The Honor able F rede rick P. Stamp, J r., Uni te d St a te s District J udg e for

the Northe rn District * of West Virg inia 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 File Na me: 08a0476n.06 Filed: August 8, 2008 No. 07-1251 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 , ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE ) UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT v. ) CO UR T F OR TH E WE STE RN ) DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN MA RCU S TA RRE L LSYLVE STE R, ) ) OP IN ION De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ____________________________________)
Before: M ARTIN and NORRIS, Circuit Jud ges, and S TAMP , Senior DistrictJudge. * FREDERI CK P. S TAMP, J R., Senior District J udg e. Mar cu s T a r r e llSy lvester ( “Sy lvester” ) p l ea d ed g uilty in the United States District Court f or the Western District of Michig an to be in g a convicted f

elon in possession of a fir ear m in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 922(g )(1) . Sy lvester f iled a sentenc ing me morandum in which h e argued for an unspec ified downwa rd depa rture f rom the applicable sentenc ing r ang e set for th in the United States S en t en ci n g Commi ssion advisory guidelines. I n that memorandum, Sylvester state d that he had no obje ctions to the Presentenc e I nvestig ation Report (“ PI R”) and that he ag ree d that the applica ble advisory

sentenc e u nder the gu i d el i n es p ro v i d edfo r a ra n ge o f fi ft y -s ev en (5 7 ) t o s ev en t y -o n e ( 7 1 ) m o n t h s . T h e d i s t ri ct j u d geU ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

I n one of the case s, Sy lvester plea ded guilty to delivery of a c ontrolled substance , and in the 1 oth e r, he ple a de d g

uil ty to o ne c ount of dome sti c vio le nc e and on e c ount o f s e c on d d e g re e ho me invasion. 2 sentenc ed Sy lvester to a te rm of imprisonment of six ty (60) months, to be followe d by three (3) y ear s of super vised rele ase. On appea l, Sylvester c halleng es his sentenc e on g rounds of proc edura l and substantive rea sonablene ss. For the re asons that follow, the sente nce imposed by the district court is AFF I RMED. I . BA CKGROUND I n 2 00 3, Sylve ste r p le a de d g uil ty to thr e e of fe ns e s in two se pa

ra te state c ri min a l a c tio ns in th e Se v e n te e n th

Ci r c u it Co u rt, G r an d

Ra p id s , M ic h ig an . O nD e c e mb e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , th e s tate c o u rt 1

se nte nc e d Sylve ste r t o thre e y e ars of pr ob a tio n o n a ll thr e e of

fe ns e s. Whil e Sylve ste r w a s o n p ro batio n, st ate aut ho ri ti es ex ecut e d a se arc h w arr ant o n his residenc e on De cembe r 2, 2004, afte r he had failed to repor t to his probation officer

as re quired by the conditions of his probation. Duringthe sea rch, la w enf orce ment officia ls discovere d Sy lvester hiding unde r a pile of clothes in a baseme nt be droom. They also discovere d an unloaded .32 caliber Smit h and Wesson handgun and a box of .32 ca liber amm u n i t i o n, as we ll as a sca le, and a razor blade with white r esidue. At that time, Sy lvester was taken ba ck into state custody . The state c ourt revoke d Sy lvester’ s probation for

failing to report t o h is probation office r and f or possessing a fire arm, a nd sentenc ed Sy lvester to eig hteen ( 18) months to twenty (20) y ear s of imprisonment. Sylvester wa s paroled f rom state custody

on J une 13, 2005. Some time during the latter pa rt of Nove mber 2006, Sylvester wa sU ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

The ATF ’s re port rec ommending pr osecution is undated. The prec ise date upon whic h the 2 matter wa s forwa

rded t o the U.S. Attorney ’s Off ice is there fore uncer

tain. An ATF repor

t dated Marc h 30, 2005 ref

err ing to a

firea rm identification co rr ec tion from the ATF ’s Report of I nvestig ation dated F ebrua ry 28 , 2 0 05 sug g ests that the re commendation for prosec ution was probably forwa rded some time in Mar ch or A pril 2005. 3 on c e a g a in t a ke n in to s tate c us tod y fo r p aro le vio latio ns , w hic h in c lud e d f a ilure to c omp ly

