The Honor able Micha el H. Watson, United States District J udg e for the Southern District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0478n.06 No. 09–1409 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. JEREM Y A DA MS, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

______________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON REVI EW FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN SOUTHERN DIVI SI ON
O P I N I O N

Before: G ILMAN and WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and WAT SON, District Judge. * MICHAEL H. WATSON, District Judge. Def

endant- Appellant, Jeremy Adams, plea ded g uil ty to a c ha rg e of po sse ssi on wi th int e nt to dis tr ibute me tha mph e tamin e , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. §§ 86 0a and

84 1( a )( 1) . T he Di str ic t Co ur t f or the Wes te rn

Di str ic t of

Mic hig an s e nte nc e d h im t o
an a bo ve -Guid e lin e s se nte nc e of sixty months , w hic h the dis tr ic t court or de re d to run c on se c uti ve ly to his state incar cer ation for possession of me thamphetamine a s a habitual off ender , second of

fense
. At the se nte nc inghe ari ng , A dams c ha lle ng e d th e a pp lic a tio n o f a

n u pw ard va ri anc e and

the le ng th of his s e n te n c e . A d ams n o w a p p e a ls th e s u

b s ta n ti v e r e a s o n a

b le n e s s o f

th e s e n te n c e . F o r

the following rea sons, we AF F IRM the district court’s se ntence
.Some evidence sug g ests the four- y ear old may h av e b een livingwith her paterna l 1 g randmother

at the time of the offe n s e, b u t i t i s not disputed that the six -y ear old lived at the Residence at the time of the of fense
. 2

I. On April 3, 2008, Michig an Child Protective Service s in fo rm ed the Kalamazoo Valley Enforc ement Te am that a f our-y ear old child was re cently hospitaliz ed for breathing diff iculties that possibly stemmed from e x posure to a me thamphetamine l ab o ratory at the child’s r esidenc e, 1015 Chicag o Avenue, Kalama zoo, Mi chig an (the “Residenc e”) . I n response , office rs went to the Resid ence wher e, outside the fr ont door, they found a duf

fle ba g containinga “one pot” re actor vessel used to produc e methamphe tamine. The c hild’s gr andpar ents arr ived at the home at this tim e. Th e g ra ndmot he r s tate d th a t sh e and

he r h us ba nd liv e d at th e Re side nc e wi th h e r d a ug hte r, Ms. Phi lli ps , M s. Phi lli ps ’ t

wo c hil dr e n a g e d fo ur and six, and he r d a ug hte r’ s b oy fr ie nd , Jer e my Ad a ms. 1 The g randmother

suspected A dams was makingmethamphetamine in the Re sidence; s h e d i d not notify the police be cause she fe are d that Adams would burn down the Residence in retaliation or that the childre n would be take n. The g randmother

permitted police to sear ch the re sidence . When the police ente red, the Residence smelled strong ly of ammonia. The y

found Ms. Phill ips sleeping fac e down on he r bed atop cof fe e fi lters and plastic bottles with holes in the lids. These items, and the g allon bottle of ammonia found nex t to the bed, ar e ofte n used to manufa cture methamphetamine. A lso in the room
was a child’s fishing pole t hat later tested positive for methamphetamine re sidue. When office rs interviewe d Ms. Phil lips, she st ated that Adams, who was not home at the tim e, had ma nufac tured
m e t h a mp h e t am i n e i nt h e R e s i d e n c e e ar l i e r i nth e d ay.3

