The Honor able Rober t J . J onker, U nited States District J udg e for th e W estern D istrict of * Michig an, 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: 10a0601n.06 No. 08-5495 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, ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE Pla int if f- Ap pe lle e , ) UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT

) CO UR T F OR TH E E AST ERN v. ) DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY ) J OHN DO UGLAS WHEL AN, JR ., ) ) De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ____________________________________)
BEF ORE: SUTTON and Mc KEAGU E, Circuit J udg es; J ONKER, District Judge. * Jonker, District

Judge
. J ohn Doug las Whelan, J r. appe als the sentenc e ente red f ollowing his guilty plea to cr iminal charg es involving distribution of Oxy Contin pi lls. Mr. W helan c ontends the dis tr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in determinin g the numbe r o f O xy Con tin pil ls attr ibuta

ble to h im, and

a s a result err ed in c alculating his base off ense le vel. Mr. Whelan fur ther c ontends that the sentenc e the district court imposed was substantively unrea sonable. F ac tu al a nd P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound I n Augus t of

20 07 , a n in fo rm ant t old law en fo rc e me nt of fi c ia ls that he ha d s old

Oxy Con tin tablets to Mr. Whelan on a reg ular basis for the past twelve to eightee n months. (R.27: P rese ntence I nvestig ation Report (“PS R”) at ¶ 11.) The informant stated t hat he usually sold betwee n three and four hundr ed Oxy Contin t ablets to Mr. Whelan ever y two wee ks. (

Id .) The inf

ormant adde d thatNo. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 2 Mr. Whelan’s lar g est single purcha se of Oxy Contin t ablets fr om him was for 900 table ts. ( Id. ) The
same inf or mant l a te r t old

law e nf or c e me nt of

fi c ia ls that si nc e a

pp ro xima te ly

July , 2 00 6, he ha d s old Mr . Wh e lan a

n ave ra g e of

20 0 to 30 0 Oxy Con tin ta

ble ts pe r we e k at an a ve ra g e of $3 3. 00 pe r t a

ble t,
and that ov e r the c ou

rs e of the ir

re latio ns hip , M r. Whe lan h a d p a id t he inf or mant o ve r $ 20 0, 00 0 in cash. ( Id. at ¶ 12.) Worki n g wi th law enf orce ment, the informant c ontacted Mr . Whelan and
arr ang ed a sa le of 1,000 Oxy Contin t ablets. ( Id. at ¶¶ 14- 15.) When Mr. Whelan ar rived to make the purc hase, la

w enf orce ment officia ls arre sted him and found $33,940 in cash in his pos session. ( Id. a t ¶ 16 .) Mr . Wh e lan a dmi tte d that he ha d c ome wi th c a sh to purc ha se 1, 00 0 Oxy Con tin ta ble ts. ( Id. at ¶ 17.) Mr . Whelan also admitted that he ha d in the past made f ive oth er p u rc h as es of Oxy Contin t ablets, ea ch time purc hasing 500 80mg O x y Contin t ablets. ( Id. ) On Se pte mbe r 13 , 20 07 , a fe de ra l g ra nd jur y ind ic te d Mr . Wh e lan o n thre e c ri min a l c ounts
. (R
. 1 0 : I n d i ct m en t
. ) C o u n tOn e c h ar gedco n s p i ra cy t o d i s t r i b u t e aqu an t i t y

o f p i l l s co n t ai n i n g a detec table amount of oxy codone in violation of 2 1 U. S
. C
. § § 841(a) (1) a nd 846. ( Id. ) C ount 2
c ha rg e d at t e mp tt o p o s s e s s w i t h t h e i n t e n tt o d i s t r i b u t e a qu an t i t y o f p i l l s c o n t a i n i n g a

d e t e c t a b le amount of ox y codone, in violation of 21 U.S.C . §§ 841(a) (1) a nd 846. ( Id. ) Count 3 was a c ount for f orfe iture under

