The Ho nora bl e Da v id L. Bu nni ng, Un ite d Sta tes Di stri ct Jud ge for the Ea stern D is trict of * Ke ntuc ky, si ttin g by

de si gnati on. -1
- NO T REC OM ME ND ED F ORF ULL -TEXT PUB LIC ATION

Fi le N ame: 07a0006n .06 Fi led : Jan uar

y 5, 2007 No . 04- 1954 /

2526 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
Un it ed St at es o f A mer ica ) ) Pl ain ti ff - Appel

lee ) ) v. ) ) Rogelio Pere z-A rell ano ) ) Def endant - Appel

lan t ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE U NI TED STATES D ISTRI CT C OU RT F OR THE W ESTER N DI STRIC T OF MI CH IGAN OPI NI ON

BEFORE: GIBBONS, MCKEAGUE, Circuit Judges ; and BUNNING, District Judge * BU NN IN G, Di st rictJu dg e. Defend ant -Appe llant Rogelio Perez-Arellano ap pea ls the s entenc e i mposed upon hi s c onv icti on for il leg al re -e ntry, i n v iol ati on of 8 U .S.C . § 132 6, as un reaso nab le (Cas e N o. 04 -252 6). Perez-Arellano also app eals, a s plainly
unreaso n a ble , the rev ocat ion of his su per v is ed rele ase and i mposi ti on of an ad dit ion al ter m of impr is onment ( Cas e N o. 04-19 54)

. For the re asons set forth be low , w e A FFIRM

. I. FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND On March 19 , 2001, Pe rez -Arellano was con v icted in th e United State s Distri ct Court for th e Sout her n D is tr ict of Tex as of “[b ]ei ng found in the U .S. after prev iou s d epor tati onNos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

As to the su perv is ed rel eas e v io la tio ns, Pe rez -Are ll ano w as cha rged w it h four i nde pen den t 1 v i o l a ti o n s o f th e t e rms o f hi s s u p e rv i se d rel e a se . Pe re z -A re l l a n o ad mi tt e d to th e thi rd an d fou rt h v io la tio ns, both pe rtai ni ng to the il le gal re-en try . At the fina l sup erv is ed r ele as e he ar ing hel d o n Jul y14 , 20 04, the di stri ct c ourt al so foun d Pe rez -Are ll ano guil tyof rel eas e v io la tio n two, p ertai ni ng to th e n ew drug cha rge out of M ic hi gan, i n a ddi tio n to P erez -Are ll ano ’s pri or a dmi ssi on of v io la tio ns three an d four. After h eari ng f rom tw o gov ernmen t w itn ess es, the cou rt he ld tha t the gov ernmen t di d n ot p rov e th at P erez -Are ll ano had commi tted the DU I off ens es that w ere the sub ject o f v io la tio n o n e . -2
- subs eq uent to a conv icti on of an a g g ra v ated felony ,” i n v iol ati on of 8 U .S.C . § 1326( a) and (b). He w as sen ten ced to serv e eightee n mo nth s of imprison me nt followed bytw o y ears of super v is ed rel ease w it h the speci al cond it ion that “[i ]f depor ted, [Perez -A re ll ano] is not to re- enter

the Uni ted S tates i ll eg all y .” U pon c omplet ion of his eig hteen- month s entenc e, Perez -A re ll ano beg an ser v ing his ter m of super

v is ed rele ase on F ebr uar y 12, 2002, and
w as subs eq uentl y

depor ted. H ow ev er , i n Aug ustof 2002, Perez -A re ll ano retur ned t o the United State s af

ter having bee n previously remo v ed o n four sep arate occasion s. Shor tl y after hi s i ll eg al re -e ntr

y , i n the l atter

hal f of 2003 and the beg inn ing of 2004, Per ez - A re l l a n o w a s a r re s t e d i n M i c h i g a n a n d I l l i n o i s fo r s e v e ra l d r u g a n d D U I
- rela ted offenses , respecti v ely

