The Honor able Micha el H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Souther n District * of Ohio, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0244n.06 F iled: Marc h 31, 2009 No. 08-5047 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee
v. FRANK I E WEL CH, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be fore : MARTI

N and COOK , Circuit J udg es; and WATSON, District J udg e. * WATSON, District J udg e. Def endant F rankie Welch ap p ea l s his 292-month sentence for possessing ove r 50 g rams of c ocaine base w ith an int ent t o distribute. He make s two arguments: (1) that the di strict court erre d by failing to make a fac tual finding that defe ndant’s stateme nt conce rning his pr ior dr uga c tiv ity

wa s ma de wi thi n th e c on te xt of a c oo pe ratio n a g re e me nt w iththe g ov e rn me nt, and (2) that his sentence is substantively unrea sonable. F or the re asons g iven, we a ffirm.
I.
Th e Pr e se nte nc e I nv e sti g a tio n Re po rt (“ PSR” ) s e ts f

or th t he un dis pu te d f

a c ts:No. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 2
On J anuar

y 27, 2006, specia l ag ents of the West Te nnessee Drug Task For ce se rved a se arc h w arr ant a

t th e re sid e nc e of F ra

nk ie and To ny a Wel c h, loc a te d at 68 0 So uth Be lls S tree t, Alamo (Crockett County), TN. Ag ents prese nt during the sea rch w ere Special Ag ent-in-Char g e (SAC) Donny Bla ckwe ll, Assistant Special Agent-inChar g e Da

nn y L e wi s, Spe c ia l A g e nt ( SA) Er ic Us e lto n, SA P a ul T ho ma s, and

SA Jay Mo rr is. Up on

arr iva l a t th e re sid e nc e , SA C B la c kw e ll app roac he d th e ho me alone a nd knocked on the door under neath the c arpor

t. Fra nkie W elch answere d the door and g ree ted SA C Bl ac kwell. The othe r ag ents approa ched a t that time, announce d their purpose, and proce eded to se cure the residenc e. Ot h er p er sons prese nt in the home wer e identified a s Tony a Welch and he r mother.
Af te r the res ide nc e wa s se c ur e d, F ra nk ie Wel c h w a s b ro ug ht i nto the liv ingro om, wher e he was advised of hi s Miranda Rig hts. After be ing so a dvised, the def endant a g re e d to ta lk a

nd to co op e rate wi th ca se a g e nts
. Mr . Welc h volu nte e re d th a t a g e nts would find “some stuff

” in a c hest of dra

wer s located in the master bedroom. Upon opening one o f t he dra

wer s, ag ents found a la

rg e amount of a

suspected c ontrolled s u b s t ance, later

positively

identified as c ocaine base ( cra ck coc aine) . The c rac k coca ine was packa g ed for resa le i nto six teen (16) s mall plastic bag s, which we re the n place d into one (1) lar g er pla stic bag . Also found in the same drawe r were two ( 2) pla sti c fi lm c anis te rs , bo th c on ta ini ng qu anti tie s o f c ra c k c oc a ine , a nd a sta c k o f U .S. c u r r e n c y. L o c a t e d i n an o t h e r

dr aw e r w a s a h an d g u n , s p e c i f

i c a l l y i d e n t i f

i e d a s a f u l l yloa de d Ru g e r, mod e l P9 5, 9mm se mi- a uto ma tic pis tol , s e ri a l no . 3 13 -5 59 69 , a s w e ll a s tw o ( 2) e xtra

ma g a zine s, bo th ful ly -l oa de d. Di re c tly be sid e the ha

nd g un wa s a larg e roll of U.S. cur

renc y . A cellophane wra

pper containing five (5) tablets, y ellow in color, wa s also found in on e o f t h e dra wer s. A Uniden sca

nner w as located elsewhe re in the ma ster bedr oom and a signific ant amount of a ssorted ammunition was found in a

master be droom closet. The total amount of U.S . curr ency seized from the ma s te r

b e dr o o m w a s $ 9 , 3 2 0
. 0 0
. A na d d it io n a l $ 4 0 2
. 0 0 in c u r r e n c y w as re c ov e re d f

