NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 07a0055n.06 F iled: Janu ary 23, 2007 No. 06-1492 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA , Plaintiff-Appellee , v. TAMAR D ESH AWN WILLIAMS , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: SUH RH EIN RI CH , SU TTON and M c KEA G UE , C ir c uitJudg e s. P ER CURIAM . This is an appea l from a judg ment of sentenc e re vok i ng defe ndant’s supervised r elea se and se ntenci ng him to an additional prison term of 36 months. Defe ndant contends the se ntence , almost three times longe r t han the upper end of t he advisory g uidelines rang e, is pr oc e dura lly and su

bs tanti ve ly un re a so na

ble . F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt. I On November 17, 1999, defe ndant-a ppellant Tamar Desha

wn Wil liams, ha

ving pl eaded g uilty to possession of coca ine base with intent to dis tribute, was se ntence d in the Middle District of Florida to a prison term of 63 months, followed by four y ear s of supervise d rele ase. F ollowing his relea se from prison, jurisdiction over def endant dur ing supe rvised re lease was tra nsfer red to the Easter n District of Michig an on January 24, 2005. I n April 2005, defe ndant’s super vising probationNo. 06-1492

United States v. W

illiams

- 2 - office r cha

rg ed him with violating the c onditio n s o f s u p er vised rele ase a nd petitioned the district court for issuance of

an ar rest wa rra nt. The petiti on aver

red that defe ndant had been ar rested by the D e t r o i tP o l i c e D e p art m e n t o n F e b r u ar y 8 , 2 0 0 5 an d c h ar g e d w i t h k i dn a p i n g an d a s s a u l tan d b a t t e r y, and that def

endant ha d not timely

n o t i fi ed h is probation office r of the a rre st. The state c ourt complaint on the kidnaping and assault char g es had been dismiss ed without pr ejudice on Fe bruar y 22 , 2 00 5, wh e n th e c omp la ini ngwi tne ss fa ile d to a pp e ar. De fe nd ant d id n ot r e po rt the arr e st t o h is probation of

fi ce r u ntil March 21, 2005, and the n falsely explained that the char g es had be en dismiss ed due to “ mistaken identity .” Specifica lly , defe ndant was char g ed with five violations of the conditions of his supervised rele ase: (1) commissi on of anothe r cr ime, i.e. , kidnaping and assa ult and battery ; (2) submission of an untruthful wr itten report to the pr obation office r; (3) failure to tr uthfully answe r an inquiry

by the probation off

icer ; (4) failure to maintain employ ment; and (5) failure to notify the probation officer within 72 hours of being arr ested. Def endant was arr ested and a contested hear ing on the char g ed violations was conducte d on May 24, 2005. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt re c e ive d te sti mony fr om tw o pr ob a tio n of fi c e rs and tw o po li ce of

fi c e rs . As to violations two through five , defe ndant essentially conce ded that technical violations had bee n made out, but he argued for leniency

. As to violation one, two police off icer s testified reg ardingthe fruits of their inve stigation at the scene of the a lleg ed k i d n ap i n g and assa ult and battery . They testified to their per sonal observations as well as to statements receive d by them from witnesses at the s cene . Their testim ony tended to establish that defe ndant Will iams had take n a woman, Christal Sugg , by the nec k and forced her int o a vehicle and transporte d her ag ainst her w ill to hi s residenc e.No. 06-1492

United States v. W

illiams

- 3 - I n fac t, the office rs found Ms. Sug g at def endant’ s residenc e in a tra umatized state: “frig htened. .