21 U.S.C. § 853. Mr. W helan plea ded guilty to all counts without a plea ag ree ment, and judg ment ag ainst him was enter ed on F ebrua ry 27, 2008. (R. 24: J udg ment.) The PSR notes that Mr. Whelan’s own admissions indicate that he soug ht to purchase 1,000 Oxy Co n t i n t a

b l e t s t h e d ay o f h i s ar

r e s t an d t h a t h e h a d p r e v i o u s l y p u r c h a s e d 2 , 5 0 0 Oxy Con tin ta ble ts. (R . 2 7: P SR, ¶

18 .) B a se d o n th os e adm is sio ns a lon e , M r. Whe lan w ou ld b e he ld
a c c ounta ble fo r 3 ,5 00 80 mg Ox y Co nt in t a ble ts, wi th a

mari jua na e qu iva le nc y

of 1, 87 6 k ilo g ra

msNo. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 3 of marijuana . (

Id. ) The PSR points out further , though, that the informant’s state ments indicated that Mr. Whelan had pur chase d Oxy Contin from the informant over an extended per iod of time and that Mr. Whelan had pr ovided the informa nt with approxi m at el y

$200,000 in cash duringthe conspirac y , at $33.00 per tablet. ( Id. ) U sin g the c a lc ulatio n it de sc ri be s a s mo st be ne fi c ia l to Mr. Whelan, the P SR divides $200,000 by 33 and determines t hat M r. W helan in the past purc hased approximately

6,060 80mg O x y Contin t ablets. ( Id. ) Addingthe 1,000 t ablets Mr. Whelan attempted to p ur c ha se on

the da y of his arr e st to the 6, 06 0, the PSR c on c lud e s that Mr
. Whe lan is a c c ounta ble for 7,060 80mgOxy Contin t ablets, with a mar ijuana equiva lency of 3,784.16 kilog rams. ( Id. ) At sentenc ing, Mr . Whelan objected to the num ber of Oxy Contin t ablets the PSR attributed to h im i n d e te rm ini nghis ba se of fe ns e le ve l. ( R. 3 2: T ra

ns c ri pt, a t 4. ) I n p art ic ula r, he ob je c te d to the PSR ’s re liance on the statement by the informant tha t he had r ece ived over $200,000 over the past twelve to e ighte en months from Mr. Wh elan. ( Id. ) Mr. Whelan a

rgued that only

the 3,500 tablets to which he ha d admitted should be consider ed in deter mining his base of

fense level. (

Id. at 14 .) Mr
. Whe lan did no t ob je c t to the fo rm

ula the PSR a

pp lie d to c a lc ulate the numbe r o f t a ble ts. ( Id. at 4.) Nor

did Mr. Whelan object to any of the fa cts stated in the PSR. ( Id. at 7–8, 10–11.) Th e dis tr ic t ju dg e c are fu lly c on sid e re d M r. Whe lan’ s o bje c tio n to the numbe r o f O xy Con tin tablets attributed to him and the resulting base of fense level. (

Id. at 12–16.) The judge observe d that in determining the applica ble offe nse l ev el , courts conside r, amongother thing s, “all ac ts and omi ssi on s th a t w e re pa

rt of the same c ours e of

c on du ct or

c omm on sc he me or

pla n a s th e of

fe ns e of convic tion,” including “ rele vant conduct of additi onal drug quantiti es t hat are not cha rg ed in the indictment.” (

