The Honor able John Corbett O’Mear a, United States District Judge f or the Ea stern District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. File Na

me: 07a0437n.06 Filed: June 21, 2007 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 06-5595 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA 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. MATTHEW J OCK, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

/ Be fore : MARTI

N and B ATCHEL DER, Circuit J udg es; O’MEARA, D istrict J udg e. * BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circ uit Judge

. Def endant Matthew J ock appea ls th e s entence imposed by

the district court a fter r esente ncing

. After J ock re ceive d his origina l sentence , but prior to our rema

nd for r esente ncing in light of United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a T ennesse e state court imposed a sentenc e to be serve d consec utively with Jock’s fede ral sentenc e. J ock ar g ues that at re sentenc ing, the district c ourt failed to c onsider the fac tors set forth in 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a) in light of the f

act that the state cour

t sentence woul d i n cr ea se the amount of time J ock would be imprisoned. For

the following rea sons, we AF F IRM J ock’s se ntence
. I.No. 06-5595

United States v. J

ock Pag e 2 The e vents leadingup to Jock’s first appea l of his sentence wer e suff iciently set forth in the prior pane l’s opinion:

On 28 Janu ary

20 03 , a fe de ra l g ra

nd jur y iss ue d a six- c ount i nd ic tme nt, char g ing Matthew J ock with s ever al drug offenses. O n 14 J anuar y 2003, prior to Mr. J ock’s indictment on drugchar g es, officers from the Shelby ville Poli ce D epar

tment responde d to a disturbance at Room 219 of the Country Hea rth I nn in Shelby

v i lle, Tenne s s e e . Wh ile some of the c ircumstance s of the enc ounter a re not we ll-develope d in the rec ord, the parties do not dispute that the offic ers f ound four pe ople, including Mr. J ock, in the hotel room, that they conducte d a pat- down sea rch of M r. Jock, discovering$6,382, and that, duringtheir sear ch of the room itself, the of fice rs found tw o d uf fe l ba g s c on ta ini ng va

ri ou s dru g s and a Rug e r 9 mm s e mi- a uto ma tic pis tol

. Althou g h th e h o te l s e ar c h to o k p la c e p r io r to h is in d ic tm e n t, M r . Jo c k w as not char g ed with any

offe nses linked to the drug s or g un seized on 14 J anuar y 2003. On 21 April 2003, defe ndant Matthew J ock pled g uilty to c ount on e o f t he indictment, conspirac y to distribute 50 g rams or more of cr ack c ocaine , a violation of 21 U. S

. C

. § 8 46. [The gove rnment dismissed the other five counts of the indictment at sentenc ing.] I n pleading g uilty , Mr. J ock admitted to purc hasing , since Fe bruar y 2002, “at least fifty g rams of cra ck coca ine and seve ral ounc es of c ocaine powder ” and then re- selling it. Whil e his plea a g ree ment did not refe r to any of the co n t rab an d

s ei z edd u ri n g t h e h o t el s ea rc h , t h e p ro b at i o no ff i ce r i n cl u d edt h e d ru gs obtained fr om the hotel sear ch in calculating Mr. J ock’s base offense leve l of 34, as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (3). Rec ommending a 2-level enhanc ement base d on the we a p o n d is c o v e r e d d

u r in g th e h o te l r o o m s e ar c h , p u r s u an t to U

. S. S. G. § 2 D 1

. 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) , an d

a s s u m i n g a 3

- l e v e l r e d

u c t i o nf o r a c c e p t an c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y, U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) a

nd (b), the pr e-se ntence repor t (“PSR”) co n cl u d ed that Mr. J ock’s total off

ense le vel was 33. A fter r ece iving the PS R, J ock objected to sever al para g raphs whic h descr ibed the hotel sea rch, spe cifica lly disag ree ing with the use of the drug s and gun obtained from that sear ch in calc ulating his offense le vel. Mr. Jock also filed a motion to suppre s s al l evidenc e re sulting fr om that seizure contending that it wa s a wa rr antl e ss s e arc h in