The c hildren’s father, Jay

Whippl e, ar

rived duringthe interviewand informe d the police that he believe d the four- y ear old child’s breathing diff icultie s s t em m ed fr om the manufa cture of
m et h am p hetamine in the Residenc e. Whipple also told the police that the six -y ear old found a g roce ry bagcontainingdrain c leane r and salt at the Residenc e, and Whipple believe d that these we re used to manufa cture methamphetamine. Adams wa s later a

rre sted. He took re sponsibi lity for a lmost all t he items seized from the Residence , incl uding the duffle ba g containingthe “one pot” re actor . He state d that he made methamphetamine f

or not only

his use, b u t al s o to give to Ms. Phi llips and to sell to her father
. Th ou g h A dams a dmi tte d to the man ufac tur e of me tha mph e tamin e , h e sa id t

hat he mos tly manufa cture d it at his friend’s house, a nd only once or twice manuf

actur ed it in a ca

r parked in front of the Residenc e. As a re sult of this i nvestig ation, Ada m s wa s ch arg ed on Apr il 24, 2008 by Criminal Complaint for the knowing and intentional attempt to manufa cture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S .C. §§ 846, 841(a) (1), and 841(b)( 1)(C). He was a rre sted May

25, 2008, on a loca l warr ant issued for a separ ate incident. He plea ded guilty to a state c harg e of posse ssion of methamphetamine for a J anuar y 2008 incident. As a habitual offe nder, he was sente nced by the state c ourt to a per iod of inca rce ration for

t wo t o fiftee n y ear s. Then, on June 4, 2008, as a re sult of the April 3, 2008 incident, Adams wa s i n dicted by the fe dera l gove rnment on one c ount of manufa cturing methamphetamine in violati on of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)( 1) and 841( b)(1) (C), and one count of manufa cturingmethamphetamine on pr emises where an i n d i vidual under the ag e of e ighte en wa s prese nt or reside d, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 860a and 841(a) (1).“Ga ssing of f” is one sta g e in the manuf actur e of me thamphetamine. 2 Ms. Phil lips’ six -y ear

old presumably

had a bir thday betwee n April and Nove mber. 3 4 Af te r h is f e de ra l in dic tme nt, Ad a ms p ro ff e re d in fo rm a tio n to the g ov e rnme nt. Th ou g h M s. Phill ips cl a im e d

A d a ms ma n u f a c tu r e d me th a mp h e ta mi n e in the ir bedroom, Ada ms denied it; instead, he a dmi tte d to man

uf a c tur ing me tha

mph e tamin e a t a fri e nd ’s ho us e and “ g a ssi ng of f” in t he c ar i n 2 the fr on t y ard of the Re sid e nc e se ve ra l ti me s. He state d th a t a ft e r m a kin gme tha mph e tamin e a t hi s fr ie nd ’s ho us e , h e wo uld sto re the e qu ipm e nt and unus e d ingre die nts in t he be dr oo m he sh are d w ith Ms. Phil lips. He admitted to making one to two g rams of me thamphetamine two or three times per
wee k from Oc tober 2006 to April 2008. Due to conf

licting e vidence from Ms. Philli ps and Ada ms r ega rdi ng the location of the manufa cture of methamphe tamine, Adams wa s permitted to plead guilty to a su p er s ed i ng inf or matio n c ha

rg inghim

no t w iththe manu fa c tur e of me tha mph e tami ne, but in ste a d w ith possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute on pr emises wher e an individual under the
a g e of e ig hte e n w a s p re se nt o r r e sid e d, in v iol a tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § § 8 60 a and 84 1( a )( 1) . Adam s pleade d g ui l t y o n November 14, 2008. At that time, Adams admitted that he possesse d methamphetamine in a

“one pot” bottle on the porch of the Residence , that Ms. Phillips’s seven-year old was re siding at the Residence at the t i m e, an d that he intended to distribute the 3 methamphetamine. T he plea was a cce pted. I n a nti c ipatio n o f A dams’ se nte nc ing , th e Pr ob a tio n O ff ic e pr e pa re d a Pre se nte nc e Re po rt , and in so doing , calc ulated the a pplicable a d v i s o ry

United States SentencingGuidelines Manua l (“ U
. S
. S
. G
. ” o r

“ G u i d e l i n e s ” ) p ar am e t e r s . T h e P r o b a t i o nO f f i c e c a l c u l a t e d

