The Honor able Sandr a S. Bec kwith, Senior United States District J udg e for the Southern * District of Ohio, 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 File Na me: 10a0740n.06 No. 10-5126 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, ) ) P laintif f-App ellee, ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED v. ) STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE ) EASTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY ARRO N K

EITH RH OD ES, ) ) Defendan t-Appellant. )

BEFORE: KETHLEDGE and W HI TE , C ir c ui t Judges; and B ECKWITH, Senior District * Judge. BECKWITH, Senior District Judge. De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt A rr on Ke ithRho de s a

pp e a ls the 30 month sentence of i m p ri s o n ment imposed by the district court followinghis conviction on
on e c ount o f b ank

fr a ud in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 13 44
. Rho de s’ s a pp e a l r a ise s thre e a ssi g nme nts of er ror: 1) the district court mi scalc ulated the amount of l oss cause d by the offense; 2) the district court erre d by permitting both the vi ctim of t he offense and the vi ctim’s attorney to addre ss the court durin g th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g ; an d 3 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e r r e d b y f a il in g to a d e qu a te ly explain the
rea sons fo r the sente nce it sele cted a nd by failing to addre ss his non-frivolous arguments for a sentenc e below the SentencingGuidelines ra ng e. F or the re asons that follow, we conclude thatNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

2 Rhodes’s first two assig nments of err or are without mer it a nd they are , there fore, o v erruled . We
a g re e wi th R

ho de s, ho we ve r, that the dis tr ic t court c omm itt e d r e ve rs ibl e e rr or by fa ili ngto a dd

re ss his non-frivolous arguments for a sentenc e below the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e. Ac cording ly , the jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRMED IN P ART AND REVERSE D IN P ART . Appellant’s
se nte nc e is VACATED and thi s c a se is RE M AN DE D fo r r es en t en ci n g.

I. Rhodes was re sponsible for handling the finances of thre e compa nies owned by

David F ried - Comtronics, I nc., Comtronics Enterpr ises, I nc., and Tribute 911, L L C. Rhodes was also a pa rtner wi th F ri e d in

Com tr on ic s E nte rp ri se s. Rho de s e mbe zzle d a pp rox im ate ly

$3 80 ,0 00 fr om t

he se companie s betwee n J uly

2005 and January

2009, mainly

by authorizing e lectronic funds transf ers (“EF T’s”) from the companies’ accounts int o his persona l acc ounts, and also by fra udulently issuing himself chec ks drawn on c ompany acc ounts. Rhodes’s illeg al ac tiviti es ca me to light in J anuar

y 20 0 9 when a

bookkeepe r noticed a discrepa ncy in the rec ords concer n i n g h i s compensation. F ried then r eviewe d the books and discovere d the unauthorized EF T’s into Rhodes’s ac counts. Fr ied and his attorney , J err y Ander son,
c on fr on te d Rh od e s a

bo ut t he tr ans fe rs and

Rho de s a dmi tte d at that ti me to s te a lin g a pp ro xima te ly $130,000. Rhodes and Fr ied enter ed into a n ag ree ment in which Rhodes admitted to the fra udulent EF T’ s and

a g re e d to re pa

y F ri e d $ 12 7, 50 0 b y

sig ning ov er the t itl e s to tw o n e w l uxur y ve hic le s,
surr e nd e ri nghis int e re st i n Co mtr on ic s E nte rp ri se s, and by a llo wi ngF ri e d’ s so n to liv e re nt- fr e e in one of his prope rties for a y ear . A subsequent inter nal audit conc luded that Rhodes had embe zz ledNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

3 over $ 3 8 1 , 0 0 0 f

r o m th e thr e e c o mp an ie s . A n d e r s o n r e p o rte d Rh o d e s ’ s th e f t to th e U
. S. Sec ret Se rv ic e wh e n th e a

ud it unc ov e re d a dd iti on a l un a uth or ize d tr ans fe rs . Rho de s e nte re d in to a

ple a a g re e m e nt

w i t h t h e g ov e rnme nt a

nd in S e pte mbe r 2 00 9 p le d guil ty to an information char g ing him with one count of bank fra ud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The probation off

icer completed a

prese nt ence repor

t (“PSR”) and c alculate d an advisory sentenc ing rang e under

the SentencingGuidelines. The PSR assigne d Rhodes a base offe nse level of 7 pursua nt to U.S.S.G. § 2 B1
. 1 (a ). The pr obation office r dete rmined that the loss from the of fense was $318,647.09. There fore , there was a 12 level incr ease pursuant t o U. S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)( 1)(G) becaus e the loss was g reater than $200,000 but less than $400,000. Rhodes r ece ived a two- level
e nh anc e me nt p ur su ant t o U .S. S.G . § 3B 1. 3 for a bu se of a po sit ion

