NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL
- TEXT PUBLICAT I ON File Name: 19a0614n.06
No. 18

- 6247 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee,

v. DAVID LEE DAVIS , Defendant

– Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
OPINION

Before: NORRIS , MOORE , and DONALD , Circuit Judges. KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant

- Appell ant David Lee Davis was sentenced to 210 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release for violatin g 21 U.S.C. § 846 by conspiring to knowingly and intentionally distribute Schedule II controlled substances, oxycodone and oxymorphone , as prohibited by 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)

. Davis appeals the reasonableness of his within

- Guidelines sentence on both procedural and substanti ve grounds , focusing on the district court’s treatment of his career

- offender status and his criminal history. However, Davis ultimately fails to identify procedural error that is plain and to overcome the presumption of substantive reasonableness. There fore, w e affirm his sentence as reasonable. I. BACKGROUND On May 24, 2018, Davis, along with his codefendant Danny Ray Vanover, was indicted for conspiring “to knowingly and intentionally distribute Schedule II controlled substances, to include a quantity of p ills containing oxycodone and oxymorphone, in violation of 21 U.S.C.No. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

2

§ 841(a)(1), all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.” R. 1 (Indictment at 1 ) (Page ID #1)

. At his rearraignment, Davis entered a guilty plea, R. 35 (Minute Entry for Rearraignment), that the magistrate judge recommended the district court accept , R. 36 (Recommendation of Acceptance of Guilty Plea), which the dist rict court did , R. 37 (Order Adopting Recommendation). In the plea agreement, Davis admitted the following facts regarding the offense : (a) From on or about February 25, 2017, to March 14, 2017, in Whitley County, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Defendant conspired with others to distribute Schedule II controlled substances, to include oxycodone and oxymorphone. (b) On March 14, 2017, the Williamsburg Police Department conducted a search of Danny Vanover’s residence. During that search, oxycodo ne and oxymorphone tablets, drug ledgers, and a digital video recorder attached to an in

home security system were seized. Prior to the execution of this search warrant, law enforcement reviewed a phone call from the Defendant, who was incarcerated at the Whitley County Detention Center. The Defendant appeared to be using coded language to inform Danny Vanover about the location of drug

- related items in Vanover’s residence. (c) A warrant was obtained for the content of Danny Vanover’s security system di gital video recorder (DVR). The DVR recordings began on February 25, 2017 and continued through March 1, 2017. Approximately 100 drug transactions involving Danny Vanover and others were on the recordings. The recordings also revealed that the Defendant was present for multiple drug transactions. Customers identified from the recordings confirm that the Defendant sold oxycodone and oxymorphone from Vanover’s residence. (d) In a post

- Miranda interview, the Defendant, in reference to the timeframe from the DVR recordings, stated that he and Vanover obtained the pills that were sold by purchasing prescriptions f ro m other people. R. 34 (Plea Agreement at 1

– 2) (Page ID #89

– 90). The Presentence Report (“PSR”) calculated Davis’s recommended imprisonment rang e as 188 to 235 months under the Guidelines based on a total offense level of thirty

- one and Davis’sNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

3

criminal history category of VI . PSR at ¶ 111 (Page ID #17 6 )

. It did not note any factors warranting a departure or a variance

. I d. at ¶ ¶ 126, 127 (Page ID #179)

. There were no objections to the PSR, id. at 3 4 (Page ID #180) , and the district court accepted the recommended sentence
range as correct ly calculated , R. 60 (Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 3) (Page ID #207). Probation recommended a sentence of 2 15 months. R. 51 (Sealed Probation Sentencing Recommendation at 1) (Page ID #137). We briefly summarize the PSR calculations. The PSR calculated Davis’s Ba se O ffense
Le vel as twenty

- four based on the amount of oxycodone and oxymorphone involved

. PSR at ¶ 29 (Page ID #155) . T en levels were added under the career - offender provisions of the Guidelines

. Id. at ¶ 35 (Page ID #155) (citing U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)(2)). Because Davis had a previous felony drug offense, he was subject to a thirty

