The Honor able John Corbe tt O’ Mear a, United States District Court f or the Ea stern District * of Michig an, 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 F ile Nam e: 11a0006n.06 No. 09-3283 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. RANDYS. DELANO , Defendant-

Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE an d WHIT E, Circuit Judges; and O ’MEARA , District Judge. * COLE, Circuit Jud ge. Def endant- Ap p el l ant Randy

Delano a ppeals his sentenc e of 168 months’ imprisonment for two counts of possession w ith the intent to dis tribute coc aine a nd cra ck

coca ine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A) a nd (b)( 1)(C). De lano contends that his sentence is substa n ti v e ly u n r e a s o n a

b le b e c a u s e ( 1 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p la c e d e xc e s s e mp h a s is o nD e la n o’s statement at the se ntencinghear ing a nd insufficient we ight on his difficult upbring ing a nd mental ill ne ss, and

(2 ) h is c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y ov e rs ta te d the se ri ou sn e ss o f h is p ri or c ri min a l c on du c t. For the re asons stated be low, we AF F IRM

.No. 09-3283

USA v. D elano

- 2 - I. BACKG ROUND I n Jun e 20 07 , a

po lic e of fi c e r s top pe d De lano and his g ir lf ri e nd , L or e a l John so n, fo r a tr a ff ic violation. The office r questioned J ohnson about a bulge in he r clothing, which s h e admitt ed

c on ta ine d d

ru g s th a t De lano ha d ask e d he r to hol d for him wh e n h e no tic e d th e of

fi c e r b e hin d th e ir

car . J ohnson had appr ox imately 120 gra m s eac h of coc aine a nd cra ck coc aine. A jur

y convicted Delano of two counts of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine and cr ack c ocaine

. Delano was subject to a 120-month mandatory minimum on the cr ack c ocaine count, and a 240-month statutory

maxi mum on the coca ine count. The United States Pretrial Servic es and Prob at ion Office prepa

red a prese ntence repor

t (“PSR”) ca lculating a U.S. SentencingGuidelines (“G uidelines”) r ang e of 210 to 262 months, based on an o ff en s e leve l of thirty -two and c riminal history cate g ory VI

. The district c ourt sustained Dela no’s objection to the PSR’s recommende d twol e v e l e n h an c e m e n tf

o r o b s t r u c t i o no f j u s t i c e , r e s u l t i n gi nano f f e n s e l e v e l o f

t h i rt y. At the s en t en ci ng hear ing, D elano r equeste d a downwa rd depa rture unde r Guidelines § 4A1.3(b)( 1) on the basis that criminal history cate g ory VI overstate d the seriousne ss of his prior conduct

. He h ad been a ccor ded thirtee n criminal history points for his prior offe nses and a n additional two for the pr ox imity of the cu rr ent offe nse to his relea se fr om custody for a prior conviction. He a

rg ued that bec ause a

number of his c onvictions were misdemeanors, those of fense s sh ou ld b e g ro up e d by

ty pe a nd e a c h g ro up c ounte d o nly

on c e , r e su lti ngin s ix cr imi na l- his tor y po int s and bring ing him down to criminal history cate g ory I I I

. The dist rict court considere d and re jected this arg ument, noting that many criminal def

endants have a numbe r of misdemea nor off enses that inc re a se the ir cri mi nal -his tor y c a te g or y and that D e lano ’s pr ior

of fe ns e s in c lud e d c omp lic ity toNo. 09-3283

USA v. D elano

- 3 - brea king a nd enter ing a

nd two coca ine possessions in addition to t h e m i s d emea nors. Dela

no’s attorney also prese nted evidenc e that Delano suffe red from bipolar disorder and wa s the product of an abusive , neg lectful, a

nd traumatic c hildhood. Then, Dela no was g iven an oppor

tunity to speak: DI STRI CT COURT: I s there a ny thing you want to say , Mr. Dela no? DEL ANO: Ye s. Yes, sir. Since I ’ve be en found guilty I wrote down like numerous pag es of what I planned on saying be fore y ou on this, and it was all—Ijust crumbled it up and threw it aw ay , beca use I just— I d o n’t eve n know how to say it, but I fee l the prosec ution is wrong. T hey keep putting i t off like I pawne d this off on her, like Ithrew it on her , but if I would have got caug ht with something in my possession and the y wo uld have c a me to m e and

wa s li ke , w e ll, say

it’ s suc h- and -s uc h, we g oin g to do this for y ou, Iwould have sa id it was such-a nd-such, too. DIS T R I C T C OU R T : Id o n ’t u n d er s t an d wh at y o u ’r e s ay i n g. (The de fenda

nt spoke with counsel off the re cord.) DEL ANO’ S ATTORNEY: Thank you. We’re done , Your Honor

. DI STRI CT COURT: I didn’t mean to stop him, I just didn’t understand w hat he wa s s ay i n g. DE L AN O: I ’m say ing if