wi th substance a

buse treatment require ments. Meanw hile, during the ea rly part of 2005, the United States Depa rtment of Just ice B urea

u of Alcohol, Tobac co and Fire arms (“ATF ”) had completed a fede ral investig ation into Sy lvester’ s firea rm possession. Ba sed upon the re sults of its investigation, the ATF rec ommended to the United States Attorney ’s Off

ice that the f

irea rm offe nse be pr osecute d. Fe dera l authoriti es sec ured a n indictment ag ainst Sy lvester on August 29, 2006--appr ox imately eighteen months af ter the A TF
rec ommended prose cution, and more than one y ear af t er Sy lvester wa s paroled by the state c ourt
a ft e r h is p ro batio n h a d b e e n r e vo ke d f or po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm . 2 On Dec ember

6, 2006, Sy lvester plea ded guilty in the United States Di s trict Court for the Western District of Michig an to b ei n g a convic ted fe lon in possession of a fire arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (1). He was re lease d on bond until his sentenc ing. O n Dec ember 11, 2006, during t h e p re s en tence interview w ith his probation officer , Sy lvester wa s subjected to a r andom drugtest, which pre liminarily tested positive for m ar i

j u ana use . Despite Sylvester’ s strenuous denials and his insistence that the drugscreen had y ielded a f alse positive, a labor atory repor t
c on fi rm e d th a t he ha d use d mar iju ana . Sylve ste r wa s the n re arr e ste d f or vio latin g the te rm s o f h isU ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

A district court’s f

ailure to consider t he factors set forth at 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) , for e x ample, 3 or to ade quately

explain the reasons for

the sentenc e imposed

c o n s ti tu te s s ig nificant proc edura l error
. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007). 4 bond. Subsequently , the United States District Court for the Western District of Michig an sente nced Sy lvester to a sixty -month term of imprisonment and a three -y ear

period of supe rvised re lease
. II. A N A LY S IS On a pp e a l, S y lve ste r a

rgue s th at hi s se nte nc e is b oth pr oc e dura lly

and su bs tanti ve ly
unrea sonable. When r eviewing a sentenc e for r easona bleness, an a

ppellate c ourt must eng ag e in a two-step ana ly sis: it must first deter mine whether the s entenc ing court committed any signific ant proce dural e rror; and , if

the se nte nc e imp os e d is fo un d p ro c e dura lly so un d, the a

pp e llate c ourt

mus t 3 then evaluate the substantive re asonable ness of the se ntence
. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007). A. Pr oc e dura l Re a so na ble ne ss The standa

rd of r eview f

or a pr ocedur al re asonable ness cha lleng e to a sentence depends upon whether the challeng ing party objected in the lower court proce eding s on the g round of pr ocedur al
rea so n ab l en es s . I f the c halleng ing pa rty did so object, this Court reviews under an abuse -ofdis cr et ion standard. United States v. J ones , 4 45 F .3 d 8 65 , 8 69 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 553 ( 6th Cir. 2006). I n this Ci rcuit, district courts a re a dvised to ask the parties whe ther they

have a ny object i o n s , not previously raised, to the c ourt’s propose d sentenc e. Un ite d S tat es v. B os tic , 371 F.3d 865 ( 6th Cir. 2004). I f the c halleng ing pa rty has bee n aff

orded theU ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

Although Vonner

wa s de c ide d a ft e r Sylve ste r w a s se nte nc e d, its ho ldi ngsh ou ld s til l a pp ly 4 i n t h i s ca s e b eca

use a pla in error

standard of

revie w was a

pplied to the Vo nn e r de fe nd ant, wh os e sentenc e had likew ise bee n imposed befor e this Court’s ruling in Vonner
. 5 opportunity

to object to the cour

t’s rea sons f

or selec ting the se ntence imposed and has f ailed to do so, this C ourt revie ws for pla in error
. Un ite d Sta te s v . V on ne r, 516 F.3d 382, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2008). 4 I n the ca se at ba

r, the district cour

t provided the requisite opportunit y to object. J A 118-119. Sylve ste r f

a ile d to ob je c t on pr oc e dura l r e a so na

ble ne ss– or

any oth e r– g ro un ds
. Con se qu e ntl y , p la in
err or is the a p p ro priate standa rd of r eview f

or Sylvester’ s appellate challeng e to the proc edura l
rea sonablene ss of his sentence
. Plain error

require s a defenda

nt to show (1) the court made an error (2) which “was obvious
or c le ar, ” (3 ) wh ic h “a ff

e c te d de fe nd ant’ s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts ,” and