- year, inst ead of a twenty

- year, statutory

- maximum
sentence

. 1 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) , § 851

. Under the G uidelines , this brought Davis’s offense level to thirty

- four. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b). T hree levels were subtracted for acceptance of responsibility , leading to a Total Offense Level of thirty

- one . PSR at ¶ 37 (Page ID #155). Davis’s criminal history computation was twenty

- seven points, falling within a criminal history category of VI

. Id. at ¶

¶ 63

– 64 (Page I D #167) . This was primarily due to sentences that he received in 1998 and March 2015 for mostly drug

- related convictions in 1998 , 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 and a sentence in May 2015 for criminal possession of a forged instrument. Id. at ¶ ¶ 45

– 46, 48,

1 Davis was aware of the increased statutory

- maximum sentence based on a previous felony offense at the time that he entered his guilty plea. The government is required to file an information with the court that a defendant is subject “to increased punishment by reason of one or more prior convictio ns.” 21 U.S.C. § 851 (a)(1) . The government did so here. R. 32 (Gov’t Notice Regarding Statutory Enhancement at 1) (Page ID #85).No. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

4

50, 55

– 56, 58 (Page ID #156

– 61, 163

– 66)

. The remaining points were for driving while under the influence, or variants thereof, possession of controlled substances, and other vehicular infractions. Id. at ¶ ¶ 47, 52, 53

– 54 (Page ID #157

– 58 , 161

– 63 ). An addit ional two points were added because Davis committed the instant offense while on parole. Id. at ¶ 62 (Page ID #167). The district court sentenced Davis to 210 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release

. R. 49 (J. Davis at 2

– 3) (Page ID #129

– 30 )

. Davis filed this timely appeal

. R. 50 ( Notice ) (Page ID #135)

. H e argues on appeal that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Appellant Br. at 19. II. ANALYSIS A. Procedural Reasonableness. A sentence must be procedurally reasonable. We review for “ significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C .] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence

. ” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Normally, we review the procedural reasonableness of a
sentence for an abuse of discretion , but whe n the defendant fails to object before the district court , as here, we review for plain error

. United States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 385

– 86 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). To satisfy plain error review, a defendant must “show (1) error (2) that ‘was obvious or clear,’ (3) that ‘affected defendant’s substantial rights’ and (4) that ‘affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.’” Id. at 386 (quoting United States v. Gardiner , 463 F.3d 445, 459 (6th Cir. 2006)). This is an exceptional determination, one we applyNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

5

only “where the error is so plain that the trial judge

. . . [was] derelict in countenancing it.” Id. (alterations in origin al). Although Davis argues that the district court committed procedural error when it did not consider his request for a downward departure or variance and “double count[ed]” his criminal history, Appellant Br. at 21 , 23 , he does not identify plain proced ural error

. First, Davis contends that the district court procedural ly err ed when it did not explain why it was denying his request for a downward departure or variance and a sentence of 150 months of imprisonment , or in other words, why it applied the car eer - offender enhancement in light of the national statistics from the United States Sentencing Commission that defense counsel provided

. Id. at 2 3

– 30. To avoid procedural error, the district court “ must ‘ set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decision

- making authority. ’ ” United States. v. Klups , 514 F.3d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). W hen a district court applies the G uidelines and appears to adopt “the Commission’s own reasoning that the Guidelines sentence is a proper sentence (in terms of § 3553(a)[)],” a long explanation is typically

unnecessa ry. Rita , 551 U.S. at 356

– 57 ; Klups , 51 4 F.3d at 537 (“[W]hen a sentencing judge concurs with the Sentencing Commission’s conclusion that a within

- Guidelines sentence is appropriate for a given defendant, the explanation for the sentence generally need not be lengthy (quoting United States v. L iou , 491 F.3d 334, 338 (6th Cir. 2007))). However, the district court must address a defendant’s “nonfrivolous reasons for imposing a different sentence” than the one contemplated by the district court. Rita , 551 U.S. at 357. How much explanation is warrantedNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

