NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0167n.06 Filed: Mar ch 26, 2008 No. 06-2487
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,
v. MATTHEW TYL ER, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE EASTE RN DISTRICT OF M ICHIGAN

BEF OR E: M OORE, C LA Y, and R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant Matthew Tyler a

ppeals his convicti o n and sente nce of 360 months of imprisonment for conspirac y to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 500 g rams or more of a mixt ure c ontaining me thamphetamine i n violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1)(A) (viii), and 846. F or the re asons stated be low, we AF F IRM T y l er ’s conviction and sentenc e.

BACK GR OUND Def endant Matthew Ty

ler wa s indicted on Fe bruar y 9, 2005 for c onspiracy

“to distribute and po sse ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bu te 50 0 g ra ms o r m or e of

a mixture c on ta ini ngme tha mph e tamin e ” inNo. 06-2487

2 violation of

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1)(A) (viii), and 846. His co- defe ndants wer e listed as Donald Nor

ton York, David Warren Tice, J r., S helli Tice, J onathan Patrick Rose, and Serg io Coria. Th e ind ic tme nt a lle g e d th a t T y ler and oth e rs dis tr ibute d me tha mph e tamin e ob ta ine d f

ro m Se rg io Cor ia . T y le r pl eaded no t g uil ty to t his of fe ns e on Au g us t 8, 20 05 . T y le r s ub se qu e ntl y mov e d to
s ev er h i s ca se fr om that of the other de fenda nts due to the minor extent of Ty ler’s a lleg ed involvement in the conspirac y . The district cour t gr anted this motion in part as well as a sever ance motion brought by

Serg io Coria. The district c o u rt ru l ed that Ty ler a nd Coria would be trie d
se pa rate ly fr om t he re ma ini ngde fe nd ants bu t tha t Ty le r an d Cor ia sh ou ld be tr ie d tog e the r. B e c a us e Coria fa iled to appea

r for trial, Tyler wa s tried individually . On April 4, 2006, a jury found Tyler g uilty of conspira cy

to distribute or possess wit h intent to dist ribute 500 g rams or more of methamphetamine. Ty ler was sentenc ed to 360 months in prison on November 13, 2006. Ty ler filed a timely notice of a

ppeal to this Court. A. Testim ony Pr esente d at Trial Randall Scott Ty ler Rand a ll Sc ott

Ty ler (“R and

y ” ), Matth e w T y le r’ s b ro the r, te sti fi e d a g a ins t T y le r at tr ia l. Rand y is c ur re ntl y se rv ingtw o li fe se nte nc e s f or mur de r that we re be ing a pp e a le d a t the tim e of

tr ia l. F or his te sti mony , Ra

nd y re c e ive d im mun ity

fr om pro sec uti on

fo r t he c on sp ir a c y

to s e ll methamphetamine. The re levant aspe cts of Randy ’s ac count of Tyler’s involveme nt in the d rug conspirac y follow: I n 1995, Tyler told Randy that he was buying me thamphetamine f rom one of the ir childhood friends, B illie Fox. Billi e F ox told Randy that Ty ler owe d Fox $10,000 f o r methamphe tamine,No. 06-2487

3 which would be the cost of appr ox imately one pound of m ethamphetamine. Fox was being supplied
me tha mph e tamin e by

Se rg io C or ia

be g inn in g in 1 99 5, bu t F ox so on be c a me he a vil y

ind e bte d to Coria. B eca

use Coria c ould not recoup the debt Fox o we d h i m , Coria collec ted from Ty ler the money Ty ler owe d Fox. This incident occurr ed betwe en eig ht months and a y ear afte r Coria be g an
su pp lyingF ox . Aft e r t

his inc ide nt, Tyle r b e g an d ist ri bu tin g me tha

mph e tamin e fo r S e rg io C or ia instead of buy

ing f rom Fox. Randy

then beg an buy ing methamphetamine from Tyler at least once
a we ek in quantit i es of one to two ounc es. Tyler wa s rec eiving shipments of five pounds of
me tha mph e tamin e e ve ry

c ou ple of we e ks
. Da

vid Ti c e , a no the r o f F ox’s ma

jor c us tom e rs , b e c a me Ty ler’s c ustomer, and Ty ler would de liver five pounds of methamphetamine at a time to Tice. Randy moved to South C arol i n a in late 1997 or ear ly 1998. I mmediately