(4 ) whic h “ a ff

e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, integ rity , or public reputation of the judicial proce eding s.” United States v. Gardiner , 463 F.3d 445, 459 (6th Cir. 2006). Only exceptional circ umstances wa rra nt a finding of plain er

ror. Id . U nd e r t

his
s t an d ar d , a d i s t ri ct co u rt ru l i n g wi l l b e v ac at edo n l y “w h er e t h e e rr o r i s s o p l ai nt h at t h e t ri al j u d ge . . . [was] dere lict in countenanc ing it.” Id. He re , Sylve ste r a

rgue s th a t w he n the dis tr ic t court imp os e d his se nte nc e , it did no t a de qu a te ly take into ac count the mitigating f actor s that Sy lves t er prese nted for the court’s c onsideration. Specifica lly , Sy lvester c ontends that the di strict judge failed to e ng ag e in any analy sis or state any
rea sons for re

jecting Sy lvester’ s arguments that the gover nment’s delay

in bring ing c harg es and the time served in state custody wer e mi tigating factors warr anting a downward de parture in Sy lvester’ s sentenc e. The se conte ntions lack merit.U ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

6 The sente ncing statute at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c) require s a district court to state its re asons for imp os ing a pa rt ic ula r s e nte nc e , b ut n o s tatut or y pr ov isi on ob lig a te s a

se nte nc ingc ourt

to a rt ic ulate its re a so ns fo r r e

je c tin g e a c h a

rgume nt a

pa rt y adv ances fo r a

n a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e . 1 8 U .S. C. § 3 55 3( c ); Vonner , 516 F.3d at 387. Nor does the case law of this Circuit impose any such obligation. Un ite d S

tates v . S mi th , 510 F.3d 603, 608 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] dis trict court ne ed not explain it s rea sons for re

jecting eac h argument made by a def endant.” ). Ne verthe less, the United States Supreme Court dec ision in Un ite d S tates v . R ita , 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2469 (2007), sug g ests that the re cord should demonstrate that t he sente ncing judge has consider ed ea ch ar g ument prese nted by a par ty and the e vidence offe red in support ther eo f. T h u s , fo r a sente nce to survive a proc edura l
rea sonablene ss challeng e under plain err or re view, the r ecor d and the context must demonstrate that the j u d ge l i s t ened to, unde rstood, and conside red e ach a rg ument, taking eac h into account whe n deter mining the de fenda

nt’s sentenc e. Vonner , 5 1 6 F. 3 d at 3 8 7 (c i t i n g Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2469). I n t h i s ca s e, S y lvester’ s sentencingmemorandum listed three fac tors in support of an unsp ecif ied downwa

rd depa rture f rom the applica

ble g uideline ra

ng e. Sy lvester a

rg ues on appe al that the district judge failed to consider two of t hem: (1) the delay by the gover nment in prosecuting him; and (2) the time he ha d alre ady s er v ed i n s t ate custody afte r his state probation was revoke d fo r, in part , the same c on du c t tha t pro mpt e d the fe de ra l indi c tme nt. Th e se nte nc ingjud g e dir e c tly ad dre s s edn ei t h er

o f t h es e fa ct o rs . T h u s , t h i s C o u rt m u s td et erm i n e w h et h er t h e s en t en ci n g j u d ge listened to, unde rstood, and considere d the delay in f eder al prosec ution of

the fire arm off

ense, a nd the time the def

endant spe nt in state custody afte r his probation wa s revoke d for, in par t, possessing a fire arm.U ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