6

depends on t he unique circumstances in each sentencing

. Klups , 514 F.3d at 537 (citing Liou , 491 F.3d at 338). There is n o plain error here because the record shows that the district court considered Davis’s argument and set forth a reasoned basis for applying the G uidelines

. D efense counsel supplied national statistics that purported to show a national trend of career offenders receiv ing below

- G uidelines sentenc es. T he district cour t responded : “So that sounds to me, though, like a recognition o n behalf of perhaps some of my colleagues, that they disagree with the policy statement that ’s implicit in the recommended guideline.” R. 60 (Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 15) (Page ID #219). D efense counsel countered that these statistics represented an individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors, rather than idiosyncratic disagreement with the policies behind the career

offender recommendation s , to which the district court said, “[o]kay.” Id. at 16 (Page ID #220). The di strict court then provided a reasoned basis for Davis’s sentence that addressed this argument . T he district court proceeded to walk through each of the § 3553(a) factors to explain why it was arriving at a G uidelines sentence , which included the career - of fender enhancement

. Id. at 19

– 28 (Page ID #22 3

– 32)

. Given defense counsel’s explanation that the statistics reflect an individualized approach to § 3553(a), it was not plain error for t he district court to rely simply on its analysis of the factors to reject Davis ’s argument

. The district court referenced defense counsel’s statement about the statistics representing an individualized application of the sentencing factors when it stated, “ w e [sic] really do think about the person standing in front of me. It’s fair for your attorney to ask any judge to think carefully abou t the person and not just form u listically just use numbers that are recommendations.” Id. at 25 (Page ID #229). The district court alsoNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

7

recognized, albeit indirectly, t hat the G uidelines were discretionary. Id. (explaining that judges should not simply rely on numbers in the recommendations); i d. at 26 (Page ID #230) (stating that it “did not need to go above [the recommended sentencing range] , ” suggesting that it recognized it could vary from the recommended sentencing range ). Davis also characterizes this argument as one that the district court fail ed to consider sentencing disparities when it rejected his statistics argument

. Appellant Br. at 23

– 25

. But t he district court did consider sentencing disparities, stating that Davis “shouldn’t get a harsher sentence or a more lenient sentence just because you’re in my courtroom, and I think that’s fairly addressed by resting ultimately on what’s be ing recommended, although, after considering all of the [§] 3553(a) factors.” Id. at 27 (Page ID #231). Thus, Davis’s assertion that the district court failed to consider sentencing disparities lacks support. And again , it was not plain error when the d istrict court did not refer to the national

- statistics argument at each step of its § 3553(a) factor analysis. See also United States v. Houston , 529 F.3d 743, 751

– 52 (6th Cir. 2008) (rejecting a similar sufficiency

- of

- the

- explanation argument on plain error). Davis raises a second procedural argument that the district court “double count[ed]” his previous felonies when it determined that an increased statutory

- maximum sentence applied pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841( b)(1)(C) and 21 U.S.C. § 851 and then used this augmented statutory maximum to trigger the career

- offender provisions of the G uidelines under U .S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b)

. Appellant Br. at 22

– 24

. In United States v. Stephens , we stated that we had not yet decided how to address this “double

- counting consequence. ” 549 F.3d 459, 468 (6th Cir. 2008) ( citing cases that address the issue in a variety of contexts, including constitutional and statutory ones ) . Bu t weNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

8

have also noted that this argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Lockett , 359 F. App’x 598, 609

– 10 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Branham , 97 F.3d 835, 846 (6th Cir. 1996) ) (summarizing Branham as a case of statutory interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 994(h))

. We save the reconciliation of our published and unpublished case law for another day with the benefit of briefing

. Davis does not develop this argument or provide any support for it , and so we do not address it under the doctrine of forfeiture

. United States v. Sandridge , 385 F.3d 1032, 1035

– 36 (6th Cir. 2004) (“Issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed [forfeited] .” (quot ing Popovich v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas , 276 F.3d 808, 823 (6th Cir. 2002 ) (en banc) ) )