A d a m s ’ t o t a l o f

f e ns e level as twe lve. This included a two- level enha nceme nt applied pursuant to U.S.S.G. §5

2D1.1(b)( 10)(B ) to ac count for the prese nce of a child at the Re sidence
. The Probation Of fice calc ulated Ada

ms’ criminal hi story score of t wenty -three points and placed him in Criminal Hist ory Ca tegor y VI . T he Pr ob a tio n O ff ic e r, ho we ve r, su g g e ste d th a t a lth ou g h Cate g or y VI is the mos t
s e r i o u s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y, i tu n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d

t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f

A d a m s ’ c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y. Adams’ numer ous prior off enses a nd the ineff

ectivene ss of any prior resulting sentenc es sug g ested Ad a ms w a s v e ry

lik e ly to c omm it f

utu re c ri me s. Criminal History Categ ory VI is applicable to all defe ndants with thirteen or more criminal hi s t o ry p o i n t s . Adams had a criminal history

score of twenty -three . Adams’ leng thy and ac tive
c ri min a l hi sto ry

be g an at ag e se ve nte e n a nd c ulm inate d in

the ins tant o ff

e ns e . In th e int e rm e diate y e ar s , A d a ms w a s c o n v ic te d o f ma n y c h ar g e s r e late d

to o r inv o lv in g a lc o h o l, ma

r ij u an a , and
me tha mph e tamin e . D ue to mul tip le me tha mph e tamin e -r e late d c ha

rg e s, Ad a ms wa s c la ssi fi e d a s a ha b it u a l o f f e n d e r . A lt

h o u g h A d ams ’ o f

f e n s e s in it ia ll y

r e s u lt e d in tw e n ty
- f o u r c r im in a l h istory points, twenty -two other offe nses wer e not counted in r eac hing that number. The sc ore w as fur ther reduc ed to twenty -one points pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c ), which pr ovides that only four one

point convictions are sc ored. This score of twenty -one points was inc rea sed by two points, pursuant to U .S. S.G . § 4A 1. 1( e ), be c a us e the ins tant of

fe ns e wa s c omm itt e d le ss t ha n tw o y e ars fr om A dams’ rele ase from custody on J anuar y 7, 2007, resulting in a final criminal history score of twenty -three
. Becau s e t h e P ro b at i o nOf

fi ce r b el i ev edt h at C ri m i n al Hi s t o ry C at ego ry VI un d er -r ep re s ented Adams’ likelihood to com m i t future c rimes and c riminal history , she re commended a five-le vel incre ase in the total off

ense le vel pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. This incre ase w ould result i n a Guidelines sentenc e ra

ng e of 51–63 months. The P robation Off ice f urther r ecommende d an above

Guidelines sentenc e of sixty months to run consecutively to Adams’ state se ntence
.6

The Gove rnmen tal s o s u

p p o rt edan u

p wa rdd ev i at i o nb as edo nAd am s ’ c o n s i d er ab le criminal history an d th e f a c t th a t th e tw o - le v e l e n h an c e me n t p u r s u an t to U
. S. S. G § 4 A 1
. 1 ( e ) in c r e a s ed the
se nte nc e by

on ly se ve n mo nth s. Al so , the Go ve rnme nt no te d th a t th e of fe ns e le ve l w a s b a se d o nly
on the amount of methamphe tamine re sidue left in the “one pot” bottle, rathe r than the a mount of methamphetamine a ctually produce d. Additionally , the Government submitt ed that the educational
or vocational training and the menta l health/substance- abuse c ounseling Adams nee ded would take longe r to complete tha

n the Guidelines ra

ng e of 30–37 months. The Gover nment rec ommended that if the district court c oncluded that a n upwar d depar

ture pursua

n t t o U.S .S.G. § 4A1.3 was not
war rante d then the cour

t alternatively

employ an upwa rd var iance from the Guide lines rang e. Adams wa s sentence d Marc h 30, 2009. The district c ourt, instead of adopting the Probation Offic e’s r ecommendation to depar t pur suant to U .S.S.G. § 4A1.3, deter mined that a var iance from the advisory

