* The Honor abl e Fr ed erick P. S tamp, J r., United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of West Virginia sitting by

desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0475n.06 F iled: August 8, 2008 No. 06-1698 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UN ITED STA TES, ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE P lai nt iff-A ppe lle e , ) UN ITED STA TES D ISTRIC T ) COURT F OR THE WE STE RN ) DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ) TOD D M IC HA EL M ER CH AN T, ) O P I N I O N ) De fend ant s- App e lla nt s. ) ____________________________________)
BEFORE: M ARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Jud ges, and S TAMP , Senior DistrictJudge.* FREDERI CK P. S TAMP, J R., Senior District J udg e. T o d d M er chant was cha rg ed in a F ourt h Su pe rs e din gInd ic tme nt o n v ari ous cou nt s rel atin gto h is i nv olv e me nt i n a c on sp ir a c y

to distribute heroin and c ocaine in L ansin g, M i ch i gan . Def endant Me rcha

nt pleaded guilty

to three
co un t s o f d i s tri b u t i o no f h er o i nan d t h r e e c o un t s o f d i s tri b u t i o no f c o ca i n e a n d , ats en t en ci n g,
rec eived a

sentenc e at the lowe st end of the a dvisory g uideline ra

ng e. Mer chant now challeng es the
rea sonablene ss of his sentence and the a pplication of the c are er of fende r enha

nceme nt.A defe ndant is a ca ree r off ender if (1) the defe ndant was at least eig hteen year s old at the 1 time the defe ndant committed the instant offe nse of conviction; (2) the instant offense of convic tion is a felony

that is e ither a crime of violence or a controlled substance offe nse; and (3) the def endant has at lea st two prior felony convictions of either

a cr i m e o f violence or a c ontrolled substance offe nse. In this case, pr ong s 1 and 2 ar e undisputed. I . Caree r Off

ender Enhanc ement To dd Me rc ha nt a rgue s th at he wa s im

pr op e rl y c la ssi fi e d a s a

c are e r o ff

e nd e r p ur su ant t o U. S.S. G. § 4 B 1. 1. Me rc ha nt a sse rt s th at e a c h o f t he thr e e pr e dic ate of

fe ns e s li ste d in

his 1 Presentenc e Investig ation Report (“PSR”) are not c rimes of violence w ithin the meaningof § 4B 1.2. That sec tion, in relevant pa rt, define s a cr ime of vi olence as any offe nse under

fede ral or state law, punis ha ble by imp ri so nme nt f

or a te rm e xce e din gon e y e ar, that: (1) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of phy sical for ce ag ainst the person of

another , or (2) is burg lary

of a dw elling, a

rson, or ex tortion, involves use of explosi ves, or oth e rw ise inv olv e s c on du c t th at pr e se nts a se ri ou s p ote nti a l r isk of phy sic a l in

jur y to another
. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a ). The criminal history portion of the PSR identifies Mercha nt’s following prior convictions as cr imes of violence : (1) Esca pe in violation of Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.193 (1978), (2) Resisting and Obstruc ting a Police Offic er in violation of Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.479 (1991) , (3 ) A ssa ult ing , Re sis tin gand

Ob stru c tin ga

Pol ic e Of

fi c e r i n v iol atio n o f M ic h. Com p. L aws § 75 0. 81 D( 1) (2 00 4)
. F or the re a so ns se t for th be low , the c are e r of

fe nd e r e nh anc e me nt w a s p ro pe rl y applied to Merc hant bec ause the two resist ing a nd obstructingconvictions constitute “cr imes of violence.”

a. Resisting and obstruc ting a police off

icerIn 2000, Merc hant pleade d g uilty to resisting and obstructinga police of fice r in violation of Mic hig an la

w. At th e time M e rc ha

nt w a s c onvic te d, Mic h. Com p. L aws § 7 50 .4 79 pr ov ide d in pe rt ine nt p art : Any pe rs on wh o s ha ll k

no wi ng ly and wi llf ull y .. . o bs tr uc t, r e sis t, o pp os e , a ssa

ult , beat or wound ... any

other pe rson or pe rsons author i z ed by law to maintain and prese rve the peac e, in their lawful acts, attempts and ef forts to maintain, prese rve a nd keep the peac e shall be guilty of a misdemea

nor...punishable by

imprisonment...[ of] not more than 2 year s.... Mic h. Com

p. L aws § 75 0. 47 9 ( 19 91 ). Th is c ri me qu a lif ie s a s a c ri me of vio le nc e be c a

us e it cate g orica lly

“involves conduc t that prese nts a serious potential risk of phy sical injury to another.” United States v. Bak