of tr us t and a thr e e -l e ve l de c re a se pursuant to U .S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b) for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty and ente ring a timely

plea. The fina l offense level wa s 18. Coupled with a criminal history cate g ory of I , the re sulting advisory Gu ide lin e s se nte nc e wa s 2 7 to 33 mon ths of imp ri so nme nt. Th e P S R de te rm ine d th a t Rh od e s o we d r e sti tut ion of $3 18 ,6 47 .0 9 to F ri e d. Th e PSR acknow ledg ed that R hodes had a lrea dy paid $127,500 in restitution and acknow ledg ed that Rhodes had sold two parc els of rea l pr operty to pa y restitution. The PSRalso repor ted that in Aug ust 2009, Rhodes purcha sed B uddy ’s Restaura nt in L exington, Kentucky for $345,000 and that he e x pecte d to r e c e ive g ro ss i nc ome of $7 8, 00 0 p e r ye ar f

ro m th is b us ine ss. Finally , as is rele vant here, t he P SR repor ted t hat R hodes had been diag nosed by a license d clinical wor

ker a s having major depr essive disorder , bip o la r d is o r d e r , o b s e s s iv e c o mp u ls ive disorder, and par tner re lational problem. The social worke r stated that Rhodes’ s offe nse could not be blamedNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

4 on his emotional disorders but that they wer e re lated to his cri minal behavior. The social worke r stated that Rhodes wa s respondingwell to thera py and opined that his prog nosis was g ood and that he did not prese nt a risk to reof fend. Rhodes lodge d two objections to the PSR . First, he obje cted to the two- level enha nceme nt fo r ab u s e o f a posi tion of trust. Rhodes, however , did not appeal f rom that aspec t of the district court’s judg ment and so that issue is not before us. Second, Rhodes objec ted to the probation office r’s c alculation of the amount of loss cause d by the offe nse. Specific ally , Rhodes contende d that he should have rec eived a cr edit of $127,500 ag ainst the loss calculation because of the restitution he had alr eady paid Fr ied. Additionally , prior to the sente ncing hear ing, Rhode s filed a memorandum whic h asser ted that consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fa ctors wa rranted a noncustodial sentenc e. In support, Rhodes highlig hted, inte r a lia , his e mot ion a l dis or de rs , h is b on d w ith his infant daug hter, the social worker’s report indi cating that his criminal conduct was a berr ant and that he pre sented a

low risk to reoff

end, his extraordinary eff

orts to repa

y restitution, and the fa ct that
a te r m o f im p r is o n me n t w o u ld p r o b a

b ly f o r e c lo s e h is a

b il it y to ma k e f u ll r e s ti tuti o n s in c e there
wo uld be no on e to r

un his re sta ur ant. Rh o d e s c a me b e f

o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f

o r s e n te n c in g o n Janu ar

y 2 7 , 2 0 1 0
. At t h e s t art of the hea ring , Rhodes’s trial counse l reiterated his objection to the probation off icer ’s calc ulation of the amount of loss. Specifica lly , counsel a rg ued that Rh o d es wa s en titled to a cre dit of $127,500 be c a us e the tot a l lo ss f

ro m th e of

fe ns e wa s n ot q

uantif ie d at th e tim e he ma de thi s r e pa y me nt. Additionally , Rhodes objected when he le arne d that the g overnme nt intended to present to the court statements from F ried a

nd Ander son on the issue of victim impact. Counsel argued that neither Fe d.No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

Rul e 32 state s in

re le va nt p art : 1 B e fo re imp os ingse nte nc e , th e c ourt mus t a dd re ss a ny vic timof th e cri me wh o is prese nt at sentenc ing a

nd must permit the victim to be reasona bly hear d. Fe d. R. Crim. P . 32(i)(4) (B ).

Se c tio n 3 77 1 s tate s in

re le va nt p art : 2 A c ri me vic timha s th e . . . ri g ht t o b e re a so na bly he ard a t any pu bli c pr oc e e din g in the district court involving rele ase, ple a, sente ncing , or any parole proce eding
. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4)
.