Id. at 13 (c iting U.S.S.G. § 1(B )1.3(a )).) The judg e explained that “[b]ecause the reNo. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 4
wa s n o s e izur e of

a c tua l dr ug s at is su e , I

may , in c on sid e ri ng th e app ropri ate ba se of fe ns e le ve l, approxi m at e t h e amount and the pr ice of those drug s using similar tra nsactions that have been conducte d by

the def endant.” ( Id. (c iti ngU. S.S. G. § 2 (D )1 .1 , c mt. n. 12 ). ) We ig hin g va ri ou s f a c tor s, including without limitation that (1) Mr. Whelan had agree d to forfe it procee ds of drugtraff icking activity for a total of $250,000; (2) the informant stated that he had rec eived $200,000 or more ove r the cour se of the year ; (3) the f orfe iture count included $ 33,940 in cash found in Mr. Whelan’ s possession on his trip to purchase 1,000 tablets; and (4) the informant state d that he cha rg ed $33 per pill, the judge f

ound it reasona

ble to conclude that the appr ox imate price per pill was $33. ( Id. at 14 –1 5. ) T he jud g e fo un d it lik e ly that Mr . Wh e lan h a d p ur c ha se d d ur ingthe c on sp ir a c y

a t le a st 6,060 pills, i ncluding the 2,500 tablets for which Mr. Whelan ac cepte d responsibility . ( Id. at 15.) Adding the 1,000 tablets Mr. W helan intended to purcha se t he day of hi s arr est, the judg e rule d that “[t] he quantity attributable to Mr. Whelan will be 7,060, 80 milligra m ox y codone pills.” (

Id. at 16.) The judg e thus overr

uled Mr. Whelan’s objec tion. ( Id. ) F urther, the judge expli citly acc epted a

nd adopted the finding s in the P SR, including the g uideline calculations. ( Id. at 17.) Af

ter discussing the sentenc ing f

actor s and giving the parties an opportunit y to addre ss the court, the j udg e imposed a sente nce of

152 months on e ach of

Counts I and I I , to be serve d concur rently . ( Id. at 19–37.) The sentenc e fe ll within t he middle of the advisory Guidelines rang e, which stretche d from 135 to 168 months. ( Id. at 21.)No. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 5 Ana lys is 1. The district court did not clearly err in c alculating M r. W helan ’s b a s e Guidelines off e ns e le v e l. A clea rly err oneous standar d of review applies to the district court’s f actua l findings. United States v. Mc Gee , 494 F.3d 551, 554 ( 6th Cir. 2007)
. “A fac tual finding is c lear ly err oneous ‘whe n the re viewing court on the e ntire evidence is lef t with the definite and f

irm conviction that a mistake has bee n committed.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Tran v. Gonzales , 4 4 7 F. 3 d 9 3 7 , 9 4 3 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 6 ))
. Fi n d i n gs
o f f a c t s c r u c i a l t o t h e d e t e r

m i n a t i o no f

a d e f e n d an t ’ s b a s e o f

f e n s e l e v e l m u s t b e m a d e b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. United States v. W alton , 908 F.2d 1289, 1301–02 ( 6th Cir. 1990). I n making such fa ctual finding s, courts consider , among other things, “all acts
. . . committed .
. . by the def endant
. . . d u ri n g the commission of the offe nse of c onviction [ or] in preparation for that of fe ns e .” U. S.S. G. § 1 B 1. 3( a )( 1) (A )- (B ). I f n o d ru g s h a ve a c tua lly be e n sei zed in c onne c tio n w ith a drugoffe nse, the sente ncing court must approximate the quantity of d ru gs at t ri butable to the defe ndant. Id. a t § 2 D1 .1 c mt. n. 12 ; accor d W alton , 908 F.2d at 1301–02. “[H] ere also a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e must support the estimate.” W alton , 908 F.2d at 1301–02. A cour t

