NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 10a0004n.06 No. 08-6129 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. DORRYLGREER a/k/a Doyle Gre er, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A P P E AL F R OM 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 TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

B EF OR E: SUH RH EI NR I CH , M c KE AG UE , a

nd KE TH L ED GE , Ci rc uit

Judg e s.
McK eague, Ci rc u i t Ju dge. I n this sentencing case , Dorry l Gree r appe als his sentence as being proce durally unrea sonable due to the district c ourt’s fa ilure to ade quately explain it s rea sons for reje cting his request for

a downwa

rd var iance , as re quired by the S entenc ing Guidelines. Finding no plain err or in the sentenc e imposed, we AF F IRM
. I. Def endant Gr eer

was the pa s s en ger i n a vehic le that offic ers stopped a fter the y observe d suspected dr

ug activity

and noticed that ne ither of the vehicle’ s occupa nts w ere wea

ring seatbe lts. As part of the stop, office rs aske d Gre er to ke ep his hands on the dashboar d while they appre hended the driver. T he officer s initially beca me concerne d about Gre er a fter he moved his hands off the dashboar d and towar ds his lap multi ple times during the stop. Afte r t h ey d etained the car ’s driver , the offic ersNo. 08-6129

United States v. Gre er

- 2 - attempted to re move Gre er f rom the vehic le throug h the passeng er door , but they wer e unable to open this door. I nstead, Gr eer exit ed through the driver’ s side door, and a st rug g le ensue d betwee n Gre er and the of fice rs. One of

the officers noticed a gun in Gre er’ s waistband and yelled “Gun!” to a lert the oth e r o ff ic e r. B oth

Gr e e r a nd the of fi c e r r e a c he d f

or the g un a t th e same tim e , a

nd the str ug g le continued for

the wea pon. Acc ording to Gree r’s testimony , he re ache d for the gun out of fea r and the desire thr ow it from his person. Additional officers soon a rrived on the scene , and Gr eer was eventua lly

subdued with the aid of pe pper spr ay . Gre er ple d g uilty

to one count of be ing a

felon in possession of a f irea rm in viola t i o n of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). The Pre-Sentenc e I nvestig ation Report rec ommended a prison sentenc e of 84 to 105 months, based on a total offense level of 25 and a criminal history cate g ory of I V. Prior to imposing the se nte nc e , the dis tr ic t c ourt c on du c te d a se nte nc ing he ari ng he ld on tw o s e pa rate da y s, a t w hic h ti me the ar resting office rs and Gr eer testified. In addition, a fire arms expert g ave information on the ty pe of fi re arm and ma g a zine fo un d in Gr e e r’ s po sse ssi on , w hic h w e re c a pa ble of sh oo tin g larg e a mou

nts of rounds in a short period of time. Be fore testimony was heard, Gree r’s attorney g ave the district court
nume ro us le tte rs wr itt e n o n G re e r’ s b e ha lf , w hic h d e ta ile d G re e r’ s g oo d b ehav io r du ri nghis incar cer ation and his participation in educational opportunities. In response to the letters, the district court a cknowledg ed that Gr eer had “a g ood experience ” and “ac compl ishments” while awa iting sentenc ing. T he cour

t also noted that Gre er ha d experience d a “b ig c hang e” “ rea l quickly .” Dur ing the hea ring , one of the off

icer s testified that Gre er ha d provided a uthorities with information reg arding auto theft a

nd drugtraff

icking , activities in which member s of his family had eng ag ed. In addition, Gre er te stified that he did not intend to hurt any one whe n he re ache d for the g un. He a lso testified thatNo. 08-6129

United States v. Gre er

- 3 - he ca rried the g un out of fea

r for his safety beca use he had been t he victim of a rece nt robbery in which the assailant ha d fired shots at him. He f urther testified that he attended churc h, wrote g ospel music, and work ed two jobs . DuringGre er’ s testimony , his attorney ag ain mentioned the letter s detailing Gr e e r’s good wo rk

and c ha ng e d b e havio r a

nd sh ow e d th e m to the c ourt . T he c ourt a g a in acknow ledg ed the letter s and noted that Gre er’ s time ha d been “ well spent.” G ree r made a fina l plea to the court for

leniency g iven that he pr ovided ca re a nd financ ial assis t an ce to his ailing mother. Gr e e r’ s fami ly app aren tly wa s n ot p re se nt i n th e c ourt wh ile thi s te sti mony

