NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0090n.06 No. 12-3066 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. MATTHEW J OHNSON, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N ORTHERN DI STRI CT OF OH I O

BEF ORE: BOG GS, ROGERS, and STR ANCH, Circuit J udg es.

PER CURI AM. Matthew J ohnson, a federal prisoner, appea ls the sentenc e imposed following his 2011 g uilty plea to char g es of being a felon in possession of a firea rm and possession with intent to dis tribute cra ck coc aine a nd heroin. The prese ntence repor

t prepa red in this case deter

mined that J ohnson was a car eer offe nder and that the Guidelines sentenc ing rang e was 151 to 188 months. J ohnson argued in his sentenc ing memorandum that the car eer -off ender desig nation overstate d his criminal history and that thus the Guidelines rang e should be reduc ed to 110 to 137 months. The district court hear d arg ument on this issue at the sentenc i n g h ea ri n g but reje cted the reque st for a downwar d varia nce and sentenc ed J ohnson to 151 months of imprisonment. Additionally , the court terminated the supervised rele ase from a previous federa l conviction, which J ohnson was serving at t he ti me he committed the new offe nses, rather than imposing an additional prison ter m for the violation of super vised rele ase.No. 12-3066

United States v. J

ohnson On appea l, J ohnson argues that his sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable beca use the district court did not consider

the per tinent sentencingfac tors and ig nored his ar g ument for lenity

. We revie w t he sentence imposed in a criminal case for reasona bleness. See Unit ed S t a t es v. W alls , 546 F.3d 728, 736 ( 6th Cir. 2008). I n this case, Johnson did notraise his a rguments that the court failed to consider the sentenc ing fac tors and his argument for le n i t y b el o w. T he dis trict court was there fore not g iven an opportunity to corr ect this purported err or, and we are deprive d of

a more detailed rec ord to revie w; therefo re, we revie w only for plain err or. United States v. Simmons , 587 F.3d 348, 356-58 (6th Cir. 2009). Although J ohnson argues that the district court did not provide an opportunity for him to raise these issues, the transcr ipt shows that the court asked if there wer e any

objections following its announceme nt of the sentenc e. No plain err or is appar ent in the district court’s discussion of the sentenc ing fac to rs. The court a ddresse d the er

rors de emed sig nificant by the par ties, including the fac ts of t he offense a nd the defe ndant’s criminal history

. Be cause the sentenc e was within the Guidelines rang e, no leng thy discussion of the sentenc ing fac tors was nece ssary . See United States v. Lapsins , 570 F.3d 758, 774 (6th Cir. 2009). The rec ord also makes clea r that the court considere d J ohnson’s argument for lenity

. See United States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 388 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

. The district court stated that it h ad re ad J ohnson’s sentenc ing memorandum. After defe nse counsel argued, the court summarized counsel’s argument and asked g overnme nt counsel to respond to it. The district court also explained why it reje cted J ohnson’s argument. See United States v. Lalonde , 509 F.3d 750, 770 (6th Cir. 2007) (obser

ving that “[w]hen a defe ndant raises a particula r argument in seeking a lower sentenc e, the rec ord must ref lect both that the district judge considere d the defe ndant’s argument and

-2-No. 12-3066

United States v. J

ohnson t h at t h e judge explained the basis for reje cting it”). I t chose to impose a sentenc e within th e Guidelines rang e primarily due to J ohnson’s history of sever al drug and wea pon offe nses and the fac t that he violated his supervised rele ase on his previous fede ral conviction, for which the court decide d not to impos e an a dditional sentence

. Ba sed on this rec ord, Johns on has fa iled to show that a plain procedura l error rende red his sentenc e unre asonable . Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s judg ment.

-3-