afte r this move Rand y sto pp e d s e lli ngme tha

mph e tamin e , b ut e ight mo nt hs to a y e ar a ft e r h e mov e d to Sou th Carolina he beg an selli ng methamphetamine ag ain. R andy ’s supplier in South Carolina did not have g ood quality

methamphetamine, so Randy called T y ler a

nd told him t hat t h e s u pplier would be interested in buy

ing larg e amounts of methamphetamine. Ty ler then trave led to South C arolina a nd met the supplier. To g et the methamphetamine for the supplier , Ty ler c alled Coria, who ma iled two pounds of methampheta

mine to Randy ’s S outh Carolina home. On another occa sion Ty ler broug ht Randy four pounds of me thamphetamine to sell
. T y l er also broug ht Randy five pounds of
m et h am p h et am i n e t o s el l t o a l o ca l s u p p l i er , b u tt h e l o ca l s u

p p l i er wo u l d n o tac ce p tt h e d ru gs beca use they wer e not g ood quality
. I n 2000, Ty ler moved to South Carolina and remaine d there for approximately

ten months. On a fe w occ asions, Randy sold one or two pounds of methamphetamineNo. 06-2487

Th e re is s ome inc on sis te nc y be tw e e n w itn e sse s r eg ard ingthe tim ingof Ty le r’ s mo ve to 1 South C arolina. 4 that T y le r h a d r e c e ive d f

ro m Co ri a . While Ty

le r w a s in Sou th C aro lin a , Co ri a

sto pp e d s e nd inghim drug s to distribut e bec ause Ty ler wa s not alway s g iving Coria the money he owe d him. During the per iod of time that he was distributing methampheta mine, Ty ler c arr ied a pistol
as wa s his us u al habit. At one point, Ty ler we nt with Randy and other

friends to the house of a person who ow ed Tyler money for dr ug s. Ty ler used a semiautomatic g un to shoot the house of the person who ow ed him money
. Christopher Scott Perry Christopher Scott Perry g rew up with Ty ler in Ha rrison, Michig an and te stified ag ainst Ty ler
a t tr ia l. I n r e tu rn for

his te sti mony , th e g ov e rnme nt p ro mis e d to re c omm e nd a mor e tha n f if ty perc ent red u ct i o n in Perry ’s 295-month sentenc e for conspirac y

to distribute 500 gr ams to 1.5 kil og ra ms o f m e tha

mph e tamin e and

va ri ou s d ru g -r e la te d c ri me s. Perry testified as follows: Perry beg an buying me thamphetamine f rom Tyler some time prior to 2000. He would buy

an ounce of methamphe tamine for $1,000 ever y wee k or two. At times Perry would buy

quarter p o unds of methamphetamine from Tyler. This ar rang ement continued sp or a dic a lly

un til 20 01 . In 2 00 1, Tyle r m ov e d to Sou th C aro lin a , a nd Pe rry began g e tti nghis
me tha mph e tamin e dir e c tly

fr om C or ia
. Whe n T y le r r e tur ne d to Mic hig an fr om Sou th Caro lin a in 1 20 02 , Pe rr

y so ld T y le r a

po un d o f m e tha

mph e tamin e on tw o oc c a sio ns . Pe rr y a lso so ld T y le r s ma ll quantitie s o f m et h am p h et am i n e o nap p ro x i m at el y fo u r o cc as i o n s . P erry

s aw T y l er wi t h h u n t i n g g

uns and handguns during the time they wer e involved in methamphetamine distribution.No. 06-2487

5 Roby n Kelke Roby n Kelke, T y ler’s e x -g irlfriend, te stified ag ainst him at trial. I n exchan ge fo r her te sti mony and c oo pe ratio n in

oth e r m a tte rs , she r e c e ive d e ig hte e n mo nth s o f p ro batio n f or a state conviction for posse ssion of methamphetamin e a n d p o s s e s s io n

w it h th e intent to dist ribute marijuana instead of a

possible three- to five-y ear sentenc e of imprisonment. She also wa s promised that she would not be cha

rg ed in fede ral court for these drug offe nses which would c arr y a fe dera l sentence of at lea st five y ear s. The aspects of her testimony rele vant t o Ty ler’s appea l are as follows: Kelke a nd Ty ler lived t o g e t h e r b e t w e e n1 9 9 3 an d 1 9 9 8
. A l t h o u g h T yl e r n e v e r h a d a p e r m an e n tj o b , h e a l w ays h a d m o n e y. Kelke ne ver sa