Ife lt that—t

he y wa nte d to make it s ound

lik e a fe ma le is n o tc a p a b l e o f tr an s p o rt i n g dr

u g s l i k e t h a t
. If

yo ul o o k a tm y p a s tc r i m i n a l h i s t o r y, like y o u s a id , 1

. 9 , I w e n t f r o m a c o c a in e p r o b le m to a d is tr ib u ti o n o v e r n ig h t, and I just don’t see how it c an happen like that. They want to a ct like a fe m al e i s n ot capa ble of tra nsporting this much drug s on her own. DI STR I CT C OU RT: So you ’r e sa y ingsh e ’s the on e tha

t ha d th e dr

ug s? DE L AN O: She is the on e tha t g ot c a ug ht w iththe m, y e s. Th is i s 2 00 8, we go t a fema le running for pr esident. Why can’ t we have a fe male that’s—I just don’t see how 168 months to 210 months for something I ain’t neve r g et ca

ug ht with, and what she’s g oing to sa

y on the stand, and—I ’m sorry , Your Honor . You know what I ’m saying? I know y ou’ve g ot y our— D IS T R IC T C O U R T : O k ay.No. 09-3283

USA v. D elano

- 4 - DE L AN O: Ijus t c an’ t se e me lik e —th a t’ s a lot of t ime fo r— if any thi ng , th e y

sh ou ld have kept me wit h the conspira cy char g e, y ou know what I ’m saying, be cause Iwas in the car . They

could dismiss t he conspira cy char g e and char g e me with possession, and I ain’t neve r have it in my possession. The cops a nd the prosec utor and the jury had it in their possession more than I did. I ain’t neve r had it in my possession. But be c a us e it w a s a

fe ma le that g ot c a

ug ht wi th it, the y wa

nt to a c t li ke sh e ’s no t c a

pa ble of doing that. And a f

emale is just as ca

pable of doing that to ge t money just as a guy is. And I just don’t see me be ing ove r—that’s it, Your Honor . Thank y ou. DI STRI CT COURT: W ell, y ou rea lly have done y ourself a disservice , but Imean, that’s what you decide d to do. (Sentenc ing H r’g Tr., District Ct. Docke t No. 108, at 21-23.) T he district cour t then discussed the 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, e xpla ini ngthat D e lano ’s bip ola r dis or de r and sig nif

ic ant pr ob le ms w ith reg ard to his childhood sug g ested a below-G uidelines sentenc e would be sufficient. Howe ver, the court then state d: The re al problem I

g uess wit h re gard to y ou is with reg ard to what y ou just said. I a lso ne e d to imp os e a

se nte nc e tha

t r e fl e c ts ju st punis hme nt, a ff or ds a de qu a te deter renc e, and pr otects the public, and ref lects the seriousness of the offe nse. And Iwa s in c lin e d e arl ie r t o b e lie ve that a low e r se nte nc e , y ou kn ow , c ou ld s e rv e tho se purposes, but by

trying to shove off a l l t h e re s ponsibili ty for this off on your g ir lf ri e nd , it ra ise s r e a l qu e sti on s in

my min d th a t a

lon g e r s e nte nc e is n e e de d to provide a dequate deter

renc e and pr otect the public. So if y ou would have either stay ed quiet, y ou know, which y ou had a rig ht to do, or had simply

not tried to inculpate he r to help y ourse l f, y o u know, I would have thought that ther e wa s g reater hope for r ehabilitation.

. . . . So taken as a

whole, I am g oing to sentenc e y ou at the low end of the g uidelines, and Iwould indicate to y ou y ou would have gotten below t he g uidelines if y ou wouldn’t have r efle cted your ef

forts to incriminate he r.No. 09-3283

USA v. D elano

- 5 - (Sentenc ing H r’g Tr., Dist rict C t. Docke t No. 108, at 25-26.) The court went on to sentence Delano to 168 months of i ncar cer ation on both possession counts, to run concur rently . Delano timely

filed thi s a pp e a l. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review This Court reviews a

district court’s sente ncing deter mination for re asonable ness under a defe rential a

buse-of -discre tion standard. United States v. Studabake r , 578 F.3d 423, 430 ( 6th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007) ). Delano only challeng es the substantive rea sonablene ss of his sentence

. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt m u s t i mp o s e a s e n t e n c e t h a t i s “ 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 comply with” the fa ctors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See United States v. Tristan-Madrigal , 601 F.3d 629, 632 (6th Cir. 2010)