wa s h e ard . Ins te a d, his attorney reque sted that the fa

mily be let into the cour

troom at the close of

testimony
. Prior to the court imposing the sentenc e , Gre er’ s attorney reque sted a downw ard va rianc e fr om the Guideline s an d s u gg ested a sentenc e of 70 months. To support the va rianc e re quest, Gre er’ s attorney listed the following f

actor s: the rec ent robbe ry

that cause d Gre er to f

ear for his saf

ety and ca rry the g un; the two level enha nceme nt used to calc ulate the se ntence rang e due to the ty pe of w eapon a

nd mag azine; the fac t that Gree r did not intend to hurt the office rs; the prog ress that Gr eer had made since his pr e vio us inc arc e ratio n; a nd the oth e r f

a c tor that his a tto rn e y “ ta lke d a bo ut
. . . pr ior to t

he fa mil y . . . comi n g i n . ” (Sentenc ing H ear ing T r. 79–80, Sept. 18, 2009.) As to this last factor , the district court re plied, “Well, Iunderstand.” I n an oral decision encompassing near ly ten transc ript pag es, the district cour t acknowle dg ed Gre er’ s reque st for a va

rianc e and also noted the objectives of “18 U SC S ection 3553.” ( Sentencing Hr ’gTr . 8 6, Se pt. 18 , 2 00 9. ) T he c ourt lis te d the fo llo wi ng fa c tor s we ig hin g in fa vo r o f t he 84 -m on th
s en t en ce t h at i t i mp o s ed : t h e s er i o u s n es s o f p o s s es s i n g a fi re arm an d m aga z i n e cap ab l e o f f i ri n g a l ar ge number of ro u n ds; Gree r’s leng thy criminal history

which included a

prior we apons violation; theNo. 08-6129

United States v. Gre er

- 4 - importance o f p rotec ting the public; the de terre nt effe ct of sente ncing ; and the ser iousness of the
a lte rc a tio n w iththe po lic e of fi c e rs . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

a lso a c kn ow le dg e d th a t Gre e r ha d ma de pr og re ss in h is l if e and wo rk e d tw o jo bs . F ina lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt no ted th at th is ty

pe of be havio r w ou ld normally be sente nced a

t the highe r end of

the Guidelines ra

ng e due to t h e s er i o usness of Gr eer ’s
ac t i o n s , b u tt h at Gr ee r w as re ce i v i n g a s en t en ce at th e l o w e n d o f t h e ra n ge d

u e t o h i s ef

fo rt s t o ch an ge his life and due to the f

actor “[his] counsel a lluded to.” (Sentenc ing H r’gTr. 89, Sept. 18, 2009.) At the end of

the hea ring the district cour t as k ed , “A ny objection from e ither side? ” Gr eer ’s attorne y
re sp on de d, “ No , Y our H on or .” Gr e e r n owa pp e a ls his sente nc e , c la imi ngthat it is p ro c e dura lly
unrea sonable be cause the district court fa iled to addre ss all of his a rg uments in favor of

a downwa

rd varia nce a nd failed to a dequate ly

explain it s rea sons for imposing the sentenc e.

II. We reviewthe re asonable ness of a sentenc e for

an abuse of discre tion. United States v. Lapsins , 570 F.3d 758, 772 ( 6th Cir. 2009). This review ha s both a proce dural a nd substantive component. Id
. I n thi s c a se , Gr e e r a lle g e s pr oc e dura l unre a so na ble ne ss on ly
. “ A s e nte nc e may be he ld pr oc e dura lly

un re a so na

ble if it i s ma rk e d b y ‘s ig nif ic ant p ro c e dura l e rr or , s uc h a s f a ili ngto c a lc ulate (o r i mpr op e rl y

c a lc ulatin g ) t

he Gu idelin es range , tr e a tin g the Gu ide lin e s a s ma nd a tor y , f a ili ngto
c on sid e r t he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s, se le c tin g a

se nte nc e ba se d o n c le arl y erro neo us fa c ts, or fa ili ngto adequately

explain the ch o s en s en t ence —including a n explanation for any

deviation from the Guidelines ra

ng e.’” United States v. Houston , 5 2 9 F. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 5 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)).No. 08-6129

United States v. Gre er

- 5 - I f the district cour

t properly asks for obje ctions after

imposing the sentenc e and the defe ndant fails t o object, then we r eview the sentenc e for plain err or. United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (e n banc) . Under the plain err or standard, a defe ndant must show “(1) e rror , (2) that
wa s o bv iou s o r c le ar, (3 ) that a ff e c te d d e fe nd ant’ s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts and