5 R. C ri m. P. 32 (i )( 4) (B ) no r 18 U. S.C. § 37 71 pe rm it bo th the vic tim and the vic tim ’s a tto rn e y to 1 2 ad dre s s t h e c o u rt at s en t en ci n g. The district cour

t overrule d both of Rhodes’s objec tions. W ith reg ard to the loss ca lculation, the dis tr ic t c ourt

a pp e ars to h a ve a do pte d th e g ov e rnme nt’ s posi tio n that Rhod e s wa s not e nti tle d to
a cre dit be cause the victim de tected the crime befor e he repa id a ny of the stolen money . The c ourt did state, howeve r, that it would “conside r that this de fenda nt ha s reduc ed his inde btedness as par t of its evaluation of [the] 3553 factors.” Had the district judg e sustained this objection, Rhodes’s
o ff en s e c al cu l at i o nwo u l d

h av e b ee nre d

u ce d b y two l ev el s an d

t h e G u i d el i n es s en t en ci n g ra n ge would have c hang ed to 21 to 27 months of i mprisonment. The dist rict court denied Rhodes’ s second ob je c tio n on the g ro un ds that it wa s r e a so na

ble fo r b oth

the vic timand

the vic tim ’s a tto rn e y

to
a dd re ss t he c ourt
.No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

6 Ha vin g ov e rr

ule d Rho de s’ s ob

je c tio ns , the dis tr ic t c ourt a llo we d F ri e d and An de rs on to addre ss the issue of sentenc ing. Ander son argued that Rhodes had not acc epted responsibilit y for his c ri min a l be havio r and that he wa s tr ying to “ c on the Court ” be c a us e he ha d n ot c omp lie d w ith the J anuar

y 2009 ag ree ment to repa

y Fr ied $127,500. Fr ied’s st atement addresse d Rhodes’s bre ach of tr us t and he too su g g e ste d th a t Rh od e s had no t a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty fo r h is c ri min a l c on du c t. Rhodes then s poke on his own beha lf. Rhodes expressed re morse and his intention to repa y Fr ied the money he had stolen. Rhodes stated that he be lieved that the only way he could r epay

Fr ied
wa s to ke e p w or

kin g . Rh od e s als o sai d th at he ne e de d to ke e p w or kin g in o rd e r t o s up po rt

his daug hter. Rhodes’s attorne y

then aske d the district judge to impose a non-custodial sentenc e. Counsel
argue d th a t a

se nte nc e of

pr ob ation, ho me c on fi ne me nt, or c omm un ity c on fi ne me nt w ou ld b e st permit Rhodes to make full re stitut ion. I n particula r, counse l emphasized that Rhodes’s educ ation and wor k experience had per

mitted him t o run his restaur ant succ essfully and that he ha d been making re s ti tuti o np ay

me n ts , to ta li n g a

p p r o xim a te ly

$ 8 7 , 0 0 0 , to h e r

tr u s t a c c o u n t t

h a t s h e w as prepa red to turn ove r on his behalf
. Counsel the n discussed Rhodes’s ef forts to make r estitution, t he fac t that this was an aber

rant crime, his low risk of rec idivism , as indicated by the social worke r, and his effor ts to address the e mot i o n al p ro b lems that contributed to his commission of the offense
. Counsel a lso indicated that since Rhode s was now se lf-employ ed, a te rm of imprisonment was not
re qu ir e d f or de te rr e nc e purp os e s and

argue d that he ha d a lr e a dy be e n su ff ic ie ntl y punis he d f

or his offe nse.No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

7 The g overnme nt, on the other ha nd, argued that all of the fac tors identified by Rhodes wer e alre ady taken into consider ation by the SentencingGuidelines, and that, ther efor e, a se ntence below the Guidelines ra

ng e wa s inappropriate. The go v ernment stated that in light of the se riousness of the offe nse, the duration of Rhodes’s criminal conduc t, the amount of money stolen, and the ne ed to promote respe ct for the law, a se ntence at the bottom of the Guidelines r ang e wa s appropr iate. Th e dis tr ic t ju dg e the n p ro no un c e d h e r s e nte nc e and the re a so ns fo r i t: All counsel have cer

tainly g iven t his Court g ood food for thought. This is, indeed, a n unusual ca s e. Unlike so many who come be fore this Court wit h no hope, no education, no family , and a leng thy criminal history , this defenda nt has nocriminal history , lo ving a

nd supportive family , a colleg e educ ation, intelligenc e, has be en e mpl oy e d a

nd ha s b e e n e mpl oy a

ble , is we ll l ike d a

nd we ll tru ste d and ha s b e e n w e ll compensated for his wor

k. Ordinar ily , these factors would, indee d, mitigate a g ainst a sentenc e of inc arc eration in this case . But in this particula r case , they don’t. This de fenda nt didn’ t ha

ve to be arme d with a g un. He ha d a pen, a cce ss to a computer, r espec tability , and the trust of colleagues. He di d n ’t h av e t o rob a ba nk. He ha d trust that enabled him to, over a fo ur -y e ar p e ri od

of tim e , e ng a g e in 4 9 s e pa

ra te c ri min a l tr ans a c tio ns . A nd that is ba se d o n h is a dmi ssi on

in t he fa c tua l st a temen t con ta ine d in the ple a a g re e me nt. Al so , in the ple a a g re e me nt at