vio la tio n o f t

he F ourt h A me ndme nt. At the s entenc ing hear ing, the trial judge found i t unnece ssary to rule on the leg ality of the hotel room sear ch, [footnote omitted] overr uled Mr. Jock’s objections to the PSR , and found that both the drug s and the gun from the hotel room were proper ly included in the g uideline ca lculations. Adopting the total offense level of 33 as sug g ested by

the probation officer

and finding Mr. J o ck t o be in cr iminal h i s t o ry ca t ego ry I I , t h e di s t ri ct co u rt d et er m i n edt h at t h e ap p ro p ri at e gu i d el i n e r an ge was 151-188 months. Howe ver, ba sed on the gover nment’s request for a

downwar d depar ture for Mr. Jock’s substantial assistance, pursua nt to U.S.S .G. § 5K1.1, theNo. 06-5595

United States v. J

ock Pag e 3 district court elec ted to de part fr om the g uideline ra ng e and se ntence Mr. J ock to a 13 0 mo nth

te rm of imp ri so nme nt. United States v. J

ock, 148 F. App’ x 519, 520-21 (6th Cir. 2005). Th is C ourt

re je c te d Joc k’ s argume nt t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr ed in its c a lc ulatio n o f h is g uideline ra

ng e. Id . at 524. Specifica lly , this Court held that the drug s found in the hotel room had absolutely

no eff ect on J ock’s g uideline rang e. Rather, his base off ense le vel of 34 wa s based on the amount of drug s he admitted to traf ficking in his plea ag ree ment. There fore , with or without the drug s found in the hotel room, hi s base offense level would have been 34. This Court also held that the district court did not err by applying 2- point enhance ment for the firea rm discovere d in the hotel

r o o m . H o w e v e r , b e c a

u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts e n t e n c e d J o c k w h e nt h e g u i d e l i n e s w e r e s t i l l m an d a t o r y, this Court vacated his sente nce a nd issued a limited remand dire cting the district court to re sentenc e J ock in light of Booke r . Id

. After th i s C o u rt ’s re mand, J ock filed a sentenc ing me morandum re questing a belowg uidelines sentenc e. I n support of his r equest, J ock noted that he was plag ued by his drug use and poor mental c ondition at the time o f t h e offense. H e also c laimed that base d on statistical data, beca use he w as older, he would be less li kely to rec idivate. (He was twe nty y ear s old at the time he

was a rre sted, and twe nty -three y ear s old when he f i l ed the sentenc ing me morandum.) He further noted that he wa s no longe r estra ng ed from his fathe r and stepmother as he had been at the t ime of his arre st. Finally , J ock explained t h at afte r his orig inal sentenc ing, he had pled guilty to drug char g es in state cour

t stemming fr om the J anuar y 14, 2003 arr est. T h e s t at e j u d g e had se ntence d J ock to eig ht y ear s and direc ted that this sentence run conse cutively with his feder al sentenc e.No. 06-5595

United States v. J

ock Pag e 4 Another se ntencinghear ing w as h eld bef ore the district court on Mar ch 9 and Ma rch 17, 20 06 . U lti ma te ly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e d Joc k to 13 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt — the same sentenc e Jock had rec eived at his original se ntencing . J ock now a ppeals this sentenc e. II. We reviewJ ock’s sentence for r easona bleness. United States v. Fore man , 436 F.3d 638, 644 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )

. Re a s o n a b le n e s s h a s b o th p r o c e d

u r a l an d s u

b s ta n ti v e c o mp o n e n ts. Un i t ed States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 808 ( 6th Cir. 2006). “A sente nce i s p ro cedurally unrea sonable if the district judge fails to consider the applicable Guidelines ra ng e or ne g lects to consider the other fa c tor s liste d in 18 U.S. C. § 35 53 (a ), a nd ins te a d s imp ly

se le c ts w hat th e jud g e de e ms a n a pp ro pr ia te sentenc e without such re quired c onsideration.” Id