. Con temporaneous ly , Pe re z -A re ll ano w as charg ed, on Ja nuar y 30, 200 4, in the W este rn Distri ct of Michig an, w ith illegal re-en try followi ng rem o va l for a conv icti on on an ag g ra v ated felony and v iol ati on of hi s s upervise d r ele ase for th e com mission of

the na me d of

fense s. Altho ugh the supe rv ised relea se cha rg e w as originally broug ht i n the Souther n Dis tr ict of T ex as, j ur is dicti on w as subs eq uentl y transfer re d to the Uni ted S tates D is tr ict C our t for the W est er n D is tr ict of M ic hig an. Perez -A re ll ano pl ed g uil ty to both il leg all y re -e nter ing the Uni ted Stat es after hav ing been de por

ted fol low ing an a g g ra v ated felony co nv icti on and to v iol ati ons of the te rms of his supe rv ised relea se, altho ugh he reserv ed the r ight to appe al his impe ndin g sent ence 1Nos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

-3
- if extra poin ts w ere assigned und er the Sen ten cing Guide lines for having bee n previously
conv icted o f an ag g ra v ated felony

. At s entenc ing , t he d istri ct cour t had the unenv iab le tas k o f deci pher ing the sta tus of senten ci ng l aw

ami dstper

v asi v e c o nfusion among the Ci rc uit s p ost
- Blake ly and preBook er. Nev erthe less, the court de cided to u t il ize the Se nte ncing Guide lines as m erely adv is or y , w hic h w as the u lt imat e resol uti on hand ed dow n bythe Supreme C our t mont hs lat er . The di str ict c our

t s tated : “ W hil e i t’ s t empti ng to pass alt er nati v e sent ences , I ’m n ot going to ta ke tha t tem pta tion; instea d I’m going to use th e gu id e li n e s as a guide in this
cas e.” ( J.A . 90)

. Base d on thi s p ro cedural deter minat ion , as w ell as the cour t’ s fin din g that the u nder ly ing st ate dr ug conv icti on did not cons ti tute an ag g ra v ated felony for s entenc ing pur poses , t he final offense lev el for th e il leg al re -e ntr y co nv icti on w as re duced from a lev el 13 to a l ev el 9 (c ri minal his tor y cat eg or

y (I V) ), w hic h produce d an adv is or y rang e of 12- 18 months i mpri sonment

. The cour t s entenc ed Perez -A re ll ano t o s er v e 18 months of impr is onment fol low ed by three y ears o f super

v is ed rele ase. On t he s uper

v is ed rel ease v iol ati ons, the dis tr ict cour t sentenc ed Perez -A re ll ano t o s e rve 2 4 m o n t h s o f im p ri s o n m e n t , s p e c if ic a ll y h ig h li gh t in g h is la c k o f re s p e c t fo r th e la w:

The Co urt is sa ti sfied that Mr . Pe re z , i f that’ s h is name, does not compl y w it h the immig ra ti on laws of thi s count ry or hav e anyreg ard for them w hat soever. W het her he is i nvolv ed in dru gs, I hav e no idea whatsoe v er. I’ m conv inc ed he w as inv olv ed in dr ug s, marijua na, in [M ic hig an]. As ide from that, I hav e no ide a w hat h is backg ro und is in dr ug s, nor do I kn ow

w hether he i s i n any

w ay addi cte d. The Cou rt has the benefit of a prev iou s re cord of thi s d efendant i n the

. . . pre sent ence repor

t, and the prese ntenc e repor t in its entirety , as w ell as the petitio n an d test imo ny tha t w as he ard in this cou rtroom . Th e Court bel iev es that the d efendant i s n ot amenab le to t he c omply w it h the l aw s o f the U nit ed St ates

.Nos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

-4
- (J .A. 88- 89)

