* The Ho norab le Jack Z ouhary , U nited States District J udg e for the N orthern District of O hio, sitting by desig nation. 1

NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0073n.06 No. 08-4517 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. B RY ANMI L L S, 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

OPI NI ON

Before: M ARTIN and WHI TE, Circuit Jud ges; and ZOUHARY , District Judge. * ZOUHAR

Y, Distric t Judge I NT RODUC T I ON Th is i s a d i r e c ta p p e a l b y d e f e n d an tB r

y anM i l l s f

r o mth e j u d g m e n te n t e r e d u p o nh is conviction forbank fr aud af ter a g uilty plea. The district court sentenc ed Mills to 72 mont hs of incar cer ation, 5 y ear s of supervise d rele ase, $94,564 in re stitut ion, and the mandatory $100 specia l assessment. This timely

appea l followed. This Court has ap p el l ate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.2

Mills arg ues on appeal t h at t h e 72 mont h sentenc e wa s outside the Guideline ra ng e and

unrea sonable. B ut the sentenc e wa s actua lly within the Guideline ra

ng e of 63 to 78 months. The confusion in this case ste ms from a sim p l e t y p o g raphic al er

ror in the or igina l transcr ipt of the

s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g. T h at t ra n s cr i p tre co rd edth e d i s tri ct co urt j u d ge m i s s t at i n g t h e G u i d el i n e r an ge as 63 to 68 months, when the judge in fac t rec ited the correc t rang e of 63 to 78 months, as refle cted in t he c or re c te d tr ans c ri pt. We AF F IRM the sentenc e for the re asons desc ribed be low. B ACKG ROUND Fr om October

2006 to September 2007, Mills defra uded National Cit y

Ba nk (NCB ) and others by writing a total of $66,151 in che cks ag ainst closed ac counts or acc o u n t s containing insufficient funds (Prese ntence I nvestig ative Report (PSR) ¶ 5). In October 2006, Mills opened a joi nt c he c kin g a c c ou

nt a t N CB in t

he name of

B ryan a nd An g e la Mil ls. F ro m O c tob e r 2 00 6 unti l Marc h 2007, five wor

thless chec ks were deposited into the ac count. Mills wrote more t h an 40 chec ks, drawn on the NCB a ccount, that we re r eturne d due to insufficie nt funds (PSR ¶ 6). Mills opened a sec ond acc ount at NCB in November 2006 in the name of Br y an Mills, dba Mills I nspections. From J anuar y 2007 until S eptember

2007, multipl e wor

thless chec ks, drawn on oth e r a c c ounts wi th U S B ank , Fi rs t Mer it B ank , a nd Hu nti ng ton Natio na l B ank , w e re de po sit e d into thi s N CB a c c ount. Mil ls wro te a t le a st 7 0 c he cks wi th insuf fi c ie nt f un ds fr om t

his se c on d N CB

acc ount (PSR¶ 7). A cr iminal complaint was filed ag ainst Mills on September 4, 2007. Those cha rg es we re not the extent of his fraudulent a ctivity howe v er . Prior to the instant case, Mills was on super vised rele ase f or a previous wire fra

ud conviction from November 2003. Mills passed more bad che cks3

in Aug ust 2007 and J anuar y 2008 ( after h is October 30, 2007 guilty plea in the instant ca se), the latter resulting in a

n Ohio state court conviction and a sente nce of one y ear of probation (PS R ¶¶ 8- 9). I n addition, after

Mills was charg ed in this case, inve stigators discovere d another 100 worthless che cks pre viously written by Mills, t he vast majority from Mar ch 2006 throug h Dec ember 2007 to Dillard’s stores throug hout Ohio and Sear s stores in Columbus. Finally , even more che cks written by