Para g ra ph6, the de fe nd ant a dmi ts t hat he sto le a t le a st $318,647.09 in these some-49 tra nsactions. The Court wants to make it cle ar that for purposes of the sentenc e it will rely only on the amount that t h e defe ndant has admitted to in the plea ag ree ment. Irec og nize that there is a dispute a nd that it may in f a c t be mor e ; but g ive n th e lim ite d r e c or d b e fo re thi s Co ur t and the fa c t th a t th is is a criminal, not a c ivil case , the C ourt will consider this sentenc e based only on the a dmi ssi on s c on ta ine d o nly in t he ple a a g re e me nt. Therefo re , Mr. Arr on Keith Rhodes, it is the judgment of this Court that y ou are here by committed to the custody of the Bur eau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a ter m of 30 mon ths . T his is a

se nte nc e that is ba se d o n th e c ha ra c te ri sti c s o f t

his de fe nd ant, the seriousne ss of the cr ime, and will promote re spect for the law a

nd provide treatment for the de fenda nt during the per iod of his incarc eration.No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

8 Sent. Tr. at 34-35. The district court also imposed five y ear s of supervise d re lease and orde red Rhodes to pay

restitution of $318,647.09. The d i s trict court e ntere d its judgment and c ommitm ent orde r on January 29, 2010 and Rhodes filed a tim ely notice of appea l. There fore , we have jurisdiction over this appe al pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). II. As ind ic a te d, Rho de s r a ise s thre e a ssi g nme nts of e rr or in t his a pp e a l. We take up the se
a ssi g nme nts of

e rr or se ri a tim
. A. L oss Calculation Rhodes’s first assig nment of er ror a rg ues that the district cour t er re d in calculating the advisory Guidelines sentenc e by

not givinghim a cre dit of $127,500 ag ainst the total loss from the offe nse base d on his init ial restitution pay ment to Frie d. Rhodes contends that he was e ntitled to a
cre dit pursuant to Application Note 3(E) to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 beca use “the loss involved
. . . was not ‘dete cted’ at the time that he r epaid the sum o f $ 1 2 7 , 5 0 0
. ” Appellant’s Brief at 13. The district court a dopted the g overnme nt’s argument that Rhodes was not entitled to a cre dit because he did not make this pay

ment until Fried c onfronted him about the una uthorized EFT’s. We r e vie w the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t at sen te nc ingfo r c le ar e rr or and its interpre tation of t he Sentenc ing Guidelines de novo. Un ite d S tates v . Ca ne

strar o , 282 F.3d 427, 431 (6 th C ir . 2 00 2) . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a pp lic a tio n o f t

he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s to u nd isp ute d f

a c ts, howeve r, is e ntitled to defe renc e. Id. I n this case , the facts surroundingthe amount of loss ca used by the offense are not in issue. Rather, at issue is the l eg al questi on whether Rhodes is entitled underNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

9 t h e S e n t e n c i n g G u i d e l i n e s t o a c r e d i ta g a i n s tt h e l o s s b a s e d o n t h e u n d i s p u t e d

f a c t s . A c c o r d i n g l y,
we g ive de fe re nc e to the dis tr ic t court ’s int e rp re tatio n a nd a pp lic a tio n o f t

he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s. Ap pli c a tio n N ote 3( E) to U .S. S.G . § 2B 1. 1 s tate s in re le va nt p art : C re d i t s Aga i n s tL o s s . -- L o s s s h al l b e r ed u ce d b y t h e f o l l o wi n g: T h e money

returne d, and the f

air mar ket value of

the prope rty

returne d and the se rv ic e s r e nd e re d, by

the de fe nd ant o r o the r p e rs on s a c tin g joi ntl y wi th t he de fe nd ant, to t he vic timbe fo re the of

fe ns e wa s d e te c te d. Th e tim e of de te c tio n o f t

he of fe ns e is the ea rlier of (I ) the time t h e o ff

en s e wa s discovere d by

a victim or g overnme nt ag ency ; or (I I ) the time the defe ndant knew or rea sonably should ha ve known that the offe nse wa s detec ted or a bout to be detec ted by

a victim or g overnme nt ag ency . U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, Application Note 3(E)(i). Rely ing on this section, Rhodes conte nds that Frie d had not “fully

detec ted” the of

fense when he made the initial pay ment of $127,500 b eca

use the subsequent au d i t went on to deter mine that the loss was ac tually g reater. Appe llant’s Br ief at 13. Rhodes argues that unt il the audit was completed, Fr ied onl y had “suspicions” that the EF T’s we re imp ro pe r a