7 1. Delay

in Prosecution Th e re c or d in dic a te s th a t th e se nte nc ingjudg e c on sid e re d- -a nd re je c te d- -t he de lay in prosec ution as a m itigating fac tor. At the sentenc ing he aring , the judg e ac knowledg ed re ceipt of the de fe nd ant’ s “ rathe r e xten siv e ” se nte nc ingme mor and um. JA 10 7. De fe ns e c ou nsel be g an h is argument by

stating that the most important aspec t of the ca se wa s the two-y ear delay betwee n the commission of the crime a nd Sy lvester’ s sentencing . J A 108. When the judge interjec ted, inquiring whether that circ umstance w as the most important fac tor, defe nse counsel answe red in the neg ative. J A 108-109. After prese nting the fac tor that he considere d most important (i.e., that Sy lvester ha d
un de rg on e sig nif

ic ant c ha ng e sin c e the tim e the of

fe ns e oc c ur

re d) , d e fe ns e c ouns e l r e tur ne d to his argument that the delay

in pr o s ec u t ion should be considere d as a mitig ating fac tor. J A 112. The judge observe d that the def endant ha d not f

iled a motion to dismiss on this ba sis, a nd asked w hether any leg al g rounds supported the de fenda nt’s argument. Def

ense c ounsel answe red: “ I t’s just a fac t that we would a sk that y ou would consider.” Id. When he pronounc ed Sy lvester’ s sentenc e, the district judg e stated that he had c onsidered the sentenc ing guidelines as one fac tor for deter mining a sentenc e that was sufficie nt, but not gr eate r than nece ssary , to c omply with the purposes of § 3553(a)
. J A 116. He conclude d that the nature and
c ir c ums tanc e s o f t

he un de rl y ing of

fe ns e , the de fe nd ant’ s pr e vio us c on ta c ts wi th l aw e nf or c e me nt, and the de fenda

nt’s sta t u s a fe lon made the of fense a ser ious one. Id. Th e jud g e ind ir e c tly acknow ledg ed the delay in initiating prosec ution whe n he stated that Sy lvester’ s “havinga we apon
and dr ugpa ra ph e rn a lia in a ho us e so me c ou

ple of y e ars be fo re havin g pa

ro le re vo ke d” inf

or me d h isU ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

The judg e see ms to have misstated the refer ence points of t he delay , commenting that the 5 conduct oc curr ed a “ couple of y ear s” bef

ore the revocat i o n o f the de fenda nt’s parole rathe r than se ve ra l mo nth s b e fo re the fe de ra l g ov e rnme nt b ro ug ht c ha rg e s. Ho we ve r, thi s mi sst a te me nt s ho uld not affe ct the ana ly sis of whether the district court c onsidered the time lapse and r ejec ted it as m i t i g a t i n g f

a c t o r w ar r an t i n g l e n i e n c y. 8 u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e n a tu

r e an d c ir c u ms ta

n c e s o f th e u n d e r ly

in g o f f e n s e. Id. I n light of the 5 exchang es betwe en the judg e and Sylvester’ s counsel during the sentenc ing hear ing, a nd the judg e’s expli cit acknow ledg ment of the time that had e lapsed betwee n the conduc t givingrise to the fe dera l
c ha rg e and the de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc ing , th is C ourt fi nd s n o p la in e rr or

in t he dis tr ic t ju dg e ’s pr oc e ss
a s it c on c e rn s th e de fe nd ant’ s d e lay in p ro se c uti on

argume nt. 2. Time Spent in St ate Custody for Same Conduc t Sylve ste r’ s se c on d c on te nti on c on c e rn ingthe pr oc e dura l r e a so na ble ne ss of

his se nte nc e is that th e dist ri ct jud g e fa ile d to c on sid e r t he tim e Sylve ste r h a d s pe nt i n s tate c us tod y fo r t he same conduct. This ar g uments also lacks merit. As with S y lvester’ s pre- indictment delay argument, the judge offe red no spe cific a naly sis of the defe ndant’s st ate c ustody argument. Duringthe sentenc ing hear ing, how ever , defe nse counse l, in response to the dis t ri ct j u d g e’s e x presse d conce rns about Sy l v es t er ’s p ositive drug test on Dec ember 11, 2006, descr ibed Sy lvester’ s state of mind upon lear ning that the firea

rm offe nse was a sepa

rate crime unde r fe dera l law and that the time Sylvester had spent in state c ustody

could be suppleme nted by a separate prosec ution, conviction, and sentenc e in the fede ral c ourt sy stem. J A 109-110. In other wor ds, Sy lvester pr esente d this factor f o r the judge ’s consider ation in the context of an eff ort to ex p l ai n the circ umstances surr ounding the defe ndant’s re cent dr

ug use, and it is in that context t hat the judg e conside red the argument.U ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