Mills (for which the me rcha nts c an n o t b e identified due to poor handwr iting) w ere discovere d, bring ing the total amount of worthless che cks to $114,564 (PSR ¶ 10). On Se pte mbe r 1 2, 20 08 , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a se nte nc ing he ari ng . Mil ls a rgue d th a t bo th his mental illness as well as his family ties and responsibili ties justified a downward de parture from the Guideline r ang e. The district court declined to de part downwar d (TR 5-22). The district court hear d argument on the Section 3553(a ) fac tors, explained how the fa ctors applied to Mills, and then found a se ntence in the middle of the ra ng e wa s appropr iate (TR 31). A N A L Y SIS This Court reviews a sentenc e for both pr ocedur al and substantive re asonable ness “unde r a defe rential a

buse-of -discre tion standard.” Gall v. United States , 55 2 U. S. 38 , 41 (20 07 ); United States v. W

ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005)

. The proc edura l component is addre ssed first, and we look to

ensure that the district court c ommitt ed no sig nificant proc edura l error , such as fa iling to c alculate (or imprope rly calc ulating) the Guidelines ra ng e, tre ating the Guidelines as mandatory , failing to consider the § 3553( a) fac tors, selec ting a sente nce ba sed on clea rly err oneous fa cts, or fa iling t o ad eq uately explain the chosen sentenc e – including a

n explanation for any

deviation from the Guidelines rang e. Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51

.4

After examining the proc edura l rea sonablene ss component, this Court “consider[s] t he substantive rea s o n a

b le n e s s o f the sentenc e imposed under an abuse -of- discretion standa rd.” Id . T his substantive analy sis “take [s] into acc ount the t otality of t he circumstance s, including the extent of any varia nce f rom the Guid el i n es rang e.” Id. “ A s e nte nc e may be c on sid e re d s ub sta

nti ve ly

unrea sonable whe re the district court ‘se lect[s] the sentenc e ar bitrarily , bas[es] t he s en tence 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 § 3 55 3(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.’” United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). In this Ci rcuit, a sente nce that falls within the Guideline ra ng e enjoy s “a r ebuttable pr esumption of rea sonablene ss,” and the defe ndant bears t he burde n of re butting this presumption. United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss M i l l s does not raise any proce dural re asonable ness ar g uments, nor ca n we f ind any proce dura l e r

r o r s in th e r e c o r d

. T h e ju d g e p r o p e r ly c o n s id e r e d th e Se c ti o n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f a c to r s and explained his reasoning(TR 27-31). The judge properly calc ulated the Guideline rang e, tre ated the rang e as a dvisory , not mandatory , and did not rely on any clea rly err oneous fa cts. Ther efor e, the sentenc e wa s proce durally rea sonable, a

nd we move to the substantive re asonable ness inquiry

. Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51 (the a

ppellate co u rt examines a sentenc e’s r easona bleness only

when “ the district court’s se ntencingdecision is proce durally sound”). Subst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss Mills arg ues that the district c ourt err ed by sentenc ing him to an upwa rd var iance based on his me nta l illne ss. Ho we ve r, the 72 month s e nte nc e wa s withi n the prope rly calc ulated GuidelineM i l l s , r e p r e s e n t e d b y n e w c o u n s e l o n ap p e a l , r e l i e d o n a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g t r a n s c r i p t w h i c h, until th e 1 w ee k b ef or e th e ca se w as s ub m it te d, in co rr ec tl y a ttri bute d a m is st at em en t b y th e tr ia l ju dg e (TR

3 1) : I believ e that a sentenc e within the sentenc ing guidelines w ould be a n ap propriate sentenc e in this case . . . . The g uideline sentenc ing rang e is 63 to 68 [ n o wc o r r e c t e d

t o 7 8 ] m onths, an d th e C ourtbel ie v es tha t a s en te nc e of

7 2 m on th s in carc er at io n w ou ld b e an a pp ro pr ia te sentenc e in this ca se co nsideringall o f the factors that I hav e discuss ed in this sentenc ing hearing