. . hig hly dis tr a

ug ht, ph y sic a lly sh a kin g .” Sg t. Jaso n Sloan, He ari ng Tr . p. 4 6, JA 86 . T he of fi c e rs ’ testimony was ba sed par

tly on hear say , admitted over de fenda nt’s objection, beca

use, as the district court obser

ved, the rules of

evidenc e ar e “some what re laxed’ in supervised re lease revoc ation proce eding s. Defend an t ’s co u n s el cr o s s -e x am i n edt h e p o l i ce o ff i ce r w i t n es ses, but defe ndant offe red no evidenc e in def

ense of the violation one cha

rg e. At the c on c lus ion

of the he ari ng , th e dis tr ic t c ourt de c lin e d, fo r t

he sake o f e ff

ic ie nc y , to

make a ru lin g on the vio la tio n o ne c ha

rg e . Th e c ourt fo un d that the oth e r f our v iol a tio ns we re c le a rl y established by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e and, in themse lves, war rante d revoc ation of supervised r elea se. As it proce eded to se ntence defe ndant, the cour t noted, howeve r, that it had hear d the testimony

relating to violation one and de emed it “important a s it relates to his answe r mistaken identity

and so for

th.” Sentenci n g Tr. p. 68, JA 108. Defenda nt declined to make

a llo c uti on , c iti ng F if

th Am e ndme nt c on c e rn s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt the n re je c te d d e fe nd ant’ s r e qu e st to t re a t hi s v iol a tio ns a s G ra de C vi olatio ns un de r U .S. S.G . § 7B 1. 4, and pr oc e e de d to s e nte nc e him

a s th ou g h h e ha d c omm itt e d a Gr a de A v iol a tio n. Th e c ourt fo un d th e a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e did

n o t ad eq u at el y ac co u n t fo r d ef en d an t ’s “h o rr i b l e re co rd

. ” C o n cl u d i n g t h at v i o l at i o n s t wo t h ro u gh five we re “ indicative of his total disreg ard f or the rule s of this Court, the rules of socie ty ,” the c ourt imposed a sentenc e of 36 months in prison. Id. at 70, J A 110. I n defe ndant’s initi al ap p ea l t o this court, the par ties jointl y

moved to vacate the sente nce b ec au s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt h aderro n eo u s l y t re at edt h e s u

p er v i s edre l ea s e v i o l a t i o n s as i n cl u d i n g a Gra d e A v io lati o n . O n D e c e mb e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , a p an e l o f th is c o u rt g r a n te d th e mo ti on, vaca ted theNo. 06-1492

United States v. W

illiams

- 4 - orig inal sentence an d re m an ded for rese ntencing

. United States v. W illiams , No. 05-1862. The

rese ntencingoccur

red on Febr

uary 15, 2006. The district cour t treate d defe ndant’s violations as Gra de C violations and deter mined t h at an ad v i sory

guidelines rang e of 7 to 13 months applied. Stil l, t he c ourt imp os e d th e same 36 -m on th s e nte nc e . T he c ourt e xpla ine d it s r e a so nin g a s f oll ow s: Ithink this matter g oes wa y outside the hea

rtland of Americ a based upon his recor d and Ithi nk he ’s a da ng e r t o s oc ie ty . I

thi nk tha t bas ed up on

his pr ior re c or d, his actions throug hout the y ear s have been ve ry assaultive, ver

y ag g ressive, ve ry

– he’s a m e n a c e t o s o c i e t y an d

t o p e o p l e s p e c i f

i c a l l y. Resentenc ing T r. p. 7, J A 118. I n evaluating the se ntencingfac tors under 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a), the court c ited the importance of punis h m en t, deterr ence , reha bilitation, and protection of the public. Id . at 7-8, JA 118-19. On a pp e a l, d e fe nd ant c on te nd s th e dis tr ic t court e rr on e ou sly re lie d on ev ide nc e of the a ssa ult and kidnapingdespite havingstopped short of finding such conduc t proven by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. De fenda

nt co n t en d s the sentenc e is unrea sonable be cause the district court e ither failed to c onsider all the releva nt sentenc ing f

actor s or improperly

exagg erated the sig nificanc e of one fa ctor. II T h e re v o cation of supervised re lease and sente nce of imprisonment will ordinarily be

a ff ir me d if the dis tr ic t court c on sid e re d the re le va nt statut or y fa c tor s a nd the se nte nc e is n ot “ pla inl y

unrea sonable.” United States v. Kirby , 41 8 F. 3 d 621, 625-26 (6th Cir. 2005). In the wake of the Supreme Court’s de cision in United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), ther e is some question whether we should evaluate the sentenc e only in terms of whether it is “unreasona ble,” r ather