w m ethampheta

mine in the hous e that she sha red w ith Ty ler, but Tyler talke d about
se lli ngme tha

mph e tamin e . Cor ia fr e qu e ntl y c a me to vis it Tyle r, and duri ngthe se vis its Ty

le r w ou ld discuss plans for Coria to br ing me thamphetamine f or Tyler to sell. Kelke had no knowledg e of the quantities of methamphetamine Coria broug ht to Ty ler. Ke lke used methamphetamine twice , and both times Ty ler supplied her with methamphetamine. Ty ler ha d both shotguns and handg uns during the time Kelke lived w ith him. K el k e p o s s essed pictur es take n in 1997 showing Ty ler holding fi re arm s. Kelke br oke up with Tyler in August of 1998. After approximately

one y ea r, Ty ler be g an supply ing her methamphetamine to sell. Kelke w ould buy methamphetamine a

pproxi mately

once a month f

r o m T y le r in o n e - o u n c e qu an ti ti e s . T h is p a tt e r n w a s n o t c o n s is te n t s in c e T y le r left Michig an for

a per iod of time during which Ke lke re lied on other suppliers. Ke lke last boug ht methamphetamine f

rom Tyler in June of 2004.No. 06-2487

6 J ames B esteman J ames B esteman w as a f

riend of T y ler who met him i n Har rison, Michig an betwe en 1985 and 1986. Be steman testified a g ainst Ty ler at trial. In exchang e for his testimony , Be steman expected to r e c e ive le nie nc y

wi th r e sp e c t to pe nd ing fede ral cha rg e s o f p os se ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o d istri bu te methamphetamine. B esteman ha d been pr eviously convicted f

or a va riety of t heft and drug -re lated
c ri me s. Ty ler’s r ole in traff icking methamphetamine as rec ounted by Be steman follows: Be g inning in the mid-nineties, Billie Fox supplied Ty ler with methamphe tamine that Tyler sold to Be steman. Fox’s in v o l v ement lasted for appr ox imately a y ear , but Ty ler c ontinued to sell Beste man methamphetamine thr oug hout the 1990s. Be steman st arte d buy ing small quantities at first, but the amount in creased until he wa s buy ing qua rter- pound quantities of methamphetamine from Tyler. Be steman last purcha sed methamphetamine from Ty ler betwee n 2000 and 2001. In total Be steman purcha sed methamphe tamine from Ty ler be tween f

ifty and 100 times. At one point, Ty ler sent Be steman to pick up five pounds o f m et h am p h et amine for him. During the time that Ty ler wa s
se lli ngme tha

mph e tamin e B e ste man w ou ld f re qu e ntl y se e him wi th h and g un s. Dexter Hug hes Dexter Hug hes, Tyler’s stepf ather , testified re g ardingTy ler’s posse s sion of handg uns. Hug hes testified that Ty ler once gave him a handgun that was wrapped in a rag and asked Hug hes to put it i nto Hug hes’s saf e. Other Te stimony

Presented at TrialNo. 06-2487

7 Early Maxey , a methamphe tamine user, te stified that h e had ne ver be en off ere d
me tha mph e tamin e by

Tyle r e ve n thou g h he ha d sta te d the op po sit e in co nv e rs a tio ns wi th F B Ia g e nts
. Da vid Mc Who rt e r, a

c on fi de nti a l inf

or mant, te sti fi e d th a t T y le r w a s p re se nt w he n M c Who rt e r c a me to pur chase drug s from David Tice. H oweve r, McWhorter te stified that Ty ler wa s not present during t h e a ct u al s al e o f d ru gs . M ar k C ap l an , a m et h am p h et am i n e u s er wh o h as kn o wn T y l er

s i n ce h i gh sch oo l, tes ti fi ed t hat he n ever bo ught met ham ph eta mi ne fr om Ty ler even th ou gh Caplan hadto ldFBI ag ents that he ha d done so. Caplan testified that Ty ler ha d said that he g ot methamphetamine f rom Coria. J ohn Michae l Cecil, the FB Iage n t d i rec ting the inve stigation of the methamphetamine conspirac y , testified that there was no dire ct phy sical evide nce se ized from Tyler a nd there wer e no
re c or de d c on ve rs a tio ns of Tyle r e ng a g ingin d

ru g tr ans a c tio ns .