nd that, t he re fo re , h e is e nti tle d t o a c re dit a g a ins t th e los s. We r e

je c t th is a

rgume nt, ho we ve r, be c a

us e it i s b a se d o n a mis int e rp re tatio n of bo th t he re c or d a

nd the Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s. Al tho ug h n ot s tate d in

pr e c ise ly thi s fa sh ion , Rhod e s app are ntl y int e rp re ts A pp lic a tio n N ote 3( E) (i ) s o th a t an o ff

e ns e is n ot “d e te c te d” un til the tot a l loss fr om t he of fe ns e is d e te rm ine d. Th is int e r p r e t a t i o n , h o w e v e r , i s a to d d s w i t h t h e p l a i nl an g u a g e o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o nn o t e , w h i c h c l e a rl y states that the defe ndant is entitled to a cre dit for money returne d befor e the “of

fe ns e ” is detecte d by the victim, not when the am ou nt o f lo ss is detecte d by

the v i ct i m . R h o d es does not cite any authority in support of his interpretation of this application note. United States v. Calkins , 1 93 F. App’x 417 (6th Ci r. 2006), whic h Rhodes does cite in his brief, is inapposite beca use it addre ssedNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

10 the sentenc ing c ourt’s misapplication of Application Note 3(E)( ii), which provide s for a cre dit for the amount the victim rec overs f rom the disposition of collatera l. Rho de s’ s c on te nti on

that he is e nti tle d to a

c re dit purs ua nt t o App lic a tio n N ote 3( E) be c a us e Fr ied only

“suspec ted” him of c riminal activity is not supported by the re cord. The PSRstates that a bookkee per discove red the “fr audulent ac tivity ,” that Fried c onfronted Rhode s about the “know n fr a ud ule nt E F T’ s, ” and

tha t Rh od e s a dmi tte d to makin g the “ fr a ud ule nt EF T’ s. ” PSR ¶

¶ 7 -8 . T hu s, the PSR ’s fi n d i n gs of fa ct, to which ther e we re no obje ctions, indicate that F ried re cog nized that Rhodes had bee n eng ag ing in c riminal conduct. Theref ore, to say that Fr ied only

suspected Rhode s of cr iminal activity

is a mischara cter ization of the r ecor d. I n any event, e ven ac ceptingRhodes’s contention that Fr ied only had “suspicions” about these tra nsactions, he still would not be entitled to a cr edit for $127,500 be cause he made th i s p aym en t af ter he “knew

or re asonably

should have known that the off

ense w as dete cted or

about t o be dete cted by

a victim[.] ” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, Application Note 3( E)(i)( I I ). When Fr ied conf ronted Rhodes a

bout his “suspicions” and informe d him that he was g oing to c onduct a further audit of the books, Rhodes knew or should ha ve known that th e a

ud it w ou ld u

nc ov e r t he fu ll e xten t of h is frau d. I n e ith e r c a se , th e re c or d p la inl y d em o n s t ra t es t hat Rhodes re paid the $127,500 af ter the of fense was de tected or

was a bout to be detec ted. The district cour

t did not err by

not givingRhodes a cr edit ag ainst the t otal loss in calculating the Guidelines sente ncing rang e. Acc ording ly , Rhodes’s first assig nment of er ror is not well-take n.No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

11

B . V ic timI mpa c t State me nts Rho de s’ s se c on d a ssi g nme nt o f e rr or c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t ju dg e e rr e d b y a llo wi ngbo th the victim and the victim’s attorne y to addre ss the court at his sentencinghear ing. Rhode s argues that while both 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(4) an d Rule 32(i)(4) (B ) of the F eder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e re quire the district c ourt to “per mit the vi ctim to be reasonably hear d,” neither provision p erm i t s b o t h t h e v i ct i man d t h e v i ct i m ’s at t o rn ey

t o ad dre s s t h e c o u rt o nt h e i s s u e o f s en t en ci n g. Rhodes conce des that there is no controlling prec edent on this point , but urg es this Court to int erpr et these provisions so that the pra ctice is outlawe d. Th e pr ob le m w i t h Rh o d e s ’ s ar g u m e n ta s w e s e e i ti s t h a th e r e a d s § 3 7 7 1 an d R u le 32 (i )( 4) (B ) a s im

po sin g lim its on the i nf

or matio n th e se nte nc ingc ourt is p e rm itt e d to c on sid e r i n imposing a se ntence rathe r than wh at t h ey are - a ve sting in the victim of the of fense the rig ht of allocution. See Ke nna v. U.S. Dist. Court C.D.Cal ., 435 F. 3 d 1 011, 1013 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating that § 3 77 1 “ g ua

ra nte e s c ri me vic tim s e ig ht d if fe re nt r ig hts , a

nd un lik e the pr ior

c ri me vic tim s ’ r ig hts statutes, allows both the g overnme nt and the victims to en fo rc e them.”) . As the g overnme nt
corr ectly points out i n its brief, howe ver, pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3661 there is “[n] o limit ation