thanNo. 06-1492

United States v. W

illiams

- 5 - “plainly unrea sonable.” The que stion has not been re solved in the Six th Circuit. See Kirby , 418 F.3d a t 62 5, n. 3; United States v. Morrow , 2006 WL 3488769 (6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2006) (unpublished); Un ite d S tat es v . R e id , 2006 WL 3314556 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2006) (unpublished). Y et, we ne ed not resolve the question in this case either. For even if defe ndant’s burden is deeme d to be the lig hter of the two, i.e. , to show that the sentenc e is simply unrea sonable, as opposed to pla inl yunrea sonable, it i s c le ar t

hat th e burd e n h a s n ot b e e n me t. Under this li g hter standa

rd, the district cour

t’s sentenc e must be vacated if it is found to be either pr ocedur ally

or substantively

unrea sonable. United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 2006). A sente nce ma y be held pr oc e du ra lly unrea sonable if the di strict court (1) did not appre ciate the non-mandatory nature of the guidelines, (2) did not correc tly calc ulate the se ntencing rang e under

the g uidelines, or ( 3) did not consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fa ctors. United States

v . D av is , 458 F.3d 491, 495 (6th Cir. 2006). Her e, def endant nominally

relies on the third g round, y e tt h e r e c o r d

m a k e s i tc l e ar

t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rta d e qu a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d

t h e § 3 5 5 3 f

a c t o rs , expressly ref err ing to de fenda

nt’s criminal history , as well as the need f or punishment, deter

renc e, reha bilitation and protection of socie ty . The g rava men of defe ndant’s challeng e g oes to substantive

rea sonablene ss. Def en d an tco n t en d s t h e s en t en ce i s s u b s t an t i v el y

unrea sonable be cause the district court err ed by relying on e vidence of a c ri m e h e was not found to have c ommitt ed and by placingtoo much weig ht on this consideration. But f or t h e d i s t ri ct cour

t’s improper c onsideration of the kidnaping evidenc e, def

endant insists there is no plausible justification f or the dramatic upwar d varia nce f rom the advisory

g uidelines rang e.No. 06-1492

United States v. W

illiams

- 6 - We ag ree that there is nothing i nhere nt in defe ndant’s fa ilure to maintain employ ment and f a i l u r e t o t i m e l y an d

t r u t h f u l l y r e p o rtt h e f

a c t t h a t h e w a s ar

r e s t e d t h a tw o u l d

r e a s o n a b l y j u s t i f y a pr iso n s e nte nc e of 36 mon ths

. Ye t, t ho ug h th e dis tr ic t ju dg e de c lin e d to fi nd de fe nd ant r e sp on sib le for having c ommitt ed the char g ed felony offe nses, he was not r equire d to c lose his ey es to evidenc e of the re asons for w hich defe ndant failed to timely and truthfully repor t his arr est. Def

endant ha d indisputably

been a rre sted for se rious felony offe nses, k i dnaping and assa ult and battery . The

e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d

i nt h e s u

p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e r e v o c a t i o nh e ar i n g , t h o u g h i n c l u s i v e o f h e a r s a y, strong ly sug g ested that de fenda

nt had committed the offe nses. The evidence was unre futed. The evidenc e helpe d explain why defe ndant had been less than forthc oming with his probation off icer and wa s appropr iately

deeme d probative of

defe ndant’s culpa

bility

. Henc e, as the district c ourt observe d in the initial sente ncing , althoug h defen d an t wa s n ot sentenc ed for having committed kidnaping a nd assault and battery , the evidenc e of his involvement in such offe nses was none theless “c erta inly important” in considering the § 3553(a) fac tors. I t was also rea sonable a

nd appropr iate for the di strict court to view thi s evidenc e as sig nificant in lig ht of defe ndant’s prior c onvictions for cr imes of vi olence , including thr ee se parate batter ies in 1998. The

e vid e nc e of

de fe nd ant’ s c on tinui nginv olv e me nt, sh or tly a ft e r h is r e le a se fr om f

e de ra l pr iso n, in

a s s a u l t i v e b e h a

v i o r s i m i l a r t o s e ve ra l batte ri e s h e c omm itt e d s ho rt ly be fo re the fe de ra l im

pr iso nme nt, could har dly

be ig nored. The district court wa s obviously , and not unrea sonably , alar med that a 63- month term of impris o n m en t ap p eared not to have resulted in any chang e in def

endant’ s violent

m an n er o f d ea l i n g wi t h o t h er

p er s o n s . Du e t o t h i s i n t ra ct ab i l i t y , t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt , o nre s en t en ci n g, expressly viewed de fenda

nt as a “ menac e to society ,” fr om whom the publi c nee ded continuingNo. 06-1492