DI SCU SSIO N I. SUF F IC IEN CYOF THE E VI DE NC E C LA IM A. Stand ard of Review Tyle r i s r ais inghis c la im o f i ns uf fi c ie nc y of the e vid e nc e fo r t

he fi rs t ti me on

a pp e a l. Be cause he did not raise this cla im in a Rule 29 moti on for acquittal at t he close of the prose cution’s
e vid e nc e , T y le r’ s c la im m ay on ly be re vie we d to de te rm ine wh e the r the c on vic tio n w a s a “ manif e st miscarr iag e of justice.” United States v. Mc Bride , 362 F.3d 360, 368-69 (6th Cir. 2004). Under the
manif e st misc arr ia g e of jus tic e sta nd ard , this Court

wi ll o nly “ re ve rs e a

c on vic tio n if

the re c or d is devoid of evidenc e pointing to guilt.” Id. at 3 6 9 (q u o t i n g United States v. Carnes , 309 F.3d 950, 956 (6th Ci r. 20 02 )). “ I n a

na ly zingsu c h a

c la im, we do no t w e ig h th e e vid e nc e , e va luate wi tne ssNo. 06-2487

Five hundr ed g rams is the equiva lent of 17.6 ounce s or 1.1 pounds. 2 8 cre dibilit y , or displace the jury ' s judgme nt with our own.” United States v. W agner , 382 F.3d 598, 610-11 (6th Cir. 2004). B. Ana lys is Ty ler a rg ues that there was no phy sical evide nce of his drug sales and that the only witnesses wh o te sti fi e d r e g ard inghis dr ugsa le s r e c e ive d se nte nc e re du c tio ns a s a re su lt o f t e sti fy

inga g a ins t him. The gove rnment presented testim ony from mul tiple witnesses who boug ht methamphetamine fr om T y le r, wh o h a d w itn e sse d T y le r’ s d ru g sa les , and

wh o h a d d isc us se d th e se dr ugsa le s w ith Ty ler. The rec ord conta ins ample evidence of T y ler’s distribution of more tha n 500 g rams of methamphetamine. The testimony o f R an d y T y ler, Christopher Per ry , or James Beste man alone 2 would be suff

icient to establish the re quisite amount. Ty ler c ontends that since a ll the evidence offe red r eg ardingdrug quantities was offe red by
co-c onspir a

to r s a n d o th e rs who we re r ece iving lenie ncy in exchang e for

their testimony , the evidenc e
was unre liable. He a lso ar gu es t h at the testimony reg ardingthe amount of drug s distributed was vag ue and, the ref

ore, insuff

icient t o establish that Ty ler dist ributed 500 g rams of me thamphetamine. Tyle r’ s argume nts fa il f or a number of

re a so ns . F ir st, thi s Co ur t do e s n ot m a ke c re dib ili ty deter minations in ex amining the sufficie ncy of the evidence under a

manifest miscar

riag e of justice standard. T he possible motive of witnesses’ testimony does not neg ate the f act that ther e is evidenc e on the re cord to support the dr ug amount neede d for co n viction. Second, “[t] estimonial evidence from a c o-conspirator may b e s u ff i ci ent t o deter

mine the amount of drug s for whic h a def endant should be held ac countable, even where the co-conspirator has rea son to believe that he may rec eiveNo. 06-2487

9 a re duced se ntence as a r esult of his or her testimony .” United States v. He nley , 360 F.3d 509, 516 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) . T hir d, e sti ma tio ns of dr ugqu anti tie s ma

y be su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e to s up po rt a conviction if the e x act amount of drug s distributed is not easily asce rtained. Id. As a re sult, Ty ler’s
c on vic tio n d id n ot r e su lt i n a manifest mi scar

ri a g e of jus tic e a nd may no t be ov e rt

ur ne d d ue to Ty ler’s a lleg ations of insufficie nt evidence
.

