The Honor able William O. Ber telsman, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. 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: 06a0695n.06 F iled: Septem ber 25, 2006 No. 05-2431 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 , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. VI NC EN T ED WA RD JON ES , Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: DAUG HTREY and COLE, Circuit Jud ges; BERTELS MAN, D istrictJudge * R. G UY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. De fenda nt-Appellant Vinc ent Edwa rd Jones challeng es his sentenc e of 156 months of imprisonment following a plea of g uilty to one count of distributing her oin. J ones asse rts that the district court e rre d (1) by failin g t o gra n t a one-level reduc tion in his criminal history cate g ory , and (2) by imposing a sentence that relied e x cessively on the SentencingGuidelines (“ SentencingGuidelines” or “G u id e li n e s ” ) a

n d in a d e q uately took acc ount of Jones’s personal history and cha rac teristics in applying the statutory sentenc ing fac tors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Bec ause we conclude that we lack g rounds for revie wing the district court’s de nialNo. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 2 - of Jo n e s ’ s mo ti o nf

o r a r e d u c ti o nin h is c r im in a l h is to r

y c a te g o r y an d f u rth e r c o n c lu d e th a t t

he sentenc e imposed by

the district court wa s rea sonable, we AF F IRM
.

I. BACKG ROUND I n Augus t 2004, the DrugEnforc ement Ag ency (“D EA”) beg an to investig ate Jones when confide ntial informants identified him as a pr imary supplier of heroin to high- school students and
re c e nt h ig h- sc ho ol g ra du a te s in Gr and Ra pid s, Mi chig an. Al l to ld, the se c on fi de nti a l in fo rm a nts attributed 2080 distinct a cts of heroin distribution to J ones. DEA ag ents and local po l i ce office rs acte d on this information by arr ang ing a

controlled purc hase of

heroin fr om J ones on September 23, 2004. Shortly there afte r, the law-e nforc ement office rs observe d another buy er c omplete a hand-tohand tra nsaction with J ones. The office rs followed this buy er to his vehicle, w here they discovere d the her oin and two passeng ers, one of whom wa s eig hteen year s old. Jone s w a s in dic te d o n O c tob e r 1 3, 20 04 on (1 ) one c ount o f d ist

ri bu tio n o f h e ro in, in vio la tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § § 8 41 (a )( 1) and 84 1( b) (1 )( C) , an d (2) on e c ount of dis tr ibutio n of h e ro in t o a per son under the a g e of twe nty -one, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1)(C), a nd 859. J ones wa s arr ested two da y s later on Oc tober 1 5 , 2004. Whil e in custody , prison personne l discovere d that J ones suffe red f rom a life- threatening hear t c ondition. They

transfe rre d him on an
e me rg e nc y

ba sis to a fe de ra l me dic a l fa c ili ty in Sou th Caro lin a wh e re he un de rw e nt a n a or tic -h e a rt
va lve -t ra ns pla nt. Following his r elea se from medical car e, J ones pleade d guilty to count one of the indictment
on June 15 , 2 00 5, purs ua

nt to a wr itt e n ple a a g re e me nt. Th e Go ve rnme nt ag re e d to mov e to d ism issNo. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 3 - count two at Jones’s sentencing . The district cour t acc epted Jones’s g uilty

pl ea an d o rd er ed the prepa ration of a

Pre-Sentenc e Investig ation Report (“ PSR ”). Apply ing the SentencingGuidelines, the PSR concluded that Jones was a “ car eer offe nder” with an offe nse leve l of twenty -nine. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1( a)- (b). Ne x t, the PSRplace d J ones in criminal history cate g ory VI beca use he ha d two prior fe lony convictions. See id. An offense level of t wenty -nine combined with a criminal history cate g ory of VI resulted in a se ntencingrang e of 151- 188 months of imprisonment. See id. ch. 5, pt. A. At his sentencinghear ing on September 15, 2005, J ones di d not object to t he ca lculation of his of fe ns e le ve l, b ut a

rgue d th a t a

on e -l e ve l r e du c tio n in

his c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or y fr om V Ito V was w ar

r an te d u n d e r G u id e li n e s s e c ti o n4 A 1
. 3 ( b )
. Jo n e s ma in ta in e d th a t h is tw o p r io r