ro m ano the r b e dr oo m. All of the suspec ted controlled substanc es seized from the de fenda nt’s residenc e on J anuar y 27, 2006, wer e submitted to a TB ICrime L ab o ratory for qua ntitative analy sis. Results of the labor at o ry analy sis posit ively identified the submitted exhibi ts as coca ine base , with a total net weig ht of 81.4 g rams. The a fore mentioned five (5) y ellow t ab lets were identified as a Schedule IV controlled substanc e, dia zep a m.No. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 3
L ater that same da

y , afte r being advised of hi s Miranda Rights for a second time, Mr. W el ch voluntarily

ag ree d to answer

case ag ents’ questions in an intervie w setting. Present duringthe interviewwer e the de fenda nt, SAC Bla ckwe ll, a

nd SA Uselton. Duri ngtha

t in te rv ie w, Mr . We lc h c la ime d o wn e rs hip and fu ll r e sp on sib ili ty

fo r a ll of the c ontrolled substance s, as well as the firea rm, ammunition, and curr ency , found in his residenc e. Mr. Welch provided a g ents with information as to wher e and how he had a cquire d those items. The defenda nt also voluntarily answe red que stions and provided infor

mation reg ardingthe extent of his involvement in tra ffickingof cr ack coca ine over

a substantial per iod of time. When asked how ofte n he purc hased c rac k coca ine (for

resa le) a nd how m uch of that substance he would purcha se at a time, Mr. Welch specific ally

replied that he boug ht “ a quarte r of a bird” (sla ng for kilog ram), or ni ne “juices” (slang for ounces) of cra ck “ever y wee k.” He r eporte d that he had tw o ( 2) pr ima

ry su pp lie rs fo r cr a c k co c a ine and that he ty pic a lly pa id a pp ro xima te ly $5,800.00 for e ach qua

rter “ bird” (kilog ram). When a sked how long he had be en purcha sing a

nd d ea l ing in that qua

ntity of cr ack, the defe ndant re plied that he had been doingso for “ three (3) or four ( 4) y ear s.” Mr
. W elch reported that ap p r o xim a te ly te n ( 1 0 ) s tr e e t- le v e l d e a le r s b o u g h t c r a c k c o c a in e f r o m h im on a re g ula r b a sis . H e sa id t

hat mo st o f th os e deale rs us ua lly purc ha se d th e ir

c ra c k in “eig ht-ball” (3.5 g rams) a nd/or one-f

ourth ounce quantities. The de fenda nt named a t le a st o ne de a le r t o w ho m he of te n s old c ra c k in “ jui c e ” (o un c e ) q

ua nti tie s.
On Octobe r 16, 2006, the g rand jury indicted Welch under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) for possessing ove r fifty g rams of c ocaine base w ith intent to di stribute. Welch pleade d g uilty to the char g e on Oc tober 11, 2007. There was no plea ag ree ment other than an oral ag ree ment that Welch rese rved the rig ht to a pp e a l th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of his mot ion

to s up pr e ss. The probation officer

issued the PSRon November 30, 2007. The probation officer used the statements Welch made dur ing his interview to c alculate his releva nt conduct. He nce, the probation office r beg an with the 81 g rams of c ocaine base se ized fro m W el ch’s residence , then adde d 39 kil og ra ms o f c ra c k b a se d u

po n We lc h’ s a dmi ssi on

that he ha d p ur c ha se d a

nd dis tr ibute d 2 50 g ra

ms
eac h wee k for thre e to f o u r y ears. I n acc ordanc e with United States Sentenc ing G uidelinesNo. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 4 (“U .S.S.G.”) § 2D1.1(c )(1) , Welch’s offe nse leve l started at 38 be ca u s e h i s relevant conduc t involved more than 4.5 kilogr ams of cocaine base. Two poi nts wer e added for the firea rm, and two points were subtra cted f

or ac cepta

nce of respo nsibili ty , resulting in a total offe nse leve l of 38. Welch had not pr eviously been convicted of a felony
. Nonethele ss, his misdemeanor c onvictions
re s u l t edi ns i x cr i m i n al h i s t o ry p o i n t s an d