. (q u o t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005)) (i nterna l quotation marks omitted). “A sente nce ma y be conside red substantively

unrea sonable whe n the district court ‘se lect[s] the sentenc e ar bitrarily , b as [ es] the sentenc e on impermissible fac tors, fail[s] to consider pe rtinent § 35 5 3 (a) fac tors or g iv[ es] an

unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.’” Id

. (q u o t i n g W ebb , 403 F.3d at 385). III

. J ock first a

rg ues that, in light of the state cour t sentence , the district court’s imposition of the same sente nce a s he re ceive d at his orig inal sentenc i n g wa s unrea sonable. He claims that “[n] ow the sentenc e De fenda

nt rec eived is g reater than the sentenc e he re ceive d initially .” Appe llant’s Br

. a t 13 . A t th e he ari ng , d e fe ns e c ouns e l sta te d tha t J oc k ha d be e n “ pr os e c ute d, ba sic a lly , f or the same offe nses in state cour

t.” Although he acknowledg ed that the dist rict cour t had no jurisdiction to alter the state c ourt sentenc e, he a sked the district cour t to “conside r cutting betwee n 30 to 36 months offNo. 06-5595

United States v. J

ock Pag e 5

Although the state c o u r t s e nte n ced Jock to eig ht y ear s’ imprisonment, defe nse counse l stated 1 at the hea ring that the e ffective sente nce of the sentenc e imposed in state cour t would actually

be about 28.8 months (30% of the e ight- y ear sentenc e). of hi s sentenc e as a fair guar antee here so that he’s not g oing to be hurt fr om some double time.” 1 Although Jock’s re quest for a lower fede ral sentenc e in lig ht of his state sentenc e is understanda ble, we f ind that the sentenc e imposed by the district court was rea sonable. The rec ord demonstrates that the district judge considere d J ock’s a rg ument on this iss ue, and e x plained his rea soning de ny ing J ock’s r equest for

a lower sentenc e. The district judg e stated on Marc h 9 that “if [J ock] g ot c onsecutive time [in state cour t] for something that Ialre ady

consi d er ed in setting his sentenc e her e, then that ne eds to be a djusted.” Th erefo re, the c ourt

re c e sse d in

or de r f or the dis tr ic t ju dg e to l oo k o ve r t he re c or d f

ro m th e state court. Af ter re conveningon Marc h 17, the district judg e explained that the state cha rg es we re ba sed on drug s found in J ock’s possession at the hote l room on J anuar y 14, 2003. But Jock’s fede ral

se nte nc e , a s n ote d b y

a pr ior pa

ne l of thi s Court , wa s ba se d on the a mou nt o f d ru g s h e a dmi tte d to tr a ff ic kin g be tw e e n D e c e mbe r 2 00 1 a nd Ap ri l 20 02 . T he dis tr ic t ju dg e ex pl ain ed that “ the state

c ourt re a lly se nte nc e d Mr

. Jock on dif fe re nt ma tte rs , e ff

e c tiv e ly on dif

fe re nt ma tte rs fr om w hic h th is Court sentence d him on.” Fur ther, he noted that there was no indication that the firea rm upon which J ock’s two- point enhance ment was ba sed wa s used by the s tate court to deter mine J ock’s se ntence
. Finally , the district judge stated: “I just don’t think upon reflec tion that it would be appropriate for this Court t o eff

ectively neg ate the state cour

t’s sentenc e by

chang ing Mr . J ock’s se ntence in theNo. 06-5595

United States v. J

ock Pag e 6

J ock wa s sentence d by the state court on April 19, 2004, well bef ore the Supreme Court’s 2 d e c ision in Booke r . There fore , it is unl ikely that the state c ourt anticipate d that J ock would be re se nte nc e d in