. For these reasons, we conclude that Davis fails to show that the district court committed plain, procedural error. B. Substantive Reasonableness. A sentence must also be substantively reasonable. “The touchstone for our review is whether the length of the sentence is reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors.” United States
v. Tate , 516 F.3d 459, 469 (6th Cir. 2008 ) (citing Unit ed States v. Cherry , 487 F.3d 366, 370 (6th Cir. 2007)). A within

- G uidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable. V o nner , 516 F.3d at 389. It is a “tall order” for a defendant to overcome this presumption. United States v. Bradley , 897 F.3d 779, 786 ( 6th Cir. 2018 )

. We review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Miller , 531 F.3d 340, 352 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States
v. Carter , 510 F.3d 593, 600 (6th Cir.2007)). Davis argues that the district court substantively erred by imposing a middle

- of

- the

- range sentence under the Guidelines because it gave too muchNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

9

weigh t to his criminal history , as demonstrated by the sentencing discre pancy between Davis and his codefendant Vanover , and failed to weigh appropriately other factors such as national sentencing disparities and certain mitigating factors. Appellant Br. at 30

– 3 7 . None of these arguments are successful. First, there is no in dication that the district court abused its discretion in how it treated Davis’s criminal history. Certainly, the district court found Davis’s thirty

- year - long criminal history significant, but it also meaningfully considered the other § 3553(a) factors

. R. 60 (Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 23

– 28 ) (Page ID #227

– 32 ). The court particularly emphasized the seriousness of the instant offense, explaining that Davis participated in a great volume of drug transactions with dangerous consequences

. Id. at 22 (Page ID #226). The court also considered mitigating factors, such as the fact Davis moved to the area to care for his aging parents and has some education, but ultimately concluded that there was not “much that’s particularly aggravating about [Dav is’s crime] or mitigating, other than what I’ve already articulated.” Id. at 26 (Page ID #230). That the district court did not give much weight to the defendant’s poor relationship with his father or his age (forty

- seven years old) as mitigating factors was not an abuse of discretion , given this statement

. See United States v. Sexton , 512 F.3d 326 , 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Ely , 468 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2006)). Davis turns to his double

- counting argument again, argu ing that his cri minal history was already accounted for in his G uidelines range without the enhancement of his statutory

- maximum
sentence and his career

- offender status . Appellant Br. at 32

– 33. Yet the fact remains that § 3553(a) requires the district court to consider Davis’s criminal history, and Davis has notNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

10

demonstrated that the district court in fact gave inordinate weight to that factor. Ultimately, Davis disagrees with the district court’s decision to apply the statutory

- maximum se ntence enhancement under 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 and the career

- offender provision

. See i d. at 33

. But Congress has seen fit to provide this statutory enhancement , and “the career

- offender guideline is on the books, and ‘the mere fact that a sentencing court has the discretion to disagree with the guidelines on policy grounds does not mean that it is required to do so.’” United States v. Smith , 881 F.3d 954, 960 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Ekasala , 596 F.3d 74, 76 (1st Cir. 2010)). Davis raises a variety of other arguments, none of which are convincing. First, he argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable as illustrated by the discrepancy between his sentence and his codefendant ’ s . Appellant Br. at 34 (citing United Sta tes v. Simmons , 501 F.3d 620, 624 (6th Cir. 2007) )

. A lthough “[a] district judge

. . . may exercise his or her discretion and determine a defendant’s sentence in light of a co

- defendant’s sentence

. . . [t]hat action, however, would be a discretionary one because the district court is not required to consider that type of disparity under § 3553(a)(6).” Simmons , 501 F.3d at 624 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted)

. T he district court’s decision not to consider Vanover’s sentence in fashioning Davis’s does not
amount to an abuse of discretion. 2 Davis also argues that the district court did not consider the disparity between his sentence and other similar offenders as his national statistics allegedl y demonstrated , Appellant Br. at 34,