Guidelines ra

ng e of 30–37 months wa s appropr iate. The court imposed a sentenc e of six ty months to run consecutively to Adams’ state se ntence . I n making that decision, the c ourt considere d Adams’ c riminal history , his history of manufa cturingmethamphetamine, the prese nce of a c hild at the Residence , Adams’ ne ed for substance- abuse c ounseling , and the ne ed to protec t the pu bli c fr om h is a dd iti on a l c ri me s. Ad a ms n owc ha lle ng e s th e su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss o f h is sentenc e. II. A. Le ga l St anda r ds We a pp ly an a bu se -o f- dis c re tio n s tandard to d e te rm ine if the se nte nc e wa s su

bs tanti ve ly
unrea sonable. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 45, 50 (2007). I n so doing, w e must “kee p in mind that ‘. . . appe llate cour

ts must respect the r ole of dist rict cour ts and stop substit uting their judgme nt7

for that of those courts on the f

ront line.’” United States v. Christman , 607 F.3d 1110, 1117 (6th Cir. 2 0 1 0 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Phinazee , 5 15 F .3 d 5 11 , 5 21 (6t h Cir. 2 00 8) ) ( a lte ra tio ns in Christ man ). A sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable whe re “t h e district court selec ts a sentenc e
arb itr ari ly , b a se s th e se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa ils to c on sid e r r e le va nt s e nte nc ingfa c tor s, or g ives an unre asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Conatser , 514 F.3d 508, 520 ( 6th Cir. 2008). “While a s en t ence within the Guidelines is presumed to be
rea sonable, a

sentenc e outside the Guide lines rang e is not presumed unr easona ble.” Christman , 607 F.3d at 1118 (ci t i n g Un i t ed S tates v. Houston , 529 F.3d 743, 755 ( 6th Cir. 2008)). To dete rmine wh e the r t he se nte nc e is s ub sta

nti ve ly re a so na ble , w e m u s t c o n s i d e r “ t h e tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s, including the extent of any varia nce f rom the Guidelines r ang e.” Ga ll , 5 5 2 U. S
. at 5 1
. A c h al l en ge to the weig ht affor ded to the § 3553(a ) fa ctors pre sents a situation in which the appellant ar g ues that

“ ‘a dis tr ic t c ourt

e xami ne [d] a

re le va nt f a c tor bu t, d e sp ite ri g or ous ana ly sis , [g a ve ] unr e a so na ble
we ig ht t o th a t f

a c tor by fa ili ngto e xami ne the fu ll s pe c tr um of inf or matio n o n th e re c or d b e fo re it relating to that fa ctor.’” United States v. Tristan-Madrigal , 601 F.3d 629, 638 ( 6th C ir. 2010) (q u o t i n g United States v. Hughe s , 283 F. App’ x 345, 351 (6th Cir. 2008)). B. Subst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss I n this case, the district c ourt consider ed a numbe r of r eleva nt § 3553( a) f

actor s in creating a sente nce that was “suf

ficient but not g reater than ne cessa ry to comply

with the purposes of Sec tion 3553(a) , the proportionality analy sis,” and that re flec ted “both the spe cific of fense s and the individual offende r.” ( SentencingTr. 1 8 :13–17.) The district cour t considere d the nature of the offe nse and state d that the pre sence of a c hild at the Residence “ratchets up the ser iousness of the8

offe nse[.] ” (

Id . at 19:14–15.) The district c ourt considere d the nature of De fenda nt, finding r eleva

nt that Adams kept a

drughe kn ew wa s d an gerous at the Residence that he shar ed with a c hild, the incre asing ly

serious patter

n of prior of

fense s, Ad a

ms’ upbring ing, a

nd his mult iple serious substance
a bu se pr ob le ms. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt ind ic a te d th a t it

fo un d th e nee d to pr ov ide punis hme nt a nd to pr omo te re sp e c t f

or the law to be “ qu ite imp or tant” be c a us e Ad a ms’ re c e nt inc arc e ratio n on his state conviction appe are d to have “ finally g otten his attention.” (