felony convictions (for

manufa cture /delivery

of a c ontrolled substance and robbe ry ), which g ave rise t o the
c a t e g o r y V I d e s i g n a t i o n , “ s u

b s t an t i a l l y o v 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 [ h i s ] c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y” b e c a u s e t h e y o c c u r

r e d m an y ye ar s e ar l i e r , i n1 9 8 9 an d 1 9 9 1 , w h e n h e w a s j u s t t w e n t y an d t w e n t yone y ear s old. See id. § 4A1.3(b). Since then, ar gu ed J o n es , his criminal conduct ha d been relatively minor, including minor mo tor-vehic le offe nses and a conviction for r etail theft of ba by fo rm ula . Jon e s fu

rt he r a sk e d the c ourt to take int o a c c ount o the r f a c tor s in ta ilo ri ngan a

pp ro pr ia te sentenc e, including his phy sical hea lth, the positi ve effec t of hi s medical emerg ency in convincing him to turn his l ife a

round, his desire to f

ulfill his obl iga

tions to hi s wife a

nd children, a

nd that he was motivated to sell her oin to feed his own dr ug addiction. The Gove rnment opposed Jones’s motion for a downwar d depar ture in his criminal history
c a te g or y , a rguin g that J on e s had e ng a g e d in exte ns ive c ri min a l c on du c t, w hic h le d to thr e e se pa rateNo. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 4 - pe ri od s o f i nc arcerat io n in state pr iso ns . T he Go ve rnme nt f ur the r a rgue d th a t th e c ourt

sh ou ld impose a s en t en ce comm ensurate with the g ravity of Jones’s conduct in dea ling he roin to y oung pe op le , a nd sh ou ld c on sid e r Jone s’ s re fu sa l to wo rk wi th l aw e nf

or c e me nt t o id e nti fy

oth e r h e ro in
s u p p l i e r s i nt h e c o m m u n i t y. After considering the arguments of counsel and hear ing direc tly from J ones, the district court de c lin e d to g ra

nt a do wnw ard dep art

ur e in Jon e s’ s c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or y and se nte nc e d h im within the Guidelines rang e to 156 months of imprisonment. This appeal followe d. II. DI SCU SSIO N A d i s t r i c tc o u rti s o b l i g a t e d t o “ i mp o s e a s e n t e n c e s u f f i c i e n t , b u tn o tg r e a t e r

t h ann e c e s s a r

y” to achieve cer

tain sentenc ing obje ctives, including providing just pu n i s h m ent, deterring criminal conduct, protec ting the public, and providing the defe ndant with ne eded training and treatment. 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) ( 20 06 ); Un ite d S tat es v . D av is , 458 F.3d 5 05, 509-10 (6th Cir. 2006). Af ter the Supreme Court’s de cision in U n it e d S ta te s v . B ooker , 5 4 3 U.S. 220 (2005), which r ender ed the Guidelines advisory , a district cour t must apply

the s tatutory fac tors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to fashion an a

ppropriate sentenc e. T h e Gui delines ar e still consulted to calculate a def endant’ s
s e n te n c e b u t, w h e r e a s p r io r to B o o ker

the Guidelines c alculation wa s virtually dispositi ve of the
se nte nc ing qu e sti on , no w it is “ jus t on e of the nume ro us [§ 35 53 (a )] f a c tor s th a t a

dis tr ic t c ourt

mus t consider.” United States v. Mc Bride , 434 F .3 d 470 , 4 76 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; see also U nited States v. Cruz , No
. 0 5 -6 7 4 6 , 2 0 0 6 U. S
. Ap p . L E XIS 2 1 6 8 1 , * 3 (6 t h C i r. Au g. 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( “A s en t en ci n g j u d ge must apprec iate th e a d

v is o r y n a tu r e o f the g uidelines, must calculate the g uidelines’ re commendationNo. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 5 - corr ectly and must consider the § 3553(a) fac tors in exercising he r indepe ndent judg ment about what sentenc e to impose.”).