I I . SENTE NCING

DETERMINATION O F TH E AM OUNT OF M ETHAMP HETAMINE A. Stand ard of Review The dist rict court’s fac tual finding s made at sentenc ing are revie wed for clear error. United States v. Kaminski , 501 F.3d 655, 665 (6th Cir. 2007). Since t he dis trict court’s determination of the
a mou nt o f m e tha

mph e tamin e Tyle r dis tr ibute d is a fa c tua l fin din g , it may no t be ov e rt

ur ne d unle ss it is clearly

erro neous. The g overnme nt must prove sentenc ing f acts by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. United States v. Hunt , 487 F.3d 347, 350 ( 6th Cir. 2007). B. Ana lys is 1. Evid entiary support for the app lication of USSG § 2D1.1(c )(2) Ty ler a rg ues that the district cour t cl ea rl y err ed bec ause the amount of methamphe tamine distributed was not proven by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Tyler’s ba se off ense le vel was
c a lc ulate d a s 3 6 d

ue to the dis tr ibutio n of be tw e e n 5 and 15 kil og ra ms of me tha mph e tamin e . U .S. Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s Ma nu a l ( “ USS G” ) § 2D 1. 1( c )( 2) (2 00 5) . In o ve rr uli ngTyle r’ s o bje c tio n to the a mou nt o f m e tha

mph e tamin e a ttr ibute d to Ty ler , the d ist ri c t c ourt fo un d th a t th e re wa s ampl e evidenc e that Tyler distributed at lea st 5 kilograms of methamphetamine.No. 06-2487

10 For this finding, t h e co u rt relied upon the testimony of Randy Ty ler a nd J ames B esteman. Randy testified re g ar d ing his we ekly purcha ses of one or two ounce s of methamphetamine from Ty ler for the span of ove r a y ear . This testimony supported the PS R’s estimate that Randy boug ht one ounce of methamphetamine from Ty ler for 52 wee ks, resulting in a calculation of 52 ounc es or 1.47 kilogr ams of meth am p h et amine. Randy ’s testimony reg ardingTy ler’s distribution of
me tha mph e tamin e to David Ti c e in f ive -p ound

inc re me nts wa s a lso re lie d o n b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
. This testimony

supported the PSR’s estimate that T y l er sold Tice five pounds (2.268 kg ) of methamphetamine at least once . Ba sed upon its rec ollection of R an d y ’s t estimony at trial, the distri ct court found Randy ’s testimony cre dible reg ardingthe drugquantities for whic h Ty ler wa s responsibl e. T h e district cour t did find one err or in the PSR’s calculation of the a mount of methamphetamine a

ttributable to T y ler. The PSR claimed that Ty ler made two shipments of four po un ds (1 .8 kg ) o f m e tha

mph e tamin e to R and

y wh ile Rand

y wa s in Sou th Caro lin a , but R and y on ly tes t i fi ed to one four-pound shipment. As a r esult of this discrepa ncy , the district court subtra cted two kilogr ams from the PSR’s estimated total drug amount of 13.3 kilog rams. The district c ourt also re lied upon Be steman’s testimony that over a

five- to six-y ear

period he bo ug ht o ne to f

our o un c e s o f met hamph e tamin e fr om T y le r b e tw e e n f if ty and 10 0 ti me s. Th is testimony supported the PSR’s estimate th at Be s t eman boug ht 50 ounces (1.42 kg ) of methamphetamine f

rom Tyler. The district court di d not find that Be steman’s testimony would be reliable for g iving a

very p re cise qua

ntity of methamphe tamine, but the cour t found Be steman’s testimony cre dibl e en o u gh to support an estimate that he boug ht 50 ounces fr om Ty ler. Af ter di s cu s sing Ty

ler’s obje ctions reg ardingthe drugamount established by Randy ’s and B esteman’ sNo. 06-2487

I n his b r ie f

o na p p e a l, T y le r

c it e s F e d e r a l R

u le o f Cr im in a l P r o c e d

u r e 3 2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( D ) f

o r the 3 proposition that the district court must address e ach obje ction to a PSR . Ty ler is r ef er ring to an outdated ver s i o n o f t h e Feder al Rules of Criminal Procedur e bec ause the passag e of a 2002 amendment to the r

ules has made the applica ble rule f or this proposition 32(i)(3). 11 testimony , the district court de termined that a base of fense level of 36 was war

rante d since the total methamphetamine distributed wa s clea rly more than 5 kilog rams. USSG § 2D1.1(c )(2)
. There was no c lear

err or in the district court’ s finding that Ty ler distri buted more tha n 5 kilogr ams of methamphe tamine. Where e vidence is supported by sufficie nt indicia of re liability , the dis tr ic t c ourt may con si der it at se nte nc ing . U SSG § 6 A1 .3 (a ) ( 20 05 ). Th e fa c t th a t mu lti ple wi tne sse s te sti fi e d to the ir pe rs on a l kn ow le dg e of