Id . at 21 :14 –2 2. ) Th e dis tr ic t c ourt a lso deter mined t h at Ad am s appeare d to be “at very high r isk to [ reof

fend] without some serious intervention aimed at he lping him to over come the pr oblems that he has with substance abuse.” ( Id
. a t 22 :1– 6. ) A s su c h, the dis tr ic t c ourt wa s mi nd fu l of

the ne e d to pr ote c t th e pu bli c fr om A dams’ possible future c rimes involving the use and manuf actur e of me thamphetamine. Finally , the district
c ourt c on sid e re d th e ne e d to pr ov ide ne c e ssa ry me dic a l, e du c a tio na l, and c or re c tio na l tr e a tme nt t o Adams; the district court found this to be “may be even t he mos t important” factor. ( Id . at 22:12–18.) The dist rict court found t hat “a ll five of those fa ctors [fell] on t he hig h end of the scale ” ( Id
. at 23:5

– 7 ), an d t h ere fore , the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e did not sufficie ntly

ref lect the § 3553( a) considerations. (

Id . at 23:5.) Adams sugg ests the district c ourt place d unrea sonable we ight on thre e fa c tor s: A dams’ pr ior

c ri min a l hi st ory , th e pr e se nc e of a c hil d at th e Re sid e nc e , a nd the ne e d to provide Ada

ms with medical, educ ation, and cor rec tions treatment. Adams a rgues that the district court’s state d rea sons for the varia nce “ar e not sufficie ntly compelling to justify such a stee p deg ree of var iance , neither individually nor in ag g reg ate.” (B r. for Def .-Appe llant 17.) 1. P rior c rim inal of fenses Ad ams a sse rt s nume ro us argume nts to s ho w t he dis tr ic t c ourt

a ttr ibute d a

n unr e a sonab le amount of we ight to his prior c riminal offe nses. To beg in, Adams cites U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3Adams sug g ests the district court ag ree d with this asse rtion, but actually the district court 4 fo un d that a lth ou g h so me of the of fe ns e s we re min or , the re wa s a patte rn of inc re a sin g se ri ou sn e ss, and the min or

c ri me s p e rh a

ps po int e d to mor e se ri ou s f utu re of fe ns e s. 9 Commentary

Note 2(B ), which state s that depar tures fr om Criminal Hist ory Categ ory

VI are appropr iate for an egr eg ious, serious cr iminal recor d in which eve n the g uideline ra ng e for Criminal H is to r y Cate g o r y V Iis n o t a d e qu a te to r e f le c t t h e s e r io u s n e s s o f

th e d e f e n d an t’s criminal history

. . . . I n deter

mi n i n g wh et h er an upwar d depar ture fr om Criminal History Categ ory VI is w arr anted, the court should c onsider that the nature of prior of fe ns e s r a the r t

ha n s imp ly the ir numbe r i s of

te n mo re ind ic a tiv e of

the se ri ou sn e ss of the de fenda

nt’s criminal re cord. U. S. S EN TENC I NG G U I D ELI N ES M A N U A L § 4 A1 .3 c mt. 2( B ) ( 20 08 ). Ad a ms a rgue s th a t a lth ou g h h is past offe nses are n u m er o u s , they do not reve al him to be a violent offe nder, a nd they are neither
e g r e g i o u s n o r