A. The Di st r ic t C our t’ s Den ialof Jo ne s’ s M ot ion for a D ownwar d De par tu r e in His Crim inal H istory Cat egory As an initial matter , J ones fra mes one of the issues on appea l a s whether the d i s t ri ct co u rt
e r r e d i nd e c l i n i n g t o g r an t h i s m o t i o n f o r a d o w n w ar d a d

j u s t m e n t o f h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y. J ones does not provide any distinct lega l argument to support this poi nt, but rather a ppear s to invoke his c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y a s an a sp e c t of

the ov e ra ll unr e a so na

ble ne ss o f h is s e nte nc e . We wi ll
ne ve rt he le ss t re a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Jone s’ s do wnwa

rd a dju stm e nt mot ion a s a se pa rate assig nment of er

ror. As he did at his sentenc i n g hear ing, Jones contends that a criminal history

cate g ory of VI substantially

over- repr esents the se riousness of his cr iminal history beca use the two pre dicate f

elony of fe ns e s w hic h la

nd e d h im i n c a te g or

y VI oc c ur

re d in 19 89 and 19 91 wh e n Jon e s w a s in

his e a rl y twenties. I n the per iod betwee n those convictions and the i nstant offe nse, J ones cla ims that he had only “seve ral minor brushe s” with the law. I t is well established in this C ircuit that a district cour t’s decision to deny

a downwa

rd depar ture in se ntencing is unr eviewa ble on appea l a

bsent a showing “‘that the district court wa s not
awa re of or did not understand its discre tion to make such a depar ture.’” Un ite d S

tat es v . P uc k

e tt , 4 2 2 F. 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . S te war t , 306 F.3d 295, 329 (6t h Cir.No. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 6 - 2002)). He re, the re is no basis for concluding that the district court did not know or unde rstand that it could exercise its discretion to g rant Jones’s motion. At the sentenc ing he aring , the cour t review ed J ones’s c riminal history

as outlined in the PSR . The c ourt rec ited many of J ones’s prior offe nses and found that eve n though Jones had not bee n convicted of a fe lony since 1991, the e vidence sug g ested that he ha d b e e n d e a lin g he ro in f or a fe w y e ars be fo re his Oc tob e r 2 00 4 a rr e st. As Jone s h ims e lf points out, t he district cour t specifica lly

acknow ledg ed that whe ther to g rant the d o wnwar d depar ture motion was a “[v]ery close question.” (Joi nt A ppendix (“ J A”) 44.) I nhere nt in this stateme nt is the district court’s re cog nition that it possessed the authority to de part downw ard if it dete rmined that the circ umstances of

J ones’s c ase so wa

rra nted. Ultimately , the district court declined t o g rant the motion beca use i t concluded that J ones’s criminal record “continues in one way or another for the l ast 15 y ear s.” ( Id. ) Moreove r, the c ourt
con c lu d e d th a t it c o u ld n o t b e s a id th a t a c r im in a l h is to r y c a te g o r y o f V I “ o v e r

r e p r e s e n ts the individual, that it does not pa int a clea r picture of this individual.” ( Id. ) On this rec ord, we have no basis for r eviewingthe district court’s de nial of Jones’s moti on, and ac cording ly , we de cline to do
so. B. The Reasonableness of Jones’s Sentence J ones’s princ ipal argument on appeal is that the district court er red by imposing an
un re a so na

ble se nte nc e . A c c or din g ly , w e must asses s “ wh e the r t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se nte nc e is a
rea sonable a

pplication of § 3553(a ).” Da v is , 458 F.3d a t 5 1 0 . We treat a sentenc e within the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e as pr esumptively

rea sonable. United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ). However, suc h a pre sumption does not relieve the district c ourt of theNo. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 7 - obligation to consider all of the § 3553(a ) fa ctors. United States v. Fore man , 4 36 F .3 d 6 38 , 6 44 (6 th Cir. 2006). Unlike oth er ch al l en ges to criminal sente nces, Jones does not argue that the district cour t improperly ca l culated the sentenc ing r ang e under the Guidelines, fa iled to consider the § 3553( a) fac tors, or failed to explain its rea soning in support of t he sentence imposed. Rather, without eve r expli citly saying that the district c ourt treated the Guidelines as mandatory in c ontrave ntion of Booke r , J ones make s the more subtle c laim that the district c ourt unduly relied on the Guidelines a nd failed to consider sufficiently the § 3553(a) fac tors: “The Sente ncing Court errone ously emphasized the g uidelines scoringat the expense of a n individual i z ed as s es s ment of statutory criter ia under