. The sent ences for b oth the il leg al re -e ntr y and super

v is ed re lea se v iol ati ons we re o rd e re d t o ru n co n s e c u t ive ly. Perez -A re ll ano fil ed ti mely appeal s i n bot h c ases , which w ere c onsol ida ted for brief ing purpose s. II. A NA LYSIS A . Sentenc e for Superv ise d Releas e Viola tions This co urt “ w il l aff ir m a dis tr ict cour t’ s sent ence of i mpri sonment upon re v ocat ion of super v is ed rele ase if i t s how s c onsi derati on of the re lev ant s tatut or y f a cto rs and is not plainly unreaso nab le.” United S tates v. McClel

lan , 164 F.3d 30 8, 30 9 (6th Cir. 199 9). Al thoug h the policy

statement s found in Chapt er Sev en of the Uni ted S tates Sent enci ng Guide lines recom me nd ranges of im prisonm ent , U.S.S. G. § 7B1 .4, such sta tem ent s “are
me rely advisory ” an d ne ed o nly be co nside red by the district court be fore sen ten ce is impos ed. Id. at 310; see als o U nited St ates v. Washington , 147 F.3d 49 0, 49 1 (6th Cir. 1998)

. In ad dition to the policy

state me nts, the senten ce imp osed by the district court “must ref lect consid eratio n of

the facto rs li sted in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53. ” Mc Clell an , 164 F .3d a t 310 ; see als o 18 U .S.C . § 3583( e) ; W ashi ngton , 147 F .3d at 491. The § 3 553( a) factors t hat
are to be c onsi dered by a dis tr ict cour t w hen impos ing a sent ence inc lud e, in per ti nent par

t: 1) the nature and ci rc umstan ces of the o f fe n se and th e hi sto ry

and charact er is ti cs of the d efendant; 2) the need for the sent ence impos ed to re flect the ser iou snes s of the offense and prov ide appropr iat e punis hment, deter future c ri minal co nduct , protec t th e publ ic , and prov ide the defendant w it h nec ess ar y rehabi li tati on or othe r cor re cti onal treatment; 3) the ki nds of senten ces av ail abl e; 4) any g uid eli ne rang e for sent enci ng ;Nos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

Because one of

t he supervi sed releas e v iolations w as a Gr ade A v iolation as def ined in 2 U.S

. S

. G. § 7 B 1

. 1 ( a ) , i tw a s u s e d t o c o mp u t e h i s re c o mm e n d e d s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h e s e n t e nci ng guid el in es in ac cord anc e w ith the pro v is io ns of § 7B 1.1(b ). C ons equen tly , be cau se of the Grade A v io la tio n and a cri min al hi story ca tegoryof IV, the reco mmende d gui del in e ra nge o f i mpri son ment w a s tw e n ty -fou r to t h i rtymo n th s. S ee U .S .S .G. § 7 B 1 .4 (a ). -5
- 5) any g uid eli ne pol icy

st atements ; 6) the need t o av oid unw ar ra nte d s entenc e di spar it ies among defendants; and 7) the need for

rest it uti on to any

v icti ms of the offense. See 18 U.S. C. § 3553( a)

. The dis tr ict cour t need not re ci te an y

“ ‘mag icw ords’ ex pla ini ng
w hether and how

i t c onsi dered th e pol icy st atements co ntai n e d in the Sent enci ng Guide lines, or ho w

it w eighed the facto rs setout in 18 U.S.C. § 355 3.” McClel lan , 164 F .3d at 31 0. Al l that is req uired i s a g eneral sta tement of the dis tr ict c our t’ s reason s s uff ic ien t to pe rmit “an informe d ap pellat e revi ew.” Id. The Supervis e d R ele ase Vi ola ti on R epor t ( SRVR ) all eg ed th at P erez -A re ll ano
v iol ated four c ondi ti ons of his su per v is ed rele ase. The S RV R re commended re v ocat ion of Pere z -A re ll ano’ s sup e rvise d rele ase and i mposi ti on of a 24- month s entenc e of impr is onment “ to be se rv ed c onsec uti v e to any term of impri sonmentprev iou sl y i mposed. ” 2 At t he s entenc ing hear ing , the dis tr ict cour t found that Perez -A re ll ano had co mmitt ed th re e of the four all eg ed v iol ati ons of his su per v is ed rele ase. In imp osing its senten ce of in carceratio n, the reco rd indicate s thatthe district cou rt
cons ide re d s ev eral of the factors l is ted i n § 3 553( a) , i ncl udi ng t he nat ure and circumsta nces o f