9 Of primar y importance among the judg e’s r easons for imposing a six ty -month sentence was Sy lvester’ s positive drug test while on bond and Sylvester’ s v eh ement denia l, which the cour t considere d “especi ally

eg reg ious.” J A 116. The c ourt emphasized Sy lvester’ s “per sistent
a s s o c iati o nw it

h dr u g s ” an d r e c o mm e n d e d

a s p art o f

h is s e n te n c e th a t S y lv e s te r r e c e iv e in te nsive substance a

buse treatmen t d u ri n g h i s incar cer ation. J A 117. In addition, the judge g ave the following rea sons for the se ntence : the need to pr ovide just punishment and an adequate deter renc e to c ri min a l a c tiv ity ; th e ne e d t o prote c t th e pu bli c ; and the du ty to p ro vid e the de fe nd ant w ith medical, e ducational, a

nd corr ectional tre atment. As to this last fac tor, the judg e re commended that Sy lvester be aff

orded oppor

tunities for vocational training during his term of imprisonment. Given the c on te x t in wh ic h th e jud g e c on sid e re d Sylve ste r’ s argume nt c on c e rn ingtim e a lr e a dy sp e nt i n state custody

and the counter

balanc ing weig ht the judge attache d to the other sente ncing fac tors, the district court committed no plain err or. B
. Sub sta

nti ve Re a so na

ble ne ss Havingdeter

mined that the sentenc e imposed mee ts the standards f or proc edura l
re a so na ble ne ss, thi s Co ur

t no w t ur ns to S y lvester ’s asse rt ion s th a t hi s se nte nc e is s ub sta nti ve ly
unrea so n a

b le
. A na

b u s e - o f

- d is c r e ti o ns ta

n d ar d a p p li e s to c h a ll e n g e s to th e s u b s ta n tive
rea sonablene ss of a sente nce. Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597. Unlike cha lleng es to proce dural
rea sonablene ss, however , a par ty need not objec t below to the re asonable ness of the le ng th of a sentenc e. Vonner , 516 F.3d at 389. Conseque ntly , even if a defe ndant fa ils to obj ect at sentencing to the leng th of the sentenc e of imposed, the sta ndard of revi ew i s fo r abuse of discre tion. Id. Fur thermore , wher e, as here , a sentence falls within a properly calc ulated ra ng e under the SentencingU ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

10 Guidelines, a r ebuttable pr esumption of rea sonablene ss attache s. United Sta te s v . W illi a ms , 436 F.3d 70 6, 70 8 (6t

h Cir. 20 06 ). B e c a

us e Sylve ste r’ s sen te nc e fa lls wi thi n the a dv iso ry g uid e lin e ra

ng e , th is Court re vie ws his sen ten c e un de r a n a bu se -o f- dis c re tio n s tand ard and a pp lie s a re bu tta ble pr e su mpt ion

of re a so na ble ne ss. A se nte nc e is su

bs tanti ve ly re a so na

ble if it i s “ su ff ic ie nt, bu t no t g re a te r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry ,” to advanc e the pur

poses of the fede ral sente ncing statute at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)( 2). Thus, Sy lvester must show that the leng th of hi s sentenc e is sufficie nt, but not g reater than nece ssary , to promote the fo llo wi ngg oa ls: (A) to refle ct the ser iousness of the off ense, to promote re spect for the law, a

nd to provide just punishment for the off ense; (B ) to a ff

or d a de qu a te de te rr e nc e to c ri min a l c on du c t; (C) to protect the public f rom furthe r cr imes of the def endant; and (D) to provide the de fenda nt with needed e ducational or vocational tra ining, medical c are , or other c orre ctive tre atment in the most effe ctive manne r. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)
. A sentenc e may

be substantively unrea sonable wher e the sentenc ing judge has selec ted the sentenc e ar

bitrarily ; has relied upon on imper missibl e fa ctors; has fa ile d t o co n sider the f actor s
enumer ated in § 3553(a) ; or has assig ned unrea sonable weig ht to any rele vant fac tor. United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2005). Sy lvester’ s appellate challeng e to the substantive re asonable ness of his se ntence consists of fu rt he r r e fe re nc e to t