a cr i m i n al h i s t o ry ca t ego ry o f I I I
. T h e G u i d el i n es ra n ge for of fense level 38 and c riminal history cate g ory I I Iis 292-365 months.
Welch filed a position paper re g ardingsentenc ing f actor s in response to the PSR on J anuar y 3, 20 08 . In th e po sit ion

pa pe r, Wel c h s ta te d h e did no t disp ute the a mou nts of na rc oti c s found a t hi s ho us e on Janu ary 27 , 2 00 6. Wel c h d id dis pu te the 39 kil og ra ms a ttr ibute d to him on the ba sis of his statement to of

fice rs, asser

ting his state ment to the Task For ce ag ents was “ made in the c ontext of cooper ation.” More over, Welch a rg ued his statement should have been co n s idere d as a “ proff er” and not used a s a basis for an incr ease d sentenc e. I n addition, he disputed the fire arm e nhance ment and maintained he was e ntitled to the third point for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty . He a lso objected to the assessment of one criminal history point, arg uing the conv i ct i o n in question occurr ed more tha n te n y e ars be fo re the of

fe ns e c on du c t. F ur

the rm or e , We lc h urg e d th e dis tr ic t c ourt to i mpo se a sente nce of

ten y ear s, repr esenting the s tatutory minimum based on the quantity of cr ack c ocaine found at his house.
The district cour

t conducted the sentenc ing he aringon J anuar y 7, 2008. During a sea led bench c onfer ence , Welch’s counse l aver red:No. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 5
B ut i t’ s o ur

po sit ion , a s w e state d, tha t hi s st a te me nt l a te r t

hat da y and his e ff orts the re a t the ho us e wo uld be pr op e rl y c on sid e re d in the natur e of a pr of fe r. Th e re is no prot ec t i o n o f the proff er le tter. He didn’t even ha ve counse l. There was no fede ral c harg e pending , obviously , at that time. State char g es had not e ven bee n filed be c a us e it w a s a

se arc h w arr ant, no t an a

rr e st w arr ant. During the hea

ring , Welch’s attorne y

emphasized that Welch had a s t ro n g wo rk hi story and wa s
e mpl oy e d f

ull tim e . Co un se l a c kn ow le dg e d th a t We lc h had bee n a dv ise d o f h is Miranda ri g hts befor e he ma de his statement to the Task F orce ag ents. Def ense c ounsel also conc eded that the Pr ob a tio n O ff

ic e r h a d a c c ur a te ly c a lc ulate d the Gu ide lin e s r ang e on the ba sis of

Wel c h’ s st a te me nt. Welch’s attorne y

ag ain urg ed the district cour t to im p o s e a 120 month sentence based upon the statutory mandatory

minimum for the 81 g rams of cr ack f ound at Welch’s home. De fense counsel char acte rized the rec ommended Guidelines r ang e o f 292-365 months as “be y ond the pale” and “shockingto the conscie nce,” asser ting that Welch, who ha d no prior fe lony co n v i ctions, was not like defe ndants who ty

pically fac e a se ntence in that rang e. L astly , Welch’s attorne y ag ain objecte d to the firea

rm enha nceme nt.
The district cour

t overrule d Welch’s obj ec t i o n s to the one cr iminal hist ory point and the fi re arm enhance ment. FollowingWelch’s allocution, the district cour t examined the statutory fac tors individually
. First, the district c ourt considere d the Guidelines rang e of 292 to 365 months. The district court re cog nized that the Guidelines wer e only one of se vera l fac tors to be considere d. Second, the d i s t r i c tc o u rte x a m i n e d

W e l c h ’ s h i s t o r

y an d c h ar a c t e r i s t i c s , n o t i n g t h a tt h i s w a s W e l c h ’ s f i r s tf e l o n y,No. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 6
albeit a se rious one. Third, the district c ourt n o t ed the nature and cir cumstance s of the off ense,
c on c lud ing that Wel c h wa s a dr ug kin g pin g ive n the larg e sc op e of his op e ra tio n. Withre sp e c t to t h i s f a c t o r , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt a l s o c o n s i d e r e d t h e i mp a c to f