. . . conce rning the bac kg round, cha rac ter, a nd conduct of

a per son convicted of

an off ense w hich
a c ourt of the Un ite d St a te s may recei ve and c on sid e r f

or the purp os e of

imp os ingan a

pp ro pr iate sentenc e.” M o re over, in United States v. Tuck er , 404 U.S. 443 (1972), the Supre me Court commented that in makinga sen t en ci n g deter mination, “a judg e may

appropr iately

conduct a

n inquiry broad in scope , larg ely

unlimit ed either

as to the ki nd of information he may consider, or

the
source from which it may come.” Id. at 446. I t is clea r, there fore , that a sente ncing court ha s veryNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

12 br oa d d isc re tio n in

the ty pe s and so ur c e s of inf

or matio n it may

re c e ive in d e ve lop ingan a pp ro pr iate sentenc e for a criminal defe ndant. Fr ied may not ha ve had a right

to present both his statement and Ander son’s statement at the sentenc ing hear ing. Neve rtheless, it wa s well within the district court’s broad discr etion to hear

from both Fr ied and Ande rson on an a ppropriate sentenc e. C

.

f. United States v. Leach, 206 F. App’ x . 4 3 2 , 435 (6th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) ( holding that district cour t p ro p er l y al l o we d t es t i m o n y b y

d ef en d an t ’s ex -w i fe at s en t en ci n g whether or not sh e wa s a c c ur a te ly
c on sid e re d a

“ vic tim ” un de r § 37 71 be c a us e that la w “ did no t a lte r. . . a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s tr a dit ion a lly broad discr etion to co n s i der a wide var iety

of fa ctors at se ntencing ”) ( internal quotation marks omitted)). Rho de s o ff

e rs tw o a dd iti on a l r e a so ns fo r r e ve rs ingthe dis tr ic t c ourt ’s jud g me nt. F ir st, Rhodes contends that his sentenc ing he aring w as p ro cedur ally defe ctive bec ause he had no prior
n o t i ce t h at t h e d i s t ri ct j u d ge w as go i n g t o p erm i tb o t h Fr i ed an d An d er s o n t o al l o cu t e at t h e h ea ri n g. Rhodes argues, there fore , that he wa s denied the opportunity to discover the na

ture of the victim’s comments and mee t the evidenc e ag ainst him. He also argues that Ander son’s statement that “the con goes on” was unfairly prejudicia l and may have inf luence d the judg e to impose a sente nce a bove the low end of the Guidelines rang e. Assuming without de ciding that the district court er red by not g iving Rhodes pr ior notice that it was g oing to a llow both Fried a nd And er s o n t o allocute at sentenc ing, w e find this err or to be harmless. Unlike R hodes, we think it unl ikely that Ander son’s comments sway ed the district judge ’s sentenc ing de termination. As pre viously stated, Ande rson’s state me nt p ri nc i p a l l y

a d d r e s s e d wh e t h e r R h o d e s h a d a c c e pte d r e sp on sib ili ty

fo r h is c ri min a l c on du c t. I n sentenc ing Rh o d es at t h e mi ddle of the r ang e, howe ver, it appe ars that the district c ourt reliedNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

A tt h e c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t c o urt a s k e d t h e p art i e s : “ Is 3 there any leg al re ason, other tha

n what’s be en pre viously stated, that sentence s hould not be imposed? ” Rhodes’s attorney replied that “I

don’t hav e an y l egal r eason, othe r than what’s previously

stated” e x cept that the attorney clar ified with the cour

t that the amount of re stitut ion 13 almost ex clusively

on the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense, in particula

r his a buse of position of trust. We conclude , there fore , that Rhodes was not pre judiced by

this alleg ed er

ror. Acc ording ly , this assignment of e rror is not well-taken. C. Reasonablene ss of Sentence Rhodes’s third assig nment of er ror c ontends that his sentence of 30 months of imprisonment
wa s pro c e dura lly un re a so na ble be c a us e the dis tr ic t cou

rt fa ile d to ade qu a te ly c on sid e r t he 18 U. S.C. § 3553(a) sentenc ing f