he mit ig a tin g fa c tor s a

bo ve and an argume nt that the se nte nc e is unn e c e ssa ri ly long to a chieve the desire d deter rent e ffe ct, particula

rly g iven the time Sylvester ha s alrea dy spent in state custody . Be cause Sy lvester wa s sentence d to a term within the applica ble g uideline ra

ng e,U ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

11 wh ic h h e ha s c on c e de d w a s c or re c tly c a lc ulate d, he mus t r e bu t th e pr e sumpt ion of re a so na ble ne ss which attac hes to a within-guidelines sentenc e. W illiams , 436 F.3d at 708. This he has fa iled to do. Acc ording to Sy lvester, his sentenc e is s ubstantively unrea sonable be cause , in part, the district court fa iled to consider that the f eder al g overnme nt waited to indict him until more than one y ear afte r he completed his state sentenc e for the sa me conduc t and appr ox imately eig hteen months afte r the ATF rec ommended prose cution. On appe al, Sy lvester a rg ues that he suf

fer ed prejudice as
a re sult of this delay

beca use a “ possibili ty ” existed “that [his ] sentence mig ht have be en re duced by as much a s eig hteen months . . . had the district court considered the arguments raised in mitigation . . . .” Pl.’s Final Reply

Br . 4. The mer e po ssi bi lit ythat Sy lvester’ s sentence might have be en reduc ed fa ils to rebut the presumption of re asonable ness ac corde d to a within guide lines sentence , pa rt ic ula rl y be c a us e , a s dis c us se d a

bo ve , the se nte nc ing jud g e c on sid e re d the e ff e c t of the de lay in h i s s en t en ci n g d et erm i n at i o nan d fo u n d o t h er re l ev an tfa ct o rs m o re co mp el l i n g. The sec ond rea son Sy lvester advance s in his challeng e to the substantive re asonable ness of his se nte nc e is the punis hme nt he re c e ive d in state c ourt fo r the un de rl yingc on du c t g ivi ngri se to h is f e d e r a l c o n v i c t i o n . S y l v e s t e r s e e m s t o b e ar g u i n g t h a t t h e d i s tr i c t c o u rt s h o u l d h a v e g r an t e d h im
cre dit for time serve d in state custody . Howeve r, only t h e At torney Gene ral a

nd the B urea

u of Prisons have the power

to gr ant cr edit for time ser ved. United States v. W

ilson , 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992) ( construing 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b)); United States v. Crozier , 259 F.3d 503 ( 6th Cir. 2001). A district court judg e who imposes a sentenc e without c onsidering time se rved as a mitigating fac tor proper ly ref rains fr om gr anting cre dit for time serve d. Acc ording ly , Sy lvester ha s failed to show that his se nte nc e is s ub sta

nti ve ly inf ir m on thi s b a sis
.U ni t ed St at es v. Syl ves t er 07- 1251

12 Finally , Sy lvester c ontends that a sente nce well below six ty (60) months would provide adequate deter

renc e to his fu t u re crimi nal conduc t, espec ially beca use he ha s alrea dy

been incar cer ated in the state sy stem for the same conduct that resulted in the federa l char g e. Sy lvester offe rs no support for this ba re a ssertion, and, in lig ht of his repe ated violations of the c onditions of his state offe nse probation, his state offe nse parole , and his fede ral off ense pr esente nce r elea se bond, this contention is unpersuasive. I n sum, Sy lvester ha s failed to demons trate that the sentenc ing judg e imposed an a rbitrar y sentenc e, base d the sentenc e on impermissible factor s, failed to conside r per tinent statutory

fac tors under § 3553( a), or

acc orded unr easona

ble weig ht to any

rele vant fa ctor. Sylvester ha s theref ore failed to re but the presumption that his within-guidelines se ntence i s s u b s tantively rea sonable. Con se qu e ntl y , h is c ha lle ng e be for e th is C ourt to t he su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss o f h is s e nte nc e is without merit. I I I . CONCL USI ON For the fore g oing r easons, the se ntence imposed by the district court is AF FI RMED.