W e l c h ’ s c r a c k

d e a l i n g o nt h e c o m m u n i t y. Four th, the district court examined the av ai l ab ility of alter native sente nces a

nd found that incar cer ation was the only sentenc e ava ilable for the offense. Fifth, the district court noted the need to avoid sentenc ing dispa rities, and con cl u ded that other defe ndants dea ling in lar g e quantities of
cra ck coca ine have rec eived simil arly long se ntence s. Six th, the district court consider ed the ne ed for de terre nce. Seventh, the di strict court acknowledg ed the need to impose a sentenc e that is not g reater than ne cessa

ry . Eig hth, the district court examined whethe r the Guidelines rang e wa s appropr iate an d co n cluded Welch’ s lack of a prior fe lony

justified a sentenc e fa

r lower than the
ma ximum . N int

h, the dis tr ic t c ourt

no te d it wa s takin g int o a c c ount a ll o f We lc h’ s r e le va nt c on du c t, inc lud ingthe c on du c t to wh ic h We lc h a dmi tte d in his state me nt t o th e Ta sk F or c e a g e nts
. Considering all of these f actor s, the district court conc luded a se ntence at the lowest e nd of the re commended G uidelines rang e wa s appropr iate. The district court there fore sentenc ed Welch to a te rm of 292 mo nth s im

pr iso nme nt. Judg me nt w a s e nte re d th e same da y , a nd Wel c h ti me ly appea led.
II.
Wel c h’ s a

pp e a l r a ise s tw o is su e s. F ir st, he argue s that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d b y fa ili ngto make a specific fac tual finding as to whethe r his statement t o age n t s conce rning his prior drugNo. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 7 activity was made within the context of a cooper ation ag ree ment with the g overnme nt. Second, he challeng es the substantive re asonable ness of his sentenc e. We addr ess ea ch in turn.
A. Welch argues the district co u rt er red by failing to make a f

actua l finding a s to whether he made his state ment to the Task For ce ag ents in the context of a cooper ation ag ree ment wi t h the g ov e rnme nt. “ Whe the r a dis tr ic t c ourt is requ ir ed to ma ke fa c tua l f ind ing s o n th e re c or d is a question of law subjec t to de novo revie w.” United States v. Vande berg, 201 F.3d 805, 809 ( 6th Cir. 2000).
Wel c h r e fe rs to U .S. S.G . § 1B 1. 8, wh ic h p ro vid e s:
Where a defe ndant ag ree s to co o p er ate with the g overnme nt by providing information conc erning unlawful a ctivities of others, and a s part of that cooper ation ag ree ment the g overnme nt ag ree s that self-incr iminating information provided pursuan t to the ag ree ment will not be used ag ainst the defe ndant, then such information shall not be used in determining the applicable g uideline ra ng e, except to t he e xten t pr ov ide d in

the a g re e me nt. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(a ).
Th e re c or d la c ks any su gg est io n that We lc h ma de his state me nt t o th e Ta sk F or c e a g e nts purs ua nt to a c oo pe ratio n a g re e me nt wi th the g ov e rnme nt. Ra the r, the re c or d r e fl e c ts that th e Ta sk F or c e a g e nts tw ic e inf

or me d We lc h o f h is Miranda rig hts, which would have inc luded a wa rning that any thing he said could be use d ag ainst him. W elch then voluntar ily g ave his stateme nt. AtNo. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 8
sentenc ing, Welch asser

ted t hat t he st atement should have been c onsidered as if it had been ma de pursuant to a c ooperation ag ree ment, not that suc h an agree ment actua lly exis ted. Welch’s attorne y
conce ded that no coope ration ag ree ment exis ted:
B ut i t’ s o ur

po sit ion , a s w e state d, tha t hi s st ate me nt l a te r t

hat da y and his e ff or ts the re a t th e ho us e wo uld

be pr op e rl y

c on sid e re d in the na

tur e of a pr of fe r. Th e re is no protec tion of the proff er le tt er . He d i dn’t eve n have c ounsel. Ther e wa s no fede ral c harg e pending , obviously , at that time. State char g es had not e ven bee n filed be c a us e it w a s a

se arc h w arr ant, no t an a

rr e st w arr ant.
I n these circumstance s, when a finding was neither requested nor supported by the re cord, the district court did not err
. B.
Welch also claims his 292-month sentence counts as s ubstantively unrea sonable, a