actor s and did not addre ss his non-f rivolous arguments for a

sentenc e below the Guidelines ra

ng e. Rhodes also ra ises a substantive re asonable ness cha lleng e. The Court of Appe als revie ws sentenc es for rea sonablene ss. Un ite d S tates v . S mi th , 47 4 F .3 d 888 , 892 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) . Ase nte nc e wi thi n th e c or re c tly -c a lc ulate d G uid e lin e s r ang e sta rt s with a rebuttable presumption of re asonable ness on appe al. United States v. Conatser , 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008). The pr esumption of rea sonablene ss ma y be overc ome, howeve r, by showing that the sentenc e wa s either pr ocedur ally unrea sonable or substantively unrea sonable. Proce dural
unrea sonablene ss claims are ty pically revie wed for abuse of di scre tion. United States v. Gunte r , 600 F.3d 642, 645 (6th Cir. 2010). “How ever , wher e, as he re, the defe ndant fa ils to l odg e any objection
a t th e e nd of the se nte nc inghe ari ngin r e sp on se to a pr op e rl y wo rd e d invitati on fro m th e c ount i n compliance with Un ite d S tates v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865 ( 6th Cir. 2004), we re view only for plain e rror
a c ha lle ng e to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt’s ex pl anat ion fo r t he se nte nc e se le c te d. ” Pla in e rr or re qu ir e s a 3No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

order ed by the court would take into a ccount the amount of restitution a lrea dy paid. R h o d es ’s counsel did not cha lleng e the sufficie ncy of the district c ourt’s question until oral arguments befor e thi s Cour t. We the re fo re de e m suc h a rgume nt w a ive d a

nd a ssume that pl a in e rr or

re vie w a pp lie s. Se e Un ite d S

tates v . B e aty , 245 F.3d 617, 625 n.5 ( 6th Cir. 2001). 14 sh ow ingof “ (1 ) e rr or (2 ) that wa s ob vio us or c le ar, (3 ) t hat a ff e c te d d e fe nd ant’ s su

bs tanti a l r ig hts and (4) that aff

ecte d the fairness, i nteg rity , or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s. United States v. W

allace , 597 F.3d 794, 802 (6th Cir. 2010). A sente nce is proc edura lly unrea sonable if the dis tr ic t ju dg e fa ils to c on sid e r t he fa c tor s li ste d in

18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ) o r fa ils to pr ov ide an a de qu a te explanation of its reasons for the par ticular sente nce c hosen. United St ates v. Garc ia-Robles , 562 F.3d 763, 767 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Additionally , a sentenc e is pr ocedur ally unrea sonable if the district jud g e fa ils to c on sid e r an d e xpla in i ts r e a so ns fo r r e je c tin g the de fe nd ant’ s n on -f ri vo lou s a rgume nts for a lower se ntence
. W

allace , 597 F.3d at 803. The district court’ s failure to ac k n o wl edg e and consider the defe ndant’s non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence is plain error mandating that the Court of Appea ls r emand the c ase f or re -sentenc ing. Id. at 806-08. We ag ree with Rhodes that his sentence of 30 months of imprisonment was proc edura lly unrea sonable. I n his sentencingmemorandum, a nd during the s en t encinghear ing, Rhode s advanc ed a number of r easons ba sed in fac t and law f or a sentenc e below the Guidelines ra ng e. Amongother
re a so ns , Rh od e s st

re sse d h is e xtra or din ary

re sti tut ion e ff

or ts and a bil ity to r e pa y re sti tut ion

fu lly if he we re no t in c arc e rate d, the a be rr anc e of

his be havio r a

nd his e mot ion a l di so rd e rs , h is l owri sk to reof fend, a s indicated by the opinion of the social worke r as well as his self-employ ment, his bond with his daugh t er an d the nee d to provide her financ ial support. These f actor s have a ll been
rec og nized at one time or another as providing appropr iate g rounds for a below-G uidelines sentenc e.No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

I n Un ite d S

tates v . H ar ps t , 949 F.2d 860, 863 ( 6th Cir. 1991), t his Court held that the 4 district court ca

nnot downwar dly

depar t from the Sentenc ing Guidelines in order to fac ilitate the de fe nd ant’ s abi lity to r e pa y re sti tut ion . Po st- Booke r, howeve r, district courts have discre tion to vary fr om t he se nte nc ingra

ng e ba se d on fa c tor s tha t ar e dis c oura g e d or p ro hib ite d und e r t he Gu ide lin e s. Un ite d S tat es v . D av is , 537 F.3d 611, 616- 17 (6th Cir. 2008). 15 Uni te d S tat es v . D e