Tyle r’ s d istri bu

t i o n o f m u c h m or e tha n 5 kil og ra

ms of methamphe tamine is a strongindicator of the reliability of the testimony

supporting the district judge ’s finding
. 2. Com plian ce with Rule 32(i)(3) Ty ler a lso arg ues that the district cour t e rre d by failing to specifica lly addre ss eac h of Tyler’s objections reg ardingthe ca lculation of the amount of m ethamphetamine distributed contained in the Pr e -S e nte nc ingRe po rt

(“ PSR” ). F e de ra l Ru le of Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure 32 (i )( 3) pr ov ide s: 3 At se nte nc ing , th e c ourt : (A) ma y acc ept any

undisputed portion of the pre sentenc e report as a finding of fa c t; (B ) mus t--for

any disputed portion of the pre sentenc e re port or other c on tr ov e rt e d matte r- -r

ule on th e dispute or

de te rm ine that a

ru lin g is un ne c e ssa

ry e ith e r b e c a

us e the ma tte r wi ll no t a ff e c t se nte nc ing , o r b e c a

us e the cour t will not consider the matter in sente ncing ; and (C ) mu s t a

p p e n d a c o p y o f th e c o u rt' s d e te r mi n a ti o n s u n d e r th is r

u le to a ny c op y of the pr e se nte nc e re po rt

ma de a va ila

ble to t he B ur e a u o f P ri so ns .No. 06-2487

12 Prior to sentencing , Ty ler disputed twenty aspec ts of the PSR . On appe al Ty ler contends that the district court did not make f actua l findings r eg ardingsome of his disputes regarding the drug quantity attributed to him. I n particula r, Tyler c laims that the d i s t ri ct court did not make f actua l finding s reg arding Controverted I tem 7, in which he challeng ed the lack of evidenc e cor

roborating Randy ’s testimony

reg arding the drugs he boug ht from Ty ler, and Controverted I tem 9, in which he
c h a l l e n g e d

t h e P S R ’ s c h ar a c t e r i z a t i o no f K e l k e ’ s t e s t i m o n y an d

h e r c r e d i b i l i t y. Ty ler objec ted to the port i o n o f t he PSR t hat stated that Randy had boug ht two pounds of methamphetamine from Ty ler while Ty ler was living in South Carolina. Ty ler c laimed that Randy ’s testimony was va g ue and that there w as no evide nce c orrobor ating his te stimony
. The court noted that the re solution of this dispute would make no differ ence to the offe nse level since in ruling on the ea rlier c ontroverte d items it had alrea dy found that Tyler’s distribut i o n o f m ore tha n five kilogr ams of met h am p h etamine ha d been pr oven by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Tyler’s attorney ag ree d with the co u rt t hat the re solution of this controve rted item would not alter the
c a lc ulatio n o f T y le r’ s b a se of fe ns e le ve l. Ty ler a lso objected to the PSR’s determ i n at i o n t hat Kelke had boug ht one pound of methamphetamine f

rom him. He cla imed that this amount was not supported by her te sti m o n y

at trial and that she w as not cre dible due to her ag ree ment with the g overnme nt. The cour t never specific ally

discussed this issue, but after stating that a deter

mination reg ardingControverted Item 7 would be unnec essar

y due to the finding that Ty ler distributed more tha n five kilog rams of methamphetamine, the judge stated: “[t] here are other controve rted items, but Ibelieve w ith respec t to the drug quantities, the balanc e of the controve rted items r eally are tied into the ones that weNo. 06-2487

13 resolved a

nd deal primarily with the cy phering and the calc ulation
. . .” (J.A. 372.) Thus, the cour t indicated that it had a lrea dy deter mined that further objections to the drugquantity would not affe ct Tyle r’ s b a se off

ens e leve l. I

n it s r e sp on se to C on tr ov e rt e d I te ms 7 and 9, the c ourt

a c te d in compliance with Rule 32(i)(3)( B) when it “de termine[d] that a ruling is unnece ssary . . . beca use the matter [did] not affe ct sentenc ing.” Fe d. R. Crim. P . 32(i)(3) (B ).

