpt ingto t

ur n h ims e lf around a nd to better himself throug h GED and throug h other prog rams that ar e off ere d thr ou g h th e B ur e a

u o f P ri so ns , an d I ’m c e rt a inl y ho pe fu l tha t he c omp le te s a ll tho se prog rams that ar e off

ere d. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso no te d th a t it

wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to c on sid e r M art in’ s c on du ct si nce his fi rs t
se nte nc ing he ari ng , bu t wo uld do so any wa y , and e xpla ine d that su c h c on du c t w a s th e re a so n it did

n o t“i mp o s e a s en t en ce ab o v e th e gui d el i n e ra n ge an d re al l y n o t at t h e v ery t o p o f t h e gu i d el i n e r an ge . . . .”No. 08-6426

Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin

- 6 - Be cause the district court suff iciently addre ssed the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors to allow for revie w and r esponded to Martin’s arguments for a lower se ntence , it did not commi t proce dural e rror , plain or otherw ise. B. Su bst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss This Court “aff

ord[s] sentenc es within the applica ble Guidelines ra

ng e the pr esumpt ion of
rea son ab l en ess.” Vo we ll , 516 F.3d at 509. When reviewinga sente nce f or substantive
rea sonablene ss, this C ourt “c onsider[s] more than simply the leng th of the sentenc e”; it also considers “the factors the district court evaluated in determining its sentenc e.” Id. at 510. “A se ntence may be substantively unrea sonable if the district court ‘sele ct[s] the sentenc e ar bitrarily , bas[es] t he sente nce
on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa il[s] t o c on sid e r p e rt ine nt § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s o r g iv[e s] an unr e a so na ble amount of we ight to any

pertinent fa ctor.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th , 474 F.3d 888, 894 (6th Cir. 2007)). How ever , this Court “do[ es] not require a mecha nica l re ci tation of the § 3553(a ) fac tors,” but r ather “an explanation of why the district court c hose the sente nce that it did.” Id. That this Court “might rea sonably have concluded that a diffe rent sente nce w as appr opriate is insuffic ient to justi fy reve rsal of the district court.” I d. at 5 1 1 . Fur

ther, that a

district court “did not g ive a defe ndant the exact sente nce he soug ht is not a cog nizable basis to appeal, particula rly wher e the district court followed the mandate of section 3553(a ) in all re l ev an t re s pects.” United States v. Jack son , 466 F.3d 537, 540 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Martin claims that his sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable because the di strict court g ave
unrea sonable we ight to the f actor stated at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (6), “the need to avoid unwar rante dNo. 08-6426

Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin

- 7 - sentenc ing dispa

rities among defe ndants with simil ar r ecor ds who have been f ound g uilty

of similar conduct,” and also that the district court misapplied that fa ctor by controlling for dispar ities among simil ar de fenda

nts who had come befor e that cour t, as opposed to applying a national standar d. The rec ord does not suppor t the se claims. As discussed a bove, the r ecor d demonstrates that the district court c onsidered a number of the § 3553(a) fac tors. Fur ther, a ssuming, ar g uendo, that the dis tr ic t c ourt

a ff or de d mo re we ig ht t o § 35 53 (a )( 6) tha n to o the r f

a c tor s, a s o pp os e d to sim ply sp e nd ingmor e tim e dis c us sin g tha t f a c tor , “ the Sixth Cir c uit ha s ne ve r h e ld t hat a dis tr ic t c ourt

mus t g ive equa l weig ht to the factors under § 3553(a) .” United States v. Thomas , 337 F. App’ x 505, 510 (6th Cir. 2009). I n fac t, it has ex pressly reje cted this position. Id. ; United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 37 3, 38 5 n.9 (6 th Cir . 200 5) (“ [W]e dec lin e to ind ic a te wh a t we ig ht the dis tr ic t cou rt s mu st g ive to the appr opriate G uidelines rang e, or a ny other § 3553(a ) fa ctor . . . .” ). We also find that the district c ourt did not err in a pply ing the sentenc ing- disparity fac tor. The district court noted that this fac tor “looks first to national di sparities” but “does not prohibit the Court fr om l o o k i n g a to t h e r

d i s p ar i t i e s , s u c h a s d i s p ar i t i e s w i t h i na p art i c u l ar

c a s e i n v o l v i n g m u lti ple de fe nd ants or

e ve n d isp ari tie s w ith in t

he dis tr ic t, the Ea ste rn Di str ic t of Ke ntu c ky or wi thi n the Sixth Circuit, in deter

mining what other indi viduals are rec eiving for these offe nses.” In United States v. Presley , 547 F.3d 625, 631 ( 6th Cir. 2008), this C ourt explained: We have noted that subsection 3553 (a )(6) is conce rned w ith national disparities among the many defe ndants with simi lar c riminal backg rounds convicte d of similar criminal conduc t. Be cause § 3553(a) (6) is not conce rned with disparities betwe en one individual’s sentence and anothe r individual’s sentenc e, despite the fa ct that the two are c o- de fe nd ants , the dis tr ic t court is n ot required to c on sid e r t hat ty pe of dis pa ri tyNo. 08-6426

Un ite d S tat es v . M ar tin

Mart in d oe s n ot a

rgue that hi s se nte nc e is d isp ara te a t a natio na l le ve l. 3 - 8 - under § 3553(a) (6). A district judge , howeve r, may exercise his or her discretion and deter mine a def

endant’ s sentence in light of a co-de fenda

nt’s sentenc e. (i nte rn a l c itatio n, qu otatio n marks , a nd br a c ke ts o mit te d) (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) ; see also United States v. Brewer, 332 F. App’ x 296, 307 (6th Cir. 2009) (dist rict court may consider loc al disparities);

c f. United States v. Conatser, 51 4 F .3 d 5 08 , 521 (6 th C ir . 2 00 8) (n oti ng§ 3 55 3( a )( 6) ’s c on c e rn wi th

natio na l di sp ari tie s and that “ [d]isp art ie s b e tw e e n th e se nte nc e s o f c oc on sp ir a tor s c an e xist f or va lid
rea sons”). Thus, the district c ourt’s consider ation of sentenc ing dispa rities other than on a

national basis was not improper

. 3 Martin’s ar g uments fail to overc ome the presumption of re asonable ness to which the district court’s w ithin-Guidelines sentenc e is entitled. We A F F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.