Mo nte , 2 5 F
. 3 d

3 4 3 , 3 4 6

- 4 7 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 9 9 4 ) ( d e f

e n d an t’ s v o lu

n ta r y r e s ti tuti on pa y me nts be fo re an a dju dic a tio n o f guil t ma y just if y do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e ) ; United States v. 4 Madden , 515 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 2008) (re cog nizi ng that aber rant c riminal behavior ma y justify do wnwa rd va ri anc e ); United S t a t es v. Borho , 485 F.3d 904, 913 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (althoug h a discourag ed fa ctor, the de fe n d ant’s mental or emotional condition may justify varia nce f rom Gu ide lin e s se nte nc e ); Un ite d S tates v . Ch e rry , 487 F.3d 366, 369- 70 (6th Cir. 2007) (district cour t’s
c on c lus ion

that de fe nd ant p re se nte d lo w r isk to r e of fe nd su pp or te d d ow nward

va ri anc e ); United Sta te s v . H us e in , 4 78 F .3 d 3 18 , 3 29 -3 0 ( 6th Cir . 200 7) (“ [F ]am ily c ir c ums tanc e s can f or m th e ba sis of eithe r a Gu ide lin e s- a

uth or ize d d e pa

rt ur e or a no n- Gu ide lin e s, §3 55 3( a )- ba se d d e pa rt ur e , a lso known as a

varia nce.” ). In providing her state ment of re asons for the s en t en ce s h e sele cted, the dis tr ic t ju dg e a c kn ow le dg e d Rhod e s’ s lac k of cr imi na l histo ry , ed uc a tio n, e mpl oy a

bil ity , a nd fa mil y
su pp or t, b ut c on c lud e d th a t th e y we re a g g ra

vatin g fa c tor s, rathe r t

ha n mi tig a tin g fa c tor s, be c a us e Rhodes abused his trust in committing the off ense. The Court then imposed a sente nce of 30 months of imprisonment with only a conc lus o ry statement that the sente nce w as base d on Rhodes’s char acte ristics, the seriousness of the offense, the need to promote r espec t for the law , and the ne ed to provide Rhodes with treatment.No. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

16 Un lik e Rho de s, we have no qu arr e l w ith the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a pp are nt c on c lus ion

tha t in so me
case s the criminal beha

vior of a de fenda

nt with no evident socio-ec onomic disadvan t age s can be
mor e e g re g iou s th an th e be havio r o f a dis a dv anta g e d an d les s- e du c a te d d e fe nd ant. We n e ve rt he le ss
a g re e wi th R ho des that th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to a dd

re ss o r e ve n a c kn ow le dg e a lmo st a ll o f h is
rea sons for a be low-Guidelines se ntence , and that such f ailure c onstitut es plain er

ror. See W

allace , 597 F.3d at 806-08. The dist rict court did state that it would “consider the fa ct that this defenda

nt ha s r e du c e d h is i nd e bte dn e ss a s p art of its e va luatio n o f [the ] 355 3 f a c tor s, ” bu t it

fa ile d to e xpla in the weig ht she g ave to this fac tor and why it did not justify Rhodes’s reque st f or a lower se ntence
. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a c kn ow le dg e Rho de s’ s m ent al con dit ion a s it c on tr ibute d to his
c omm iss ion

of the of fe ns e , th e op ini on s h e su bmi tted in di catin g that he pr e se nte d a low ri sk to reof fend, or his need to provide financial support to his daug hter, much le ss expl ain her rea sons for reje cting these fa ctors as g rounds for a varia nce. Wher e, as he re, it i s n o t clear from the r ecor d wh e the r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

g a ve c on sid e ratio n to the de fe nd ant’ s n on -f ri vo lou s ar g ume nts , w e mus t
re mand fo r r e se nte nc ing . A c c or din g ly , w e c on c lud e that Rh od e s’ s se nte nc e wa s p ro c e dura lly
unrea sonable a

nd that he mus t be re-sente nced. G iven our c onclusion that Rhodes’s sentenc e wa s pr oc e dura lly

un re a so na

ble , w e de c lin e to reach his argume nt t hat hi s se nte nc e wa s su

bs tanti ve ly
unrea sonable. CO NC LU SION For the re asons stated, we conclude that Rhodes’s first two assig nments of er ror
are wi tho ut m e ri t. T o th a t e xten t, t he re fo re , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IRMED. We
a g re e wi th R

ho de s’ s th ir d a ssi g nme nt o f e rr or , h ow e ve r, t hat hi s se nte nc e wa s p ro c e dura llyNo. 10-5126

United States v. Rhode

s

17 unrea sonable be cause the district c ourt failed to e x plain its reasons for reje cting his non-frivolous
argume nts fo r a

low e r s ente nc e . T o th a t e xten t, t he re fo re , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is RE VE RSE D . Rh od e s’ s se nte nc e is VA CA TED and thi s c a se is RE M AN DE D to the district court fo r r es en t en ci n g.