III . TWO LEV EL EN HA NC EM EN T F OR P OSSESS IN GA D AN G ER OU S WEA P ON A. Stand ard of Review The district cour

t’s fac tual finding s reg arding the application of the Guidelines ar e re viewed for c lear err or. United States v. Kaminski , 501 F.3d 655, 665 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Howeve r, the district court’s conclusions of law a re r eviewe d de novo
. Un ite d S tat es v . W ar d , 506 F.3d 468, 474 ( 6th Cir. 2007). B. Ana lys is This Co u rt h a s n o te d th a t “ [a ]n e n h an c e me n t u n d e r § 2 D 1
. 1 ( b ) ( 1 ) is p r o p e r o nly if the g overnme nt establishes, b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e, that (1) the def endant possesse d a dang erous wea

pon (2) during the commission of a drug -traf ficking offe nse.” United St ates v. Mose s , 289 F.3d 847, 850 ( 6th Cir. 2002). This Court has also interpre ted t h e p h ra s e “d uring the commission of a drug -traf ficking offe nse” as ref

err ing to the pe riod of time in which the c onspiracy to traff ic drug s occur

red. Id. Whe n th e g ov e rnme nt h a s p ro ve n th e se tw o e le me nts , the re e xists a
re bu tta ble pr e su mpt ion

that th e we a

po n w a s p os se sse d in

c on ne c tio n w iththe of

fe ns e . As state d in the commentar

y to § 2D1.1, the upwar d adjustment for firea rms possession “ should be applied if theNo. 06-2487

14 wea pon was pr e sent, unless it is clearly improbable that the w eapon w as conne cted with the of fense .” USSG § 2D1.1 cmt. n.3 (2005). Tyle r c on te sts the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s a pp lic a tio n o f a

tw o le ve l e nh anc e me nt purs ua nt to U SSG § 2 D1 .1 (b )( 1) fo r p os se ssi ng a da ng e rou s w e a

po n. At tr ia l ph oto g ra

ph s w e re int

ro du c e d in to evidenc e in which Ty

ler wa s shown holding a

pistol and an assault rifle. Robin Ke lke testified that the se pic tur e s w e re take n in 19 97 . Ra

nd y a lso te sti fi e d th a t Ty

le r us e d a fi re arm to s ho ot t he ho us e of som eone who owed him money for drug s. Ty ler claims that there was no proof that the wea

pons he possessed w ere used in c onnection to dr ug offe nses and that there was evidenc e that he used guns for hunting . He a lso c laims that Ra ndy ’s testimony was self-se rving and uncorr oborate d. Ty ler’s explanations do not establish t hat it was cle arly improbable that guns wer e possessed in connec tion with the offe n s e. T h ere fore , the district court’s a pplication of the e nhance ment for the posse ssion of fire arms wa s proper .

IV. SUBS TANTIVE REASO NABLENES S OF TYLER’S SENT ENCE A. Stand ard of Review This Court revie ws a dis trict court’ s ultim ate se ntencingdecision for rea sonablene ss. Ga ll v. United States , 1 28 S.Ct . 5 86 , 5 94 (2 00 7) . Ase nte nc e is re vie we d f or su bs tanti ve re a so na

ble ne ss under a n abuse- of-discr etion standard. Id. at 597. “The fac t that [ this Court] might re asonably have conclude d that a diffe rent sente nce w as appr opriate is insuffic ient to justi fy reve rsal of the district court.” Id. This Court applies a pre sumption of substantive reasona bleness to with i n -Guidelines sentenc es. United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 581 ( 6th Cir. 2007).No. 06-2487

15 B. Ana lys is We have he ld that “[a] sentenc e may be substantively

unrea sonable whe re the district court selec ts the sentence arbitra rily , bases the se ntence on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pertinent § 3553(a ) fa ctors or g ives an u n re asonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Jones , 489 F.3d 243, 252 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (interna l quotations and alterations omitted). Ty ler c ontends that due to the eff ect of the overr epre sentation of his criminal history on his Guidelines sentenc ing r ang e, his sentence “is ‘g reater than ne cessa ry ’ in light of [the fa ctors set forth in § 3553(a )(2) ](B) a nd (C) of the se ntencingstatute, deter renc e and pr eventing the publ ic from further crimes, a nd is theref

ore not re asonable .” (D ef. B r. 32.) Ty ler’s c riminal history

score was c alculate d as 21, placing Ty ler in cr iminal hist ory cate g ory VI
. The criminal history score was calc ulated as follows: 2 points for attempting to unlaw fully