(4 ) t hat a ff e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, integ rity , or public re putation of the ju d i cial procee dings.” Id. at 386 (interna l quotations omi tted). I n this case, the district c ourt asked whether Gr ee r had a ny objections afte r sentenc ing, a nd Gre er’ s counsel re plied “No.” Thus, we r eview G ree r’s sente nce f or plain er

ror. Se e id
. Under the SentencingGuidelines, a district c ourt must state t he reasons for the impositi on of
a pa rt ic ula r se nte nc e . 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( c ); United States v. Grams , 566 F.3d 683, 686 (6th Cir. 2009) (p er cu ri am ). W h i l e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o d i s cu s s ea ch s t at u t o ry fa ct o r i ni mp o s i n g a sentenc e, it must provide an explanation that indicates a n individualiz ed asse ssment of the fa cts and allows for rea sonable a

ppellate r eview. United States v. Gapinski , 561 F.3d 467, 474 (6th Cir. 2009). The re cord must indicate that the district c ourt was fully awa re of and c onsidered a ll of the defe ndant’s arguments. Id. I n this c as e, Gr ee r does not contend that the district court fa iled to consider the Guidelines rang e or the rele vant § 3553(a) fac tors. Rather, he argues proc edura l unrea sonablene ss solely on the basis of the district cour

t’s failure to addre ss some of his arguments in favor of a dow nwar d varia

nce. Gre er spe cifica lly

argues that the district cour t failed to addr ess and expli citly reje ct his argument that he (1 ) h a d c oo pe rate d w itha uth or iti e s, (2 ) ne e de d to c are fo r h is a ili ngmot he r, and (3 ) w a s th e vic tim
o f a prior ar

med robbe ry . Our re cent de cision in United States v. Simmons , 587 F.3d 348 ( 6th Cir. 2009), provides guidance in this case. In that case , the defe ndant reque sted a downw ard va rianc e dueNo. 08-6129

United States v. Gre er

- 6 - to the disparate treatment under the G uidelines betwe en cr ack coca ine and powder coca ine. Id. at 360. The district cour

t did not ex p l i ci t ly

respond to this argument in sentencing
. Id. The Sim mo ns court noted that g ener ally

the district court must addre s s arguments that are clea rly prese nted during sentenc ing. Id. at 361. However, this re quirement is circ umscribed whe n the cour t evaluate s leg al arguments, ra ther than f

actua l disputes. Id. a t 36 2. F ur the r, “ [w]he re a

pa rt y make s a c on c e ptu a lly straig htforwa

rd leg al ar g ument for a

lower se ntence under one of the § 355 3 (a) fac tors, the district
c ourt ’s de c isi on no t to a dd re ss the pa

rt y ’s argume nt e xpre ssl y is no t an e rr or wh e n th e c ourt oth e rw ise discussed the spec ific fa ctor a nd appea rs to have c onsidered a

nd implicitl y

reje cted the a

rg ument.” Id. Ba sed on this analy sis, the Simmons court de termined that the district court did not commit plain error b y f a il in g to r e s p o n d to th e d e f e n d an t’ s ar g u me n t r e g ar d in g th e s e n te n c in g d is p ar it y b e tw e en cr ack
coca ine and powde r coc aine. Id. at 363. I n evaluating Gr eer ’s claims under the g uidance of Simmons , it is clear that the district c ourt’s fa ilure to s pe c if

ic a lly re sp on d to e a c h o f G re e r’ s argume nts do e s n ot a mou nt t o p la in e rr or . U nd e r h is first argument, Gre er c laims that the district court er red in fa iling to re spond to h is argument that he p r o v i d edau t h o ri t i es wi t h i n fo rm at i o nre gar d i n g h i s fa m i l y ’s cr i m i n al b eh av i o r. I nre qu es t i n g a downwar d varia

nce, G ree r’s attorney

ref ere nced G ree r’s a ssistance by noting the othe r fa ctor “ talked about . . . prior to the f

amily . . . coming in.” (Sentenc ing H r’gTr. 79–80, Sept. 18, 2009.) The district court spec ifically

addre ssed this argument by telling Gr eer

that his sentence was at the low end of the Guidelines ra

ng e in par t due to the factor that “y our counse l alluded to ear lier.” ( SentencingHr’gTr. 89 , Se pt. 18 , 2 00 9. ) It is c le ar f ro m th e se nte nc ingtr anscri pt th a t G re e r’ s atto rn e y did no t w ant t o sp e c if ic a lly me nti on the inf or matio n G re er prov ide d a bo ut h is f a mil y ’s c ri min a l a c tiv ity