“ c ho os ingbe tw e e n a

numbe r o f p la

us ibl e e sti mate s of dr

ug qu anti ty , non e of wh ic h is mor e lik e ly than not t h e corr ect qua ntity , . . . must err on the side of caution.” Id. at 1302. “A c ourt’s
a pp ro xima tio n o f t

he amou nt o f d ru g s invo lve d in

a pa rt ic ula r c a se is n ot cle arl y e rr on e ou s if supported by

competent e vid en ce in the r ecor d.” United States v. Edward Lee M ahaffey , 53 F.3d 1 2 8 , 1 3 2 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 5 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Brannon , 7 F
. 3 d 5 1 6 , 5 2 0 ( 6 th Cir. 1993) (abr o g ated on other

g rounds by

Pub. L . No. 106-310, §§ 3601-3673, 114 Stat. 1102, 1227-46 (2000))
.No. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 6 T h e C o u rt s ee s n o cl ea r e rr o r i nt h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ap p ro x i m at i o n o f t h e q u an t i t y o f d ru gs attributable to Mr. Whelan. Mr. Whelan raised no objection to the fac ts set forth in the PSR , and the district c ourt was entitled to a cce pt those fac ts as true. F ED . R. C R IM . P. 32(i)(3) (A); accord U nited States v. C

a r ter , 355 F.3d 920, 925- 26 (6th Cir. 2004). Competent evidenc e supports the district court’s f inding that Mr. Whelan w as re sponsible for 7,060 Oxy Contin t ablets. Mr. Whelan pleade d g uilty to a criminal forf

eiture of $250,000 repr esentingproce eds fr om the drugtraff icking activities with which he wa s char g ed. (R. 24: J udg ment.) The inf ormant advised la

w enf orce ment that he had
rec eived ove r $200,000 in c ash from Mr. Whelan. (R. 27: PSR , at ¶ 12.) T he informa nt stated that
on aver ag e, he sold Mr
. Whelan Oxy Contin t ablets for $33.00 eac h. (

Id. a t ¶ 12 .) Th is pr ic e pe r p ill is consistent with the amount of cash, ove r $33,000, Mr. Whelan ha d broug ht w ith him to pay for 1,000 tablets. ( See id. at ¶ 16.) Mr. Whelan did not prese nt a ny evidenc e to c ontrad i ct the informant’s state ment that Mr. Whelan paid him ove r $200,000 over the course of more than a y ear , and no evide nce to c ontradict the infor mant’s statement that Mr. Whelan ty pically paid him $33 per Oxy Contin

ta ble t. I nd e e d, Mr . Wh e lan r a ise d n o o bje c tio n to the fa c ts i n th e PSR. I n c a lc ulatin g the qu anti ty of Oxy Con ti n

a tt r i b ut a b l e t o M r . W he lan, the dis tr ic t c ourt a c tua lly
err ed on the side of caution and g ave the defe ndant the bene fit of the doubt. See W alton , 908 F.2d at 1301–02. Throug h his g uilty plea, Mr. Whelan a cknowledg ed $250,000 in proc eeds r elated to the drugoffe nses with which he w as charg ed. Howeve r, t he C ourt did not use t his number in ca lculating the quantity

attributable to Mr. Whelan, but rather used the lower $200,000 fig ure the informant had provided. Similarly , the district court did not rely on the informant’ s est i m at es o f the number of Oxy Contin t ablets Mr. Whelan ha d purcha sed from him ove r the course of the c onspiracy to whichNo. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 7 Mr. Whelan pleade d g uilty
. At one point , the i nformant stated that Mr. W helan had purcha sed 300 to 400 Ox y Contin t ablets fr o m him every two wee ks for ove r a year . Had the district c ourt relied
on that st a te me nt in makin g its c a lc ulatio ns , it wo uld have fo un d, a t a

min imum, 7 ,8 00 Oxy Con tin tablets (300 x 26) attributable to the def endant, plus an a dditional 1,000 tablets Mr. Whelan had intended to purc hase the day of his arr est. At another

point, the informant stated that Mr. Whelan had p u r c h a s e d a

p p r o xim a te ly 2 0 0 to 3 0 0 O xy Co n ti n ta b le ts p e r w e e k f

o r o v e r a y e ar. Ha d the district court relied on this stateme nt, it would have attributed at least 10,400 Oxy Contin t ablets (200