drive
awa y a mot or ve hic le , 2 po int s for re c e ivi ng and c on c e a lin g sto le n pro pe rt y of $1 00 or le ss, 2 p oin ts fo r atte mpt e d lar c e ny in a bui ldi ng , 2 po int s for dr ivi ngwi th a su sp e nd e d li c e ns e , 2 po int s f or a ssa ult
or a ssa ult and batte ry , 1 po int

fo r o pe ratin g a

mot or ve hic le wh ile im pai red, 1 po int fo r s imp le po sse ssi on

of mari jua na , 2 po int s f

or a tte mpt ingto r e sis t arr e st and obstr uc t ju sti c e and

do me sti c vio le nc e , 3 po int s for de liv e ri ng or manu fa c tur ing a c on tr oll e d sub sta nc e , 2 po int s for

dr ivi ngwi th
a su sp e nd e d li c e ns e and

po sse ssi on

of mari jua na , a nd 2 po int s fo r c omm itt ing the ins tant o ff e ns e le ss than two y ear s after

rele ase from imprisonment. At sentenc ing T y ler a rg ued that his criminal history
c a te g o r y o f V Iw a s i n a

p p r o p r i a t e b e c a

u s e t h e m a

j o r i t y o f t h e c r i m e s h e c o m m i t t e d w e r e t ra ff

ic violations and proper

ty crimes. In response the judg e re asoned: W el l , M r. T y l er i s 3 4 y ea rs o l d an d h as a c ri m i n al h i s t o ry re p o rt edgo i n g b ac k

t o age 17, and ther e ar e some other offe nses that pre date that, that, of course are unscore d.No. 06-2487

16 No w, the re are – it ’s tr

ue that th e re are of

fe ns e s th a t de a l w iththe ft and wi th t ra ff ic violations throughout this rather long history

of cr iminal involvement, but Mr. Tyler has bee n in and out of trouble with the law for a n awf ul long time. Th e purp os e of

the c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y sc or ing is to a sse ss r e c idi vis m or the potential for r ecidivism under the r ationale that pa st conduct is an ac curate or at least pe rhaps the most re liable measur e of or predic tor of future conduct, a nd g iven the nature of the off

enses, the l ar ceny , the auto thef t, the domestic violence , the re sis tin g and

ob str uc tin g a po lic e of fi c e r, manu fa c tur ingmari jua na, assa ult , th e se of fense s are Ibe lie ve , e mbl e ma tic of an in div idu a l w ho ha s a ve ry dif fi c ult tim e confor ming his re quirements – co n forming his conduct to the re quirements of the law, and I

don’t believe that showing Mr. T y l er i n the hig hest of cr iminal hist ory cate g ories with 21 points, when that cate g ory itself tops out at 13 points – or beg ins at 13 points. This is s ignif icantly more than sort of eking int o the bot tom edg e of the cate g ory . Idon’t find that it is overre prese nted, . . . (J.A. 388.) This dia logue betwee n the court and defe nse counsel occur red in the course of the c ourt’s deter minat i o n o f t h e proper

Guidelines ra

ng e of 360 months to life. The c ourt then aske d for argument reg ardingthe application of the 3553(a) sentenc ing fac tors. Ty ler’s counsel a rg ued that the mandator

y minimum sentenc e of 20 y ear s was sufficient to serve the g oals of 3553(a ). Tyler then sp ok e on his ow n b e ha lf

, m ain ly argui ng that th e re wa s a n in su ff ic ie nt e vid e nti ary

ba sis fo r h is conviction. I n decidingwhat sente nce to impose, the c ourt noted that Ty l er h ad a longhistory of criminal violat i o n s t h at wa s ref lected in his cr iminal hist ory score . The c ourt also examined the policy rea sons for the leng thy

sentenc e sug g ested by

the Guide l i n es and a dded that the de terre nt eff ect of a lengthy sentenc e would be appropriate to dissuade others fr om eng ag ing in the luc rative business of drug- d ea l i n g and that it was important to incapa citate Ty ler be cause of his violent pr op e ns iti e s that we re te sti fi e d to a t tr ia l. A s a re su lt, the c ourt

imp os e d a

se nte nc e of

36 0 mo nth s, at the bottom of the Guidelines rang e. Fr om this rec ord, there is no evidence that the district courtNo. 06-2487

17 abused its discre tion in im posing a 360-month sentence despite the nature o f Ty ler’s pr ior
c on vic tio ns .

CO NC LU SION For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM Ty ler’s c onviction and the sente nce imposed by the dis tr ic t c ourt
.