a s s e r i o u s a s c r i m e s t y

p i c a l l y s e e n i nC r i m i n a l H i s t o r

y C a t e g o r y V I. 4 This argument fails because the district court applied a variance , rathe r than a depar ture, a nd “[a]lt houg h the standar d for a n upwar d depar

ture unde r the Guide lines ma y b e helpful in deter

mining
rea sonablene ss, a district court doe s not nece ssar i l y ab u s e it s discretion in consider ing c riminal history that would not otherwise support a [U.S .S.G.] § 4A1.3 depa

rture when that cr iminal hist ory is dire ctly rele vant to the § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f ac t o rs.” Trist an-Madrigal , 6 01 F .3 d at 63 5. I nd e e d, Ad a ms admits the distri ct cour

t is not, i n applying a

varia nce, bound by

Commentary

to the advisory Guidelines. Va

rianc e propr iety

is not based solely on the Guidelines, but rather on the consider ation of the fa ctors delineated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Wherea s § 4A1.3(a) (1) p ermit s an upwa rd depa rture only wher e the de fenda

nt’s criminal history

cate g ory “substantially

under- repr esents the se riousness of the defe ndant’s cr iminal hist ory or the likelihood that the defe ndant will commit other crimes,” the court’s authority under § 3553(a) more broa dly permits consideration of “the nature a

nd circ umstances of

the offe nse and the history and cha rac teristics of the de fe nd ant, ” a s w e ll a s “ the ne e d f or the se nt ence impos e d .
. . to p ro te c t th e pu bli c10

from fur ther c rimes of the de fenda nt.” A district cour

t alway s can impose an aboveGuidelines sentence so long as it is reasona ble in light of the fac tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). . . . The only require ment is that the court dete rmine, “in lig ht of a ll the fa c ts and c ir c ums tanc e s of the pa rt ic ula r c a se be fo re it, wh e the r t he ra ng e in question is appropriate to the case .” United States v. He rrera-Zuniga , 571 F.3d 568, 589–90 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (interna l citations omit ted). Even so, if the district court place d an unrea sonable amount of weig ht on any pertinent fa ctor, the sentenc e would be substantively unrea sonable. Conatser , 514 F.3d at 520. Next, Adams make s just such an argument. He a sserts that althoug h he had nume rous convictions, his offense s were non-violent and not as serious as those commonly found in Categ ory VI , thus the applicable Guidelines rang e adequately acc ounts for his past criminal beha vior, making the district court’s upw ard va rianc e unre asonable
. The c ommentary

to the Guidelines, althoug h not controlling, is helpf ul in determining
rea sonablene ss. See Tristan-Madrigal , 601 F.3d at 635. I t directs th e d i s t ri ct cour t to consider whether “re liable information indicate s the criminal history does not ade quately

ref lect the
se ri ou sn e ss o f t

he de fe nd ant’ s c ri min a l hi st ory or lik e lih oo d o f r e c idi vis m.” U. S. S EN TENC I NG G U I D ELI N ES M ANUAL § 4A1.3 cmt. background (2008). The district cour t, citing the ste ady

stream of incre asing ly

serious off

enses, al m o s t al l of which involved the use of alc ohol, marijuana, or methamphetamine, found Adams prese nted a high risk of rec idivism
. Fur thermore , the district court noted that the thre shold for Categ ory VI is thirteen points, and Adams score d ten points more than that amount without the attribution of points to all of Adams’ convictions. Given the hig h number of incre asing ly

serious convic tions, and the fact that alcohol, mar ijuana, or me thamphetamine we re involved in many

of the c onvictions, it was not unrea sonable for the di strict court to determine, as11

i t d i d , th at Ad am s wa s “s p i ra l i n g o u to f c o n t ro l ” ( S en t en ci n g T r. 1 1 : 9