2 Vanover was not sentenced until February 19, 2019

— three months after Davis. See R. 66 (Minute Entry for Vanover Sentencing ). Vanover was sentenced to forty

- two months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release

. R. 67 (J. Vanover at 2

– 3 ) (Page ID #304

– 05) . According to Davis, Vanover was not subject to the § 851 enhancement or career - offender status

. Appellant B r. at 15.No. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

11

but as explained above, the court did consider such disparities and ultimately concluded that a G uidelines sentence was the best way to avoid them

. See United States v. Mullet , 822 F.3d 842, 854 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting that “the point of guidelines is to reduce disparities”); Houston , 529 F.3d at 752 (citing Simmons , 501 F.3d at 626). We have also stated that a defendant does not rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness when he demonstrates that the district court did not weigh more heavily nationwide sentencing disparities based on national statistics because “general statistics [ ] cover a mul ti tude of other crimes committed in a multitude of other ways,” and so general statistics on their own do not create unwarranted sentencing disparities. Mullet , 822 F.3d at 854 (citing United States v. Waltman , 529 F. App’x 680, 685 (6th Cir. 2013) (per c uriam) ). Such is the case here . At sentencing, the only commonalit ies that defense counsel pointed out between Davis and other career offenders were the Total Offense and Base Offense Levels . R. 60 (Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 12

– 15 ) (Page ID #216

– 19 ). This fails to account for the individualized assessment of each defendant and their criminal histories. Therefore, Davis does not rebut the presumption of reasonableness with his proffered statistics. Finally, Davis contends that the district court erred whe n it referred to the death of a nineteen

- year - old in relation to the seriousness of his crime. Appellant Br. at 35. According to the PSR, Jason Wells died in Vanover ’s driveway from an overdose of oxymorphone sixteen days before Davis was arrested on state drug charges. PSR at ¶ ¶ 9

– 11, 18 (Page ID #151, 153)

. Davis lived with Vanover and all drug activity captured on the DVR occurred at Vanover’s residence. Id. at ¶ ¶ 7

– 9 (Page ID #150

– 51)

. This mention of Wells’s death , for which Davis was neverNo. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

12

charged , gives us pause because there was no evidence regarding Wells’s death besides the PSR. 3
See generally Klups , 514 F.3d at 537

– 38 ( explaining that district court judges “may consider facts that they f

i nd [during sentencing] under a preponderance

- of

- the evidence standard” (quoting United States v. Mendez , 498 F.3d 423, 426

– 27 (6th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ) )

. However, the circumstances of the district judge’s comments indicate that the district court did not abuse its discretion because it considered Wells’s death as a consequence of drug activity that generally reflect s the seriousness of the instant offense

— conspiracy to knowingly and intentionally distribute oxycodone and oxymorphone

.

It may be the case tha t individually there were not large quantities of drugs, but part of the record includes some surveillance video that was taken. There were a hundred drug transactions

. . . . And that’s an extraordinary amount of activity as it relates to drug crimes. Ultimately, you get how serious this is because you know the consequence that is often tragic here. And I mention one name, and that’s Jason Wells, age 19. I don’t need to say anymore. You face that. You know what happened there. You know, you’re no t

— I’m not sentencing you for that death, and I want to make that clear, but I am recognizing, that you get how serious this is. And even in the face of that, on you went, right? R. 60 (Sentencing Hr’g Tr. at 22

– 23) (Page ID #226

– 27). Davis asserts that the district court’s mention of Wells’s death “clearly had an impermissible impact on his sentencing determination,” Appellant Br. at 35, but given the context of those comments, it is not clear what that impact was. Without more, we cannot say that the d istrict court abused its discretion when it mentioned Wells’s

3 As previously noted, Davis did not object to the PSR. Id. at 34 (Page ID #180)

.No. 18

- 6247 , United States v. Davis

13

death to illustrate the seriousness of the offense, conspiracy to distribute certain controlled substances

. Accordingly, Davis fails to rebut the presumption that his within

- G uidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable.
I II. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s sentence.