fe de ra l c ourt
. We note that it would have been permissible for the district judg e to se ntence J ock for the 3 same off enses f or which he was sentenced in state cour t. See H eath v. Alabama , 474 U.S. 82, 89-90 (1 98 5) (“ ‘[A ]n a c t de no un c e d a s a c ri me by bo th n a tio na l and state so ve re ig nti e s is an o ff e ns e ag a i n s tt h e p ea ce an d

d i gn i t y o f b o t h an d

m ay b e p u n i s h edb y

ea ch

. ’” ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Lan za , 260 U.S. 377, 382 (1922)). H oweve r, in order to c onduct our rea sonablene ss analy sis in the ins tant c a se , w e mus t de te rm ine wh e the r Joc k w a s se nte nc e d tw ic e fo r t he same of

fe ns e s. Th is i s be c a us e the dis tr ic t judg e ’s state me nts a t th e se nte nc inghe ari ngma de c le ar t hat he did no t w a nt t o impose a sentenc e for

the offe nses that wer e bef ore the state cour

t. Were we to find that the district judge ’s deter

mination that the fede ral a nd state offe nses wer e differ ent was in e rror , this would mea n fe dera l c a se .” Th e dis tr ic t ju dg e a c kn ow le dg e d th a t us ua lly , a ft e r a de fe nd ant p le a ds g uil ty

in 2 fe de ra l c ourt , p e nd ingstate c a se s are dis mis se d o r s e nte nc e s a re imp os e d to r

un c on c ur re ntl y wi th fede ral senten ce s . He n o ted, howeve r, that this is not alway s the ca se, and e ven cited a rec ent

e xamp le wh e re a

c ri min a l de fe nd ant f

a c e d c on se c uti ve fe de ra l and state se nte nc e s. I t is appare nt to us that the district c ourt thoughtf ully examined the state court rec ord in order to make ce rtain that Jock was not being sentenc ed twice for t h e same off enses, a nd then “communicate[d] clea

rly its rationale for

imposing the spec ific sentenc e.” United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 554 ( 6th Cir. 2006). See also id. (“Where a def endant r aises a pa

rticular argument in seeking a lower sentenc e, the rec ord must re flec t both that the district judge c onsidered the defe ndant’s argument and that the judge explained the basis for reje cting it.”). Fur ther, Jock has pr e se nte d n o e vid e nc e de mon str a tin g that he wa s in fa c t se nte nc e d twi ce for the same of fe ns e s. There fore , we f

ind that J ock wa s not sentence d twice f or the same conduct, and hold that there was nothing pr ocedur ally or subs tantively unrea sonable about the di strict court’s de cision not to lower J ock’s f eder al sentenc e on the ba sis of his state sentence

. 3No. 06-5595

United States v. J

ock Pag e 7

that the judg e made an uninformed decision, rende ring J ock’s sentenc e unre asonable , and re quiring a re mand. I n a dd iti on

to e xpla ini nghis re a so ns fo r n ot d e c re a sin g Jock ’s se nte nc e in l ig ht o f t he state

se nte nc e , th e dis tr ic t ju dg e a c kn ow le dg e d that the g uid e lin e s are pure ly a dv iso ry po st- Booke r , and adeq u a te ly c o n s id e r e d th e f

a c to r s s e t f

o rth in § 3 5 5 3 ( a )

. Wi th r e s p e c t to th e n a tu r e and circ umstances of

the offe nse, as we ll as the seriousness of the offense, the district judg e commente d on the fa ct that there wer e numero u s s al es o f drug s involved and the fa ct that J ock possessed a firea rm. He a lso co m m ented on the need to dete r such c onduct, and the f act that Jock had a substance a

buse problem whic h should be addre ssed by the Burea

u of P risons. There fore , we f ind that the district court a ddresse d J ock’s c oncer ns and consider ed the r eleva nt statutory

fac tors. I V. F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , we ho ld that the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

wa s b oth proce durally

and substantively

rea sonable. The ref

ore, w e AF F IRM J ock’s se ntence
.