– 1 0 ), t h er eb y p re s en t i n g a h i gh risk of re cidivism. Thus, the district court did not attribute unrea sonable we ight to this fac tor. 2. P rese nce of a child at the Re sidence Ad ams ar g ue s that the va

ri anc e imp os e d by the dis tr ic t cou rt wa s su bs tanti ve ly

unre a so na

ble beca use the district cour

t affor d ed too much weig ht to the presenc e of a child at the Residenc e. Ad a ms a sse rt s th a t be c a

us e his c a lc ulate d tot a l of fe ns e le ve l a lr e a dy inc lud e d a tw o- le ve l in c re a se for the pr esenc e of a

child at the Residence , and his c rime was “ not particular ly eg reg ious[ ,]” it was ina pp ro pr iate fo r t he di st ric t c ourt to g ive sig nif

ic ant w e ig ht t o th is f

a c tor . T his argume nt f

a ils , howeve r, bec ause a court does not a ttach unrea sonable weig ht to a fac tor mere ly beca use it considers it both under the advisory Guidelines and in c onnection with the § 3553(a) fac tors. See U nited States v. Hope , 1 67 F . App ’x 53 1, 53 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6) (r e

je c tin g a su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss c ha lle ng e to a sente nce b as ed on invalidity of “double counting ” the thre at of violenc e pre sented by defe ndant in b oth the mand a tor

y min imum se nte nc e and the § 35 53 (a ) lik e lih oo d o f r e c idi vis m and da ng e r t o public fac tors). Moreove r, Adams asserts that his crime w as not eg reg ious, a nd takes issue with the fac t that the district court did not expl ain why this case diff

ers f rom mainstream child-prese nce c ases, ther eby
wa rr anti ng a se nte nc e g re a te r tha n that c on te mpl a te d by the Gu ide lin e s. Ho we ve r, a lth ou g h A dams
asser ts that his behavior wa s not eg reg ious, the fac ts of this case a re disturbing . Her e, Adams was not merely

storing me thamphetamine at the child’s re sidence , he also store d the ing redie nts and equipment used to make methamphetamine at the Residence , and methamphetamine re sidue was fo un d o n a c hil d’ s toy in the Re sid e nc e . Ad a ms a dmi tte d th e “ on e po t” re a c tor wa s si tti ngne xt to the door the c hild used to e nter a nd exit the Residence on a daily basis. Fur

thermore , the childre n12

may have had access to the i ng redie nts used to manufac ture methamphetamine. The district court deter mined that the drugwas pa rticularly dang erous, a

nd the childre n wer e “a ctually exposed to the dr ugand /or its re sid ue .” (S e nte nc ingTr . 1 9:1 3– 14 .) The di st ri ct c ourt re c og nize d th a t A dams
c on sis te ntl y

state d th a t he ne ve r m anu fa c tur e d me tha mph e tamin e in t

he Re sid e nc e ; how e ve r, it a lso noted that there wer e a numbe r of items pre sent at the Residenc e that we re c o n s i s t en t with the manufa cture of m ethampheta mine there in. These items included the “one pot” cooker and a g allon bottle of ammonia. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

state d th a t th e c hil d’ s p re se nc e wa s th e fa c tor that in c re a se d th e se ri ou sn e ss of the off ense and made the case “stand out[.] ” ( Id . at 19:5.) I t was not unrea sonable for the district court to conc lude that the ac tual prese nce of methamphetamine r esidue on the toy s and the childre n’s exposure to the drug or its re sidue made this ca se more se rious than a c ase involving the drug s that
wer e stored in a residenc e without resultant exposure to childre n residingthere in. The district court did not give unr easona

ble weig ht to this fac tor. 3. P r ov isi on o f m e dic al, e duc at ion al, and c or r e c ti ona l t r e at m e nt Adams also ar g ues t he dis trict court afforde d too much weig ht to the time needed to pr ovide him with medical, educa

tional, and cor

rec tions treatment. Adams a sserts that this factor does not
warran t a h ig h e r s e n te n c e b e c a