United States v. W

illiams

- 7 - protec tion. These conside rations we re re as onably viewed a s taking defe ndant “wa y outside the hear tla n d ” o f ca ses re prese nted by the advisory

g uidelines rang e applica ble to the violations defe ndant was f

ormally found to have committed. Def endant objec ts , contending the a lleg ed kidnapingand assa ult and battery

wer e neve r proven—e ither in the st ate court or i n the district court. I t appea rs the district cour

t refr ained f

rom finding defe ndant re sponsible for violation one only b ecause the e vidence prese nted included hear say . I n order

to obviate the need to he ar arguments and make ruling s on the extent to which the hear say was re liable and a dmissibl e, the district cour t side-stepped violation number one

. There was no ne ed to do so. I t is well-settled that hea rsay may be conside red in a

supervised rele ase revoc ation hear ing if it is shown to be re liable. Kirby , 4 18 F .3 d at 62 6- 27 ; United States v. Do na ld , 106 F. App’ x 429, 432, 2 0 0 4 W L 1 8 26648, at *3 (6th Cir.) (unpublished) . Her e, the he ars ay e vid e nc e pr e se nte d to the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d g re a te r ind ic ia of re lia bil ity tha n th a t f ound to b e p ro p er ly

considere d in Kirby

. W e ar e s a t i s f i e d t h e e v i d e n c e w a s a

p p r o p r i a t e l y c o n s i d e r e d

in deter mining def

endant’ s sentence
. Fur ther, it i s al s o we l l -s et t l edt h at re l ev an tu n co n v i ct ed co n d u ct , ev en ac qu i t t edco n d

u ct, m ay be conside red in determining a defe ndant’s sente nce. See U nited States v. Milton , 27 F.3d 203, 208- 09 (6th Cir. 1994) (“ This circuit cle arly allows district courts to consi d er acquitted conduc t at

se nte nc ing .” ); Un ite d S

tat es v . H

arris , 149 F.3d 1185, 1998 WL344052, at *2 (6 th Cir.) (unpublished) (sa

me). The unref

uted evidence of defe ndant’s invol vement in the alleg ed kidnaping and assa ult and battery

of Christal Suggwas c erta inly rele vant t o the motivation underlying se vera lNo. 06-1492

United States v. W

illiams

- 8 - of def endant’ s uncontested violations of t he conditions of hi s supervised relea se. I t was also re levant to the district court’s re quired c onsideration of a ll the § 3553(a) se ntencingfac tors. Havingcar efully revie wed the transcr ipts of t he supervised rele ase r evocation hearingand bo th se nte nc ing he ari ng s, we re ma in un pe rs ua de d that the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

is substantively

unrea sonable. The district court did not base the se ntence on any impermissible factor

. Nor ha s defe ndant demonstrate d that the district cou rt place d unrea sonable we ight on a ny one

se nte nc ingfa c tor . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s up ward va ri anc e fr om t

he a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e is

su bs tanti a l. Y e t, i n li g ht of de fe nd ant’ s e vid e nt c ontin uin g pr op e ns ity

fo r v iol e nc e , th e va

ri a nc e is pr e mis e d o n c omp e lli ngre a so ns . Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e xplanatio n o f i ts r e a so nin g , th ou g h s uc c inc t, de mon str a te s a

pp ro pr ia te c on sid e ratio n o f de fe nd ant’ s his tor y and c ha ra c te ri sti c s, the ne e d f

or jus t punishment, the need f

or dete rre nce, the need to pr otect the public, and the ne ed to provide de fenda nt with corre ctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). III Acc ording ly , finding no err or, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.