er , 03-1676, Nov. 10, 2005. In d ee d , t he Michig an Supreme Court has interpre ted the statute a s proscribingonly conduct involvingactua l or threatened violenc e. Pe op le v. Vasquez, 63 1 N.W .2 d 7 11 , 7 21 (M ic h. 20 01 ). Th e re fo re , th is c onvic tio n w a s a pp ro pr iate ly counted f or the purpose of a c are er of fende r dete rmination. b. Assaulting, r esisting a nd obstructing a police of fice r In 2 00 5, Me rc ha

nt w a s c onvic te d o f a ssa

ult ing , re sis tin gand

ob str uc tin ga po lic e of fi c e r i n vio latio n o f M ic h. Com

p. L aws § 7 50 .8 1D (1 ). Th e statut e pr ov ide s th at “ an in div idu a l w ho a ssa ult s, batters, wounds, r esists, obstructs, opposes, or endang ers a person who the individual knows or has
rea son to know is perfor

ming his or her duties is g uilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 year s.” Mi ch
. C o m p . L aw s § 750.81D(1). “ ‘Obstruc t’ includes the use or threatened use of phy sical interf ere nce or forc e or a

kn o wi ngfailure to comply with a lawf

ul command.” Mic h. Comp. L aws § 750.81D( 7)(a ). As with Merc hant’s 2000 conviction for r esisting a nd obstruction, this crime also qualifies
a s a c ri me of vio le nc e be c a

us e it c ate g or ic a lly

“ inv olv e s c on du c t th at pr e se nts a se ri ou s p ote nti a l r isk of phy sical injury

to another.” S

e e U n ite d S ta te s v . Bake r , 03-1676, Nov. 10, 2005. Althoug h aviolation of Mich. Comp. L aws § 750.81D(1) can occur non-violently throug h a per son’s “knowing failure to comply

with a lawf

ul command,” “ neither a ctual vi o lence nor an imminent threat of violence must oc cur befor e an offe nse can qualify” as a c rime of violenc e. Id. (c i t i n g United States v. Pay ne , 163 F.3d 371, 375 ( 6th Cir. 1998)). Additionally , th e p lace ment of this statute in the “Assaults” c hapter

of the Michig an Penal Code e vidence s a legislative int ent t hat M ich. Comp. L aws § 750
. 8 1 D( 1 ) proscr ibe violent conduct a s opposed to passive re sistance. The ref ore, Me rcha

nt’s 2005 conviction for a ssaulting, r esisting and obstructing a poli ce office r i s a cr ime of violence and
wa s a lso pr op e rl y

c ounte d f

or the purp os e of

a pp lyingthe c are e r o ff

e nd e r e nh anc e me nt. I I . Substantive Reasonablene ss of Sentence To dd Me rc ha nt n e xt co nte nd s th at hi s se nte nc e is dis pr op or tio nate to the se ri ou sn e ss of his offe nse b eca

use of the a

pplication of the c are er of fende r enha

nceme nt. This argument is without merit. Be ca u s e M erchant’s sente nce f alls within the advisory

g uideline ra

ng e, this Court reviews his sentence under a

n abuse of

discretion standa

rd and a pplies a re buttable pre sumption of
rea sonablene ss. See Gall v

. United States , 128 S. Ct. 586 , 5 97 (2 00 7) ; United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006). A s entenc e may be substantively

unrea sonable whe re the sentenc ing jud g e ha s se le c te d th e se nte nc e arbitr ari ly , h a s r e lie d u po n im pe rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, ha s f a ile d to consider the fac tors require d under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), or ha s assig ned unre asonable weig ht to any rele vant fa ctor. United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2005). The transcript of the s entenc ing he aringreve als that the district court c onsidered the fac tors under § 3553(a)
. The court revie wed Merc hant’s extensive c riminal history , discussed the role of deter renc e and unif

ormity of sentenc es, and r ecognized th a t Me rcha nt’s role a s a drugdistributor was
re lativ e ly min or . T he dis tr ic t ju dg e c on c lud e d th at ba se d o n th os e fa c tor s, a se nte nc e at th e low e st end of the g uidelines (151 months incarc eration) was wa rra nted. Nothingin the district judge ’sarticulated re asons for imposing151 months incarce ration gives ca use for conce rn that he se lected the sentenc e ar

bitrarily , relied on imper

missibl e fa ctors, or a ssigne d unreas o n ab l e weight to any rel evant fa c tor . A c c or din g ly , M e rc ha nt h a s f a ile d to re but th e pr e sumpt ion of re a so na ble ne ss attache d to his withi n-guidelines sentenc e. I I I . Conclusion For the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM the judg me nt a n d the sentenc e imposed by

the district court.