u s e th e dr

u g p r o g r a m i nw h ic hh e w il l e n r o ll la s ts o n ly e ig hteen months, a time period that does not excee d a within-Guidelines s en t en ce . But Adams does not sug g est that the district court’ s varianc e was imposed solely to enable Adams t o rec eive substanc eabuse tre atment. Cf. United States v. Y opp , 453 F.3d 770, 774 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that wher e the sole purpose of sentenc e wa s t o p ro vide mental hea lth and substance- abuse tre atment, it was substantively

unrea sonable to sentenc e def endant to twenty -four

months because the 500-hour dr ug13

treatment pr og ram could be finished in nine months). I nstead, Adams argu es t h at t h e “sentence should not be increa sed base d on his need for [ medical and educa tional] treatment.” (B r. for Def .- Appellant 21.) Th is a rgume nt f a ils be c a us e Ad a ms’
argume nt t

hat the dr ug -t re a tme nt pr og ra

m doe s n ot t a ke [sixty ] mon ths to c omp le te t ra n s l at es i n t o an ar gu m en tt h at h i s s en t en ce s h o u l d b e o n l y as l o n g a s t h e d ru gtrea t m ent prog ram take s to fulfill. The district court’s c oncer ns with the public’s protec tion a

nd with [ Adams’] criminal re cord a re not a dequate ly

addre ssed by

a five

hund re d h our d

ru g tr e a tme nt p ro g ra

m. United States v. Bailey , 488 F.3d 363, 369 ( 6th Cir. 2007). The district cour

t placed g reat weig ht on Adams’ need fo r substance- abuse tre atment and vocational tra ining; it s t at ed that it intended the sentenc e to provide “ opportunities to improve [Adams’] l ife a

nd to break this cy cle that [he has] been in[ .]” (Sentenc ing Tr. 26: 6–8.) However, as in Bailey , the district court also cited numerous other § 3553(a) fac tors that sug g ested a dditional incar cer ation was ne cessa ry . Acc ording ly , Adams has not provide d us with any evidenc e that the district court “‘fail[ed] to examine the full spectrum of information on the record be fore it relating to that fac tor.’” Trist an-Madrigal , 6 0 1 F. 3 d at 6 3 8 (q u o t i n g Hughes , 2 83 F . App ’x at 35 1) . A dams has not shown that the district cour t affor ded an unr easona

ble amount of we ight to this fac tor. C. Consid erat ion of the factors in aggregat e Although it is true that major varia nces must be supported by signific ant justifications, Ga ll , 55 2 U .S. a t 50 , in

c ra ft in g Ad ams’ se nte nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt c are fu lly and c omp re he ns ive ly considere d the totality

of the c ircumstance s, the re commended Guidelines sentenc e, and a ll releva nt § 3553(a) fac tors. After

this thorough a

naly sis, the district court found that a se ntence within the Guidelines ra

ng e would not be a

ppropriate . The district cour t found that bec au s e children wer e14

inv olv e d, thi s w a s a

se ri ou s o ff

e ns e , a nd be c a us e Ad a ms l a c ke d d ir e c tio n an d con tr ol , he wa s a serious offe nder; indee d, the district court found that all fac tors considere d wer e quite ser ious. The district court di d not, as Adams sug g ests, rely predominantly

on only three fac tors. We “must give due d ef er ence to the district court’s de cision that the § 3553(a) fac tors, on the whole, justify the extent of the varianc e.” Ga ll, 552 U.S. at 51. Adams re quests that we r eeval u at e t h e fa ctors considere d by

the district court a

nd weig h them differ ently , but due to the sig nificant defer ence owed to the dist ri ct cour

t in this situation, that is i mproper. B eca use the district cour

t did not place
unre a so na

ble we ig ht o n th e fa c tor s c on sid e re d in thi s c a se , th e sent e nc e is n ot s ub sta nti ve ly
unrea sonable. III . For the above rea sons, we AF F IRM the se nte nc e of the dis tr ic t c ourt
.