matter that we r eview usinga def ere ntial abuse-of

-discre tion standard. United St ates v. Pre sley , 547 F.3d 625, 629 (6th Cir. 2008). “‘ A sentenc e may be con s i d er ed substantively unrea sonable whe n the dis tr ic t c ourt

se le c ts a se nte nc e arbi tr ari ly , b a se s th e se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa ils to consider r eleva

nt sentencingfac tors, or g ives an unre asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fac tor.’” United States v. Haj-H amed , 5 4 9 F. 3 d 1 0 2 0 , 1 0 2 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Conaster , 514 F.3d 508, 520 ( 6th Cir.), cert. de nied, 129 S.Ct
. 450 (2008))
. The district cour t’s g oa l is to “i mpo se a se nte nc e su ff ic ie nt, bu t no t g re a te r t

ha n n e c e ssa ry , to c omp ly

wi th t he purp os e s”
o f § 3 5 5 3 ( a )
. 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ; Presley , 54 7 F .3 d at 63 0- 31 . T his Court a ff or ds a pr op e rl yNo. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 9

ca l cu l at edwi t h i n -G u i d el i n es s en t en ce a r eb u t t ab l e p re s u mp t i o no f r ea s o n ab l en ess. Haj-Hame d, 5 49 F.3d at 1025

. Welch contends his 292-month sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable for a fi rs t felony
c on vic tio n. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c on sid e re d a

nd re je c te d th is a

rgume nt. Th e dis tr ict court a lso addre ssed the § 3553(a) fac tors. Nonethele ss, Welch insist s his sentence exceeds what is necessa ry to a c hie ve the statut or

y g oa ls. He su g g e sts that the dis tr ic t c ourt re lie d too he a vil y on the Gu ide lin e s,
so-ca lled “g uidelineitus.” See U nited States v. Phinazee , 5 15 F .3 d 5 11 , 522 (6 th Cir . 200 8) (M e rr itt , J ., di s s en t i n g). Welch asks us to remand w ith inst ructions to rese ntence based upon a Guidelines calc ulation which would take into acc ount the quantity of drug s found in his home but exclude the 39 kilogr ams of cr ack c ocaine he admitted buying a nd selling in his statem en t t o the Task F orce
a g e nts
. The sente nce e njoy s a pre sumption of reasona bleness, which Welch does not r ebut. He doe s not argue that his sentenc e wa s arbitra ry , or that the dist ri ct co u rt based the sentenc e on impermissible factor s or fa iled to co n s i d er r eleva nt fac tors. He c oncede s that the district court pr op e rl y c a lc ulate d th e Gu ide lin e s r ang e ba se d up on his a dmi tte d purc ha se and sa le of 39 kil og ra ms of c ra c k c oc a ine . We lc h d oe s li tt le to ex plai n h owthe Gu ide lin e s r ang e is unr e a so na ble in t his ins tanc e —h e me re ly

c ha ra c te ri zes it a s su c h. I n e sse nc e , h e ur g e s u s to c omp e l th e dis tr ic t c ourt to
re se nte nc e him

in a mann e r that wo uld

ig no re the c on du c t to wh ic h h e vo lun tari ly a dmi tte d in

his statement to the Task F orce ag ents. But Welch has never disputed the ac cura cy of the amount of
cra ck coc aine to which he ref err ed in his statement. Welch’s sente nce r efle cts the larg e quantity ofNo. 08-5047

United States of America v . Frankie W elch 10
dr ug s h e int

ro du c e d to his c omm

un ity ov e r a pe ri od of y e ars . T he mer e fa c t th a t We lc h c ou ld possibly have obta ined a be tter dea l if he had c onsulted with a n attorney befor e makinghis statement should not shield him from punishment for three to f our y ear s of larg e-sc ale drug dealing
. Viewing the totality

of t he circumstance s, the di strict court did not abuse its discretion by sentenc ing Welch at the low end of

the applica

ble Guidelines ra

ng e, notwithstanding that this was his first felony conviction.
III . Be cause the district court did not err by fa i l i n g to make a spe cific f actua l finding a s to the exis tence of a cooper ation ag ree ment and because the 292-mont h is not substantively unrea sonable,
we a ff ir m.