. “‘A sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable if the district c ourt selec ts the sentenc e ar

bitrarily , bases the se ntence on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pe rtinent § 3 5 5 3 ( a) fac tors or g ives an unre asonable amount of w ei gh t to any pertinent fa ctor.’” Id. at 633 (quoting Un ite d S tat es v . W all s , 546 F.3d 728, 736 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks and alterations

o m i t ted)). Asentenc e within the Guidelines ra ng e “w arr ants a pre sumption of reasona bleness.” United States v. He rrera-Zuniga , 571 F.3d 568, 590 ( 6th Cir. 2009). B. Su bst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss Delano f irst argues that his sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable because the district court pla c e d to o mu c h w e ig ht u po n h is s ta te me nt a

t a llo c uti on

and no t e no ug h we ig ht u po n h is d if

fi c ultNo. 09-3283

USA v. D elano

- 6 - upbring ing a

nd bipolar disorder

. The district cour t considere d Delano’ s mental illness and troubled childhood and ultimately

ag ree d with Delano that these fac tors supported a lowe r sentenc e. When Delano spoke to the district c ourt, he continued to blame the cr ime on his girlf riend. Finding that De l ano’s statements showed a f ailure to take responsibility and lac k of re morse that called into question whe ther a below-G uidelines sentenc e would re fl ec t the seriousne ss of the offe nse, protec t the public, and provide adequate deterrenc e, the district court im posed a sentence at the ver y bottom of the Guidelines rang e. Delano’ s contention that his sentence contains a foury ear penalty for e x erc ising his constitutional right t o speak at sentencingis off the mar k for thre e

rea sons. First, the ar g ument assumes that Delano w ould have r ece ived the mandatory minimum of 12 0 mo nth s, wh ic h is fo ur y e ars sh or

te r t ha n th e 16 8-m on th sen te nc e the dis tr ic t c ourt a c tua lly imposed. There is no support for this assumption in the record. The district court neve r indicate d that it was considering a120-month sentence; it simply stated t hat Delano “would have g otten below the g uidelines if [he] wouldn’t have ref lected [his] e f

f o r ts to incr iminate [hi s g irlfriend]” (Sente ncing Hr’g Tr., District Ct. Docke t No. 108, at 26). We ca nnot know how fa

r below the Guidelines that sentenc e would have been. Second, it was not D elano’ s exercise of his r ight to spe ak, but r ather , that he did not acc ept responsi b i l i t y fo r h is crime, that the district cour t took into account in consideringthe § 3553(a ) fac tors. This was not err or. Finally , to the extent that Delano claims his statement was only a sing le fa ctor for

the district court to consider

in determining an appr opriate se ntence , he is conflating fac t s with fac tors. One fac t, such as a de fenda

nt’s criminal history

or statement at allocution, “may bear upon more than oneNo. 09-3283

USA v. D elano

- 7 - of the sec tion 3553(a) f

actor s.” United States v. Gunte r , 620 F.3d 642, 647 (6th Cir. 2010). As the district court explained, Dela no’s statement e vidence d a re fusal to take r esponsibili t y an d l ac k of

remorse that bore on se vera l fac tors, including the need f or the sente nce imposed to refl ect the seriousness of the off

ense, pr omote respe ct for the law, af ford a dequate deter

renc e, and pr otect the public. Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) . The district cour t did not abuse its discretion when it deter mined that a downward variance would be inappropriate and imposed a sentence at the very bottom of the Guidelines ra

ng e. Delano also argues, as he did below, that cr iminal hist ory cate g ory VI overstate d his actual criminal history

beca use most of his pr ior convictions wer e misdemeanors a nd, thus, he was e ntitled to a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e . Wh e n, a s h e re , a

dis tr ic t c ourt

is a wa re of its dis c re tio n to g ra

nt a d o wnward depa

rture, w e lac k jurisdiction to review its decision not to do so. United States v. Santillana , 540 F.3d 428, 431 ( 6th Cir. 2008). We may , however, co n sider whe ther a ny overstate ment of Delano’ s criminal history rende rs his se ntence substantively unrea sonable. See id. We find that it

d o e s n o t. A s th e d is tr ic t c o u rt n o te d , ma n y d e f e n d an ts h a v e a

la r g e n u mb e r

of misdem eanor offe nses that contribute to their c riminal history points. Further

more, De lano’s contention that g rouping his misdemeanors would result in six c riminal history points and a cr iminal history cate g ory o f I I I i s inacc urate . Although six of Delano’ s criminal history points came fr om misdemeanors—two instanc es of thef t, two instances of pa ssing ba d chec ks, and one instanc e of petty theft—seve n more came from more serious offe nses—two i nstance s of cocaine posse ssion and

a conv i ct i o n fo r complicity to breaking a

nd enter ing a

nd theft. With t he two points added f or pr oximi ty of tim e to t he c ur re nt o ff e ns e , e ve n if the mis de me ano rs we re g ive n o ne po int in t ota l,No. 09-3283

USA v. D elano

- 8 - D e l a n o wo u l d

s t i l l h av e t en cr i m i n al h i s t o ry p o i n t s , wh i ch wo u l d

p u th i m i nca t ego ry

V, n o tI I I. Finally , even if

we we re to a cce pt that c riminal history cate g ory V was more appropr iate, De lano’s ult imate se nte nc e of

16 8 mo nth s w ou ld s til l be e nc omp a sse d in the ne w Gu ide lin e s ra ng e of 15 1 to 188 months. This further supports the re asonable ness of De lano’s sente nce. III . C ON CL USI ON F or the a bo ve re a so ns , D e lano ha s f a ile d to re bu t the pr e su mpt ion of re a so na ble ne ss a nd his

se nte nc e is AF F IRM ED

.