Perez-Arellano’s supe rv ised relea se v iolation s, Perez-Arellano’s histo ry and c haract er is ti cs , t he s er iou snes s o f the offenses , t he need to deter cri minal co nductand prote ct the pub lic, Perez-Arellano ’s dem onst rate d un w illing ness a nd ina bility to conformNos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

-6
- h i s b e h a v i o r t o t h e l a w , a n d h i s d e mo n s t ra t e d u n w i l l i n g n e s s a n d i n a b i l i t y t o fo ll owthe
co ndi ti ons of his su per v is ed rele ase. F urther more, the dis tr ict c our t c onsi dered th e re commended sent ence under the g uid eli nes, and, i n any ev ent, “[ b ]y rev iew ing the super v is ed rele ase v iol ati on repor t, the c our

t i s p re sumed to ha v e c onsi dered th e recom me nde d sent encin g range set fo rth in the policystate me nts.” Mc Clell an , 164 F .3d at 31 0. Und er the ci rc umstan ces , the reco rd reflect s suff ic ien t c onsi derati on of the re lev ant sta tutor y factors t o per mit th is C our t t o c oncl ude t hat t he di str ict c our t’ s rev ocat ion of Perez -A re ll ano’ s s uper v is ed rele ase a n d i m posi ti on of a 24- month s entenc e of impr is onment –

the floor of the g uid eli ne ra ng e – w as not p lai nly unreason abl e. See id. ; W ashi ngton , 147 F .3d a t 491 -9 2. To th e c o n tr ar y , g iv en th e i nces santand eg re g iou s nature o f the v iol ati ons, i t i s c lea r that the s entenc e i mposed w as both procedu ra ll y and subs tanti v ely

reason abl e. B. Sentenc e for Illegal Re-entry Conv iction T he Unite d Sta tes Se nte ncing Guide lines are ad v isory rathe r tha n ma nda tory, such tha t a dist ri c tco urt’s app lication o f the guideline s to a pa rticular defend ant ’s sente nce is dis creti onar

y . See U

nited St ates v. Book er , 543 U .S. 220, 245- 46, 2 63- 65 ( 2005) ; United Sta tes v. Davis , 397 F. 3d 340, 345- 46 (6 th Ci r. 2005)

. The sent ence ult imat ely i mposed by the dis tr ict c our

t i s rev iew ed bythis Cour t for re asona ble ness . See B ooker , 543 U .S. at 26 1- 65; Uni

ted S tates

v. Webb , 403 F.3d 37 3, 38 3 (6th Cir. 200 5). Nevertheless, district
cou rt s a re r eq uired to co nsul t t he g uid eli nes pr ior to the i mposi ti on of a s entenc e and “sente nces p rope rly c a lc u lated und er the Gu ideline s” are credited w ith “a rebut tab leNos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

-7
- presu mp tion o f

reason able ness. ” S e e Un ite d S ta te s v. W il lia ms , 436 F .3d 7 06, 7 08 ( 6th Ci r. 2006) ; see als o Book er , 543 U .S. at 25 9- 60, 2 64. The re asona ble ness of a sent ence is deter mined by re ferenc e to t he factors l is ted in 18 U .S.C . § 3553( a)