. 5 rang e of 63 to 78 months. The issue ther efor e is not whether his mental i llness was wr ong fully used to justi fy an upwa rd var iance , but r ather

whether his sentence was substantively rea sonable in lig ht of his me nta l he a lthiss ue s. A s e nte nc e wi thi n th e a

pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e ra

ng e is p re sume d to be su

bs tanti ve ly

re a so na ble in this C ircuit. W

illiams , 4 36 F .3 d at 70 8. Mil ls’ se nte nc e the re fo re e njo y s th e ben efi t of this presumption, which Mills has failed to re but. Mill s fails to show that his “specia l circumstanc es ar e

s p e c i a l e n o u g ht h a t , i nl i g h to f § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , th e y r e qu ire a s en t ence lower than the sente nce the Guidelines provide.” United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 390 ( 6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) (en banc) (e mp h as i s i no ri gi n al ) ( qu o t i n g Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 360 (2007)). Mills arg ues that the district judg e er red by using Mills’ “ong oing me ntal i l lness as an ag g ravating f

actor and the ne ed to punish him severe ly ” as r easons f o r an u p wa rd “departur e” (A pp e lla nt B ri e f, p. 13 ). Ho we ve r, the jud g e pr op e rl y c on sid e re d M ill s’ his tor

y of me nta l il lne ss 1 in the cours e of e x amining the Section 3553(a) fac tors. Indeed, the re w as extensive discussion at the heari n g ab o u t Mills’ mental ill ness, and the judg e wa s not convinced that it jus tified either a downwar d depar

ture unde r U.S.S.G. Section 5K2.13 or a downwar d varia nce ( TR 18-20, 28). The judg e fur

ther noted that Mills had raised a simil ar mental health arg ument at his 2004

se nte nc ingon

wi re fr a ud c ha rg e s ( TR 1 5) :6

[ W ] h at b o t h er s m e i s t h at t h e s am e ar gu m en t s we re m ad e [ at th e 20 0 4 s en t en ci n g] as ar e being made ag ain here today . He’ s g ot mental health issues. That’ s why he’s wr iti ngba d c he c ks . B ut h e ’s re c e ivi ng c ouns e lin g and e ve ry thi ngis u nd e r c on tr ol, and he w on’t do it ag ain. B ut now here he is a g ain doing the same thing. And not only g etting c aug ht ag ain and indicted ag ain, but a lso c ontinuing to do it while he’s on – rele ased on bond a

nd doing it w h i l e h e’ s on supervised r elea se [in the 2004] case . The judg e found that the mental hea lth issues did not explain Mi l l s ’ co n t i n ued cr iminal

a c tiv ity . The jud g e a lso no te d “th a t whe n the B ur e a u o f P ri so ns re c e ive d th e inf or matio n in the PSI reg ardinghis mental health issues, that [Defenda nt] will r ece ive appropr iate mental hea lth care , and the Court is goingto include in its sentenc ing order in this case the spe cific r ecommendation that he be assessed for continuing me ntal health ca re in a fede ral fa cility ” (TR 29). See, e .g. , United States

v . Clar k, 32 8 F . App ’x 99 2, 99 9- 10 00 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) ; United States v. W illiams , 333 F. App’ x 63, 71 (6 th C ir . 2 00 9) (r e c omm e nd a tio n th a t a de fe nd ant r e c e ive me nta l h eal th or su bs tanc e a bu se t re at m en twh i l e i n ca rc er at edi s ap p ro p ri at e w ei gh i n g o f S ec t i o n 3 5 5 3 (a ) fa ct o rs ). In s u m , t h e j u d ge did not use Mills ’ mental illness as an “ ag g ravating f actor ” or g ive it “an unr easona ble amount of weig ht.” See Collington , 461 F.3d at 808. Havingthoroug hly

considere d all of t he S ection 3553(a) factors, including the ne ed for the sentenc e to provide just punishment, the judg e imposed a substantively rea sonable sentenc e of 72

months

. C ONCL US I ON We AF F IRM the sentenc e of 72 months incar cer ation.