x 52) to the defe ndant. Instead, the tria l court opted for the more c onservative and fully supported calc ulation. 2. The district court’s sentenceof Mr. W helan was reasonable. The Court reviews t he dis trict court’s sentencingdecision for rea sonablene ss. United States v. Mc Gee , 4 94 F .3 d 5 51 , 5 54 (6 th C ir . 200 7)
. “ Th e qu e sti on of wh e the r a s e nte nc e is r e a so na ble is deter mined using th e a

b u se-of -discre tion standard of r eview.” United States v. Carter , 510 F.3d 593, 6 0 0 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 46, 47 (2007)). “ [D] istrict courts have
c on sid e ra ble dis c re tio n in

thi s are a and thu s de se rv e the be ne fi t of the do ub t w he n w e re vie w the ir sentenc es and the rea sons give n for them.” United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 3 9 2 (6th Cir. 2008) ( en banc ). “The fac t that the appellate court mig ht rea sonably have concluded that a diffe rent
s e n te n c e w a s a

p p r o p r iate is in s u f

f ic ie n t t o ju s ti f

y r e v e r s a l o f

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt.” Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. A re view for

rea sonablene ss has both substantive and proce dural c omponents. Carter , 510 F. 3 d at 6 0 0 (c i t i n g Ga ll , 5 52 U. S. at 49 -5 1) . Mr. Whe lan d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the pr oc e dura l a sp e c tsNo. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 8 of his sentenc e, but ar gues only that his sentence is substantively unrea sonable. (A

ppellant’s B r. at 14.) The Court c on s i d er s the totality of the c ircumstance s in reviewingthe substantive
rea sonablene ss of a sente nce. Ga ll , 5 52 U. S. at 51 . Are butta ble pr e sumpt ion

of re a sonab len e ss applies to sentenc es prope rly calc ulated under

the Guidelines. Vonner , 5 16 F .3 d at 38 9- 90 ; se e als o R i t a v. United States , 5 5 1 U
. S. 3 3 8 , 3 4 7 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ( u p h o ld in g p r e s u mp ti o no f r e a s o n a b le n e s s f or within-g uidelines sentenc es). Mr. Whelan’s cla im that his sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable fa ils. The sentenc e wa s within t he prope rly

calc ulated Guidelines r ang e, entitling the sentenc e to a pr esumption of
rea s o n ab l en ess. Vonner , 516 F.3d at 389-90. Mr. Whelan does not ar g ue that the district cour t imposed the sentenc e ar

bitrarily , based the sentenc e on impermissible fac tors, failed to c onsider any pertinent fa ctor unde r 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), or g ave a n "unr easona

ble amount of we ight to a pe rtinent fac tor." U

n ite d S ta te s v . Lapsins , 570 F.3d 758, 772 ( 6th Cir. 2009) (listing situations in which a
se nte nc e is c on sid e re d s ub sta nti ve ly unre a so na

ble ) (q uo tatio n omitte d) . Mr. Whe lan a rgue s si mpl y that a lt ho ugh the d istri c t c ourt re vie we d th e a

pp ro pr iate se nte nc ingfa c tor s und e r 1 8 U .S. C. § 3553(a) , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt s h o u ld h a v e w e igh e d

th e f a c to r s d if f e r e n tl y an d im p o s e d a s horter
se nte nc e . ( Ap pe lla

nt’ s B r. a t 14 –1 5. ) M r. Whe lan p re se nts no re a so ns why the dis tr ic t c ourt

sh ou ld have w eig hed the f

actor s differ ently . Mr. Whelan has n o t rebutted the presumption of
rea sonablene ss of the leng th of the sentenc e and ha s shown no abuse of discretion on the pa

rt of the district court. The se ntence of the district cour t was re asonable
.No. 08-5495

United States v. W

helan 9

Conclusion For these re asons, we AF F IRM
.