. See B ooker , 543 U. S. at 25 9- 60, 2 64; United States v. Chandler

, 419 F. 3d 484, 486- 88 ( 6th C ir . 200 5) ; W ebb , 403 F.3d at 383. W hil e the distr ict c our t nee d not“‘engage i n a ritualistic incan tatio n of ’” the facto rs set forth in § 35 53(a ), the sen ten ce impos ed by

the dis tr ict cour

t shoul d re flect cons ide ra ti on of t hose factors. Cha ndler , 419 F. 3d at488 (c it ati on omitted ). The sent ence ult imat ely i mposed must be “ ‘s uff ic ien t, but not g re ater

than nec ess ar

y , t o c o m p ly w it h the pur poses ’ setforth i n” § 35 53( a)

. United States v. For

em an , 436 F .3d 6 38, 6 43 ( 6th C ir . 200 6) ( q uoti ng 18 U .S.C . § 3553( a) ). Perez -A re ll ano pl ed g uil ty to il leg all y

re- enter ing the Uni ted S ta te s foll ow ing depor tati on fo r a n a g g ra v a t e d felony

co nv icti on. The present ence re por t ( PSR ) deter mined that Pere z-Are lla n o’s bas e offense lev el w as 8 under the 2003 v ersi on of U .S.S .G. § 2L1 .2(a). T he b a s e o f fense lev el w as the n increase d by anoth er 8 poin ts, un der § 2 L 1

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( C ) , b e c a u s e P e re z - A re l l a n o ’ s p r i o r s t a t e co nv ict i o n fo r

p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance w as bel iev ed to co nst it ute “ an ag g ra v ated fe lo n y as de sc ri bed i n 8 U. S.C . § 1101( a)(4 3 )(B ). ” As a resul t, Perez -A re ll ano’ s a dju ste d offense lev el w as c a lc u la t e d a t1 6

. T h e P S R s u b s e qu e n t lyd e c re a s e d P e re z-A re ll a n o ’s o f fe n s e le ve l b y 3 poi nts , und er

U .S.S .G. § 3E 1.1( a) and (b ), for a cc eptanc e of respo nsi bil ity , to arr iv e at a total offense lev el of 13

. Beca use the PSR deter mined that Perez -A re ll ano had 9 c ri minal his tor y poi nts , he w as plac ed in cr imi nal hist or y categ or y IV. W it h a total of

fense l ev el ofNos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

A lth ough Bo oke r

had notyetbee n de ci de d whe n t h e d i s t r ic tco urtse nt en ce d Pe r ez- 3 Are ll ano , the rec ord cl earl yde monstra tes that the di stri ct c ourt treate d th e fede ral se nten ci ng guid el in es in an ad v is ory ca pac ity . In fact, w hen referen ci ng t he senten ci ng guid el in es as reco mmenda tio ns rathe r tha n ma nda tory rul es, the di stri ct c ourt state d th at “th e gui del in e i s n ow w h a t i t sa y s i t i s, a gu i d e l i n e a n d d o e s n o t b i n d t h e ju d ge. ” -8
- 13 and a c ri minal hi sto ry cat eg or y of I V, the federal se ntenc ing g uid eli nes re commended
a s entenc e rang e of 24 t o 30 months of impr is onment. During the sent encin g hea ring, the district court con sidered Perez-Arellan o ’s obj ect ion to the 8 poi nt inc re ase in his offense lev el based upon the PSR ’s dete rmi nati on that his pri or

co nv icti on for poss ess ion of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance w as “a n ag g ra v ated felony .” The dis tr ict cour t sus tai ned Perez -A re ll ano’ s obj ect ion and conc lud ed th at hi s d ru g poss e s s i o n o ffe n s e “ d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e a n a g g ra v a t e d fe l o n y a n d d o e s n o t w a rrant a n eig ht- lev el inc re ase in his offense lev el. ” Si nce the c onv icti on w as a felo ny , how ev er , t he court foun d tha t it “would auth oriz e a four-level increa se” in Perez-Arellano’s of fense lev el. The di str ict c our

t’ s r uli ng resul ted in a reducti on in Perez -A re ll ano’ s t otal offense lev el from thirtee n to nin e an d, w ith a crimina l history category of