wh ile hisNo. 08-6129

United States v. Gre er

- 7 - family was in the c ourtroom. Thus, both Gre er’ s attorney and the district c ourt alluded to this factor wi tho ut d isc us sin g it i n s pe c if ic de ta il. Th is w a s n ot p la in e rr or on the pa rt of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. Un de r h is s e c on d a

rgume nt, Gr e e r c la ims th at th e di stric t c ourt fa ile d to re sp on d to his argument that he provide d support to his ailing mother. Gre er’ s attorney did not specifica lly ask for a downwa

rd var iance due to Gre er’ s assistance to his sick mother. R at h er , t his information was prese nted more g ener ally in the form of a

letter fr om Gree r’s mother a nd the testimony

of Gre er himself. The district cour t twice ac knowledg ed the letter s submitt ed on Gre er’ s behalf . Fur ther, a fter Gre er himself p l ea d ed for lenie ncy in part due to his ailing mother, the district cour t responded, “ I understand, I

understand.” (Sentenc ing H r’gTr. 53–54, Sept. 18, 2009.) Finally , it is not plain err or when the district c ourt fails to addre ss a conc eptually straig htforwa

rd argument so long a s the rec ord is clea r t hat t he dis trict court considered the argument and im plicitly reje cted it. Simmons , 587 F.3d at 362. Given that the district c ourt ac knowledg ed Gr eer ’s ar g ument reg ar d i ng his mother on three separ ate occa sions, it is clear from hea ring transcr ipt that the court consider ed Gr eer ’s ar g ument and imp lic itl y re je c te d it
. Under his third arg ument, Gre er c laims that the district court fa iled to respond to his argument that h e w a s c ar

r y in g th e g u n b e c a

u s e h e h a d b e e n th e v ic ti m o f a r e c e n t ar me d r o b b e r

y . Whil e the district court did not specific ally discuss the arme d robber y when impos ing the sentenc e, at an ear lier point in the hear ing the court did me ntion the “incident in 2007” and noted that it wa s a “bad sc ene”
and that G re e r h a d r epo rt ed it to th e po lic e . ( Se nte nc ingHr ’gTr . Se pt. 18 , 2 00 8 7 3– 74 .) Th e se
re fe re nc e s ma

ke cle ar th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on sid e re d th is a

rgume nt, a s r e qu ir e d b y

our p re c e de nt. See G apinski , 561 F.3d at 474.No. 08-6129

United States v. Gre er

- 8 - As a final matter, Greer urg es t hat t his court’s de cision in United States v. Buffington , 3 10 F. Ap p’ x 757 (6 th C ir . 200 9) , g ov e rn s the ou tc ome in his c a se be c a us e in t hat c a se the se nte nc e wa s h e ld to be proc edura lly

unrea s o n ab l e after the district cour t failed to re spond to three of the def endant’ s
argume nts fo r a

do wnwa rd va ri anc e . T o b e g in w ith , w e loo k to un pu blish e d d e c isi on s f

or the ir p er s u as ive value only
. Lon ga be rg e r Co . v . Ko lt , 5 8 6 F
. 3 d 4 5 9 , 4 6 8 ( 6 th

Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. G iv e nthe abundanc e of published a

uthority on this iss ue, Buffington ’s persua sive value is diminished. Furthe r, Buffington is d ist inguis ha ble fr om t he c a se a t ba

r a nd the re fo re do e s n ot d ic tate th e ou tcome of thi s
ca s e. Fi rs t , i ti s u n cl ea r f ro m re ad i n g Buffington whether the plain er

ror standa rd of r eview a

pplied. See 310 F. App’ x at 762 (ex plaining that the court re views a se ntence for “ rea sonablene ss”). Give n Gre er’ s failure to object to the s entenc e after prompted by the district court, his ca se cle arly falls under the plain er

ror standa rd of r eview. See V

onner , 516 F. 3 d at 385. Second, it is equally unclea r fr om
re ad i n g Buffington whether the arguments wer e prese nted to the district c ourt in the same manne r that the ar g uments wer e presented in thi s case . As explained above, G ree r did not specific ally raise a ll of his argume nts in the c on te xt o f a sk ing fo r a do wnwa rd va ri anc e . A nd

the dis tr ic t c ourt

re sp on de d to the ar g uments in the same manne r that Gre er’ s attorne y argued them. Thus, it is clear from the sentenc ing tr anscr ipt in thi s case t h at the district court “ considere d and implicitly reje cted” all of Gre er’ s arguments for a

downwar d varia

nce. Simmons , 587 F.3d at 362. III . For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
.