§ 3553.” Jones’s argument boils down to the proposition t hat the district c ourt should ha ve paid more attention to J ones’s pe rsonal history and cha rac teristics (enc ompassed by § 3553(a) (1)) , including his long-time bout with drugaddiction; his phy sical hea lth; and his commit ment, spark e d by his heart
c on dit ion , to tur

n his lif e aro un d. Jone s st a te s th a t a de qu a te c on sid e ra tio n o f t he se fa c tor s “ wo uld more likely

have r esulted in a lowe r term of incar cer ation.” Jone s’ s argume nt i s me ri tle ss. Th e re c or d s ho ws that th e dis tr ic t c ourt was fam iliar

wi th Jone s’ s p e rs on a l hi sto ry . T he dis tr ic t cour t had re vie we d th e PSR, wh ic h p ro vid e d ma ny de ta ils about J ones’s family

backg round, substance -abuse difficulties, and he alth. At the sentenc ing hear ing, the court a cknowledg ed that it had re viewed le tters from Jones’s famil y “indicating the condition of his family , his children, his wife, a nd his own condition with thi s hear t valve proble m and with this ex tensive history of her oin use.” (J A 39.) The court hear d first hand fr om J ones whe n the la tte r r e a d a

state me nt e xpre ssi ngc on tr iti on fo r h is d ru g -d e a lin g and

a sk e d th e c ourt

to t a ke int oNo. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 8 - acc ount his determination to refor m. I n the cour se of que stioning Jones, the court hea rd fur ther about how Jones’s heroin addic tion had aff licted much of his li fe a

nd how his hear

t surg ery had
ca u s ed him to reflec t on his mi stakes. Se e e .g ., Un ite d S tat es v . Ca swe ll , 4 5 6 F
. 3 d 6 52, 657-58 (conc luding that the PSR and the defe ndant’s comments to the sentenc ing c ourt about his troubled childhood showed that the court sufficiently considere d the def endant’ s persona l history

in imposi ng a sente nce)
. Af te r h e ari nge xten siv e argume nt f ro m the pa

rt ie s, the dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly state d th a t it s
se nte nc e mus t no t on ly

re c og nize , a s th e Court

ind ic a te d, the pa st be havio r o f M r. Jone s and mus t in fa c t pro te c t the pu bli c , b ut i t mu st look at the seriousne ss of t h is offense , the opportunities for reha bilitation t hat exist with Mr. J ones acknowledg ing that he wishes at this ag e to be de sirous at this ag e to turn himself ar ound. (JA 62.) Then, “takinginto consideration all of the se fa ctors and to e nsure that the ma x imum reha bilitation opportuni ty

is provided,” the c ourt conc luded that a se ntence of 156 m onths, at the low end of the Gu i d el ines rang e, wa s appropr iate. ( Id. ) The c ourt went on to make four
rec ommendations to the Bur eau of Prisons, including that Jones’s heart c ondition be monitored, that he re c e ive su

bs tanc e -a bu se tr e a tme nt a

nd e du c a ti on al/voc a tio na l tr a ini ng , a nd that he e arn

his Ge ne ra l E qu iva le nc y De g re e (G ED ). Th e se re c omm e nd a tio ns fu rt he r sho w that the dis tr ic t c ourt , c on tr ary to Jon e s’ s a sse rt ion , c are fu lly we ig he d h is “ his tor

y and c ha ra c te ri sti c s, ” and

the ne e d to p ro v ide him with “educational or vocational training [and] medical c are .” See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a) (1), 3553( a)( 2)(D)
. Her e, whe re the district court sentenc ed J ones within the Guidelines ra ng e and c onsidered the § 3553(a ) fac tors, including J ones’s individual c ircumstance s, we cannot conclude that J ones’sNo. 05-2431

United States v. J

ones

- 9 - sentenc e is unrea sonable. The district court sp ec i fi ca l l y ref err ed to the policy

objectives of the Guidelines and imposed a sentenc e consistent with what those objectives demand. The rec ord in no
wa y re fl e c ts that th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in se nte nc ingJone s to 15 6 mo nth s o f i mpr iso nme nt.

III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons desc ribed a

bove, we AF F IRM the sentenc e imposed by the district court.