IV, redu ced Pe re z-A re llano’s
re commended sent ence under the g uid eli nes to 1 2 to 18 month s o f impr is onment. Ackno w ledging the advisory natu re of the fede ral sent encin g guidelines, the district court sen ten ced Pe rez -Arellano to serv e 18 mon ths of imprison me nt to run conse cutively to his sen ten ce for v iolating cond itions of his supervised release

. Re vie w o f the en tire sent enci ng transc ri pt i n thi s ca se r e v eal s t hat t he di str ict c our t t re ated the s entenc ing g uid eli nes as an adv is or y tool, consi dered the fact ors set forth in § 3553( a) to per mit an 3 info rm e d a p p ell ate rev iew by thi s C our

t, and ex amined “ all the re lev ant i nformati on” present ed to i t w hen im p osi ng se ntenc e. See Webb , 403 F .3d a t 385

. Spec ific all y , t heNos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

-9
- dis tr ict c our

t c onsi dered: ( 1) the nature and ci rc umstan ces of Perez -A re ll ano’ s o ffense; ( 2) his bac kg ro und and cr imi nal hi sto ry ; ( 3) the appropr iat e puni shmentfor P erez -A re ll ano, as
w ell as the re commended sent ence under the g uid eli nes; and (4 ) the need for re habi li tati on by order ing hi s p arti ci pati on “ in a prog ra m of t est ing and treatment for s ubst ance abuse ” dur ing hi s s uper

v is ed rele ase per iod

. Ev en th oug h the di str ict c our t di d notr e cite the § 3553( a) factors, w hic h w as ine v it abl y the resul t of the pre- Boo ker post ure, no su ch re ci tati on w as re q uired. See United States v. Richar

dson , 437 F .3d 5 50, 5 54 ( 6th C ir . 200 6) ; W il lia ms , 436 F .3d a t 708 -0 9. Ins tead, the sent ence impos ed bythe dis tr ict c our t nee d onl y

reflectco nsi derati on of the § 3553( a) factors to facil it ate a n i nformed app ell ate rev iew

. Richar dson , 437 F .3d a t 554 ; W il lia ms , 436 F .3d a t 708 -0 9; Mc Clell an , 164 F .3d a t 310. It i s c lea r from the sent enci ng transcript that the district court prov ided a mo re-than -ade quate a rticulation of the cou rt’s
re asons for t he s entenc e i mposed, most of w hic h direct ly but n ot ex pli ci tl y i mpli cat ed th e § 35 53(a ) fa ctors, to su ch an ext e n ta s t o “perm it reason able app ellate rev iew ” by this Cou rt

. Id. ; see als o U nited St ates v. Ki rby, 418 F.3 d 62 1, 62 6 (6th Cir. 200 5). Fur ther more, the re cord demons trates thatthe dis tr ict c our t ade q uatel y

address ed and t o o k into acco untPerez-Arellano’s prof fering of allegedlymitigating ev iden ce an d his obje ctions to the PS R, w hich resulte d in a redu ction o f his base o f

fense lev el. Accordin gly , beca use th e district court’s sen ten ce w ithin th e guideline range is afforded a presumpt ion of reaso nabl eness , and Perez -A re ll ano has fail ed to demons trate tha t the district did not su f f iciently cons id er the sta tuto ry facto rs or that the sente nce is oth erw ise subst ant iv ely unre ason able ness, the sent ence impo sed b y the district cou rt isNos. 04-1954 / 2526

United States v. Pe rez-Are llano

-1 0- uphel d as reason abl e under the ci rc umstan ces . See Book er , 5 4 3 U .S. at 26 1- 65; For em an , 436 F .3d a t 643 ; Cha ndler , 419 F .3d a t 486 -8 8. III . CO NC LU SION In ac cordance w it h the foreg oin g anal y si s, w e aff ir m Perez -A re ll ano’ s s entenc es for both the i ll eg al re -e ntr

y conv icti on and the super v is ed rel ease v iol ati ons as re asona ble and
n o tp la in ly u n re a s o n a b le , re s p e c t ive ly.