NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a1202n.06
No. 12-5050
UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. ASHL EY COFF EY, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be fore : MARTI

N and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; ECONOMUS, District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Ashley Coffey , wh o is repr esente d by counsel, appea ls a district court judgme nt sentencing him to 120 mont hs of imprisonment. Coffey plea d ed g uilty to transporting child pornog raphy over the internet and possessing child pornog raphy

. Coffey ’s prese ntence repor t established an advisory sentenc ing g uidelines rang e of 151 to 188 mon t h s o f imprisonment. The district court subsequently sentenc ed Coffey to 120 months of imprisonment. We revie w the rea son ablene ss of a sentenc e for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Carter , 510 F.3d 593, 600 (6th Cir. 2007). A sentenc e imposed by a district court must be proce durally and substantively rea sonable. Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2 0 0 7 ). For a sentenc e to be proce durally reas o n ab l e, the district court “must proper ly calc ulate the g uidelines rang e, trea t the g uidelines as advis o ry , co n s ider the § 3553(a) fac tors and adequately explain the

The Honora

ble Peter C. Economus, United States Senior District J udg e for the Norther n * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 12-5050 - 2 - chosen sentenc e.” United States v. Grossman , 513 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir. 2008). “The g oal of the proce dural rea sonablene ss require ment is to ensure that a sentenc ing court explains its rea soning to

a sufficie nt deg ree to allow for rea sonable appellate revie w.” United States v. Dex ta , 470 F.3d 612, 614 (6th Cir. 2006). The district court considere d Coffey ’s history and char acte ristics, fo cusi ng on his ag e and phy sical condition. The court stated that it imposed Coffey ’s sentenc e based on the fac tors set forth in § 3553(a)

. The court took time to consider all of Coffey ’s arg uments, continuing the sentenc ing hear ing for a second day

. Be cause the substance of the district court’s analy sis demonstrates that it considere d the fac tors of § 3553(a) , the sentenc e is proce durally rea sonable. See United States v. Colli ngton , 461 F.3d 805, 809–10 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Once we deter

mine that a sentenc e is proce durally sound, we “shoul d t h en consider the substantive rea sonablene ss of the sen t en ce i m p o s ed.” Gall , 552 U.S. at 51. “A sentenc e may be considere d substantively unrea sonable when the district court selec ts a sentenc e arbitra rily , bases the
sentenc e on impermissible fac tors, fails to consider rele vant sentenc ing fac tors, or g ives an

unrea sonable amount of weig ht to a ny pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Conatser , 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008). The district court did not arbitra rily selec t Coffey ’s sentenc e. The district court considere d the pertinent § 3553(a) fac tors, taking particula r not e of Coffey ’s hi story and chara cter i s tics. The

rec ord establishes that Coffey ’s s entenc e is substantively rea sonable. See U nited States v. Bacon , 617 F.3d 452, 460 ( 6th Cir. 2010). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed.