T h e H o n o ra b le J e ro m e F a rr is, S e n io r U n ited S ta te s C irc u it J u d g e fo r th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f o r th e N inth * C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. -1-

NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON

File Na me: 09a0454n.06 No. 08-1060 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
United States of Amer ica, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. Reg inald Smit h, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt.

___________

_ _ _ _______________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
OPI NI ON

Be for e : G ILM AN , C OOK , a nd F ARRI S, C ir c uitJudg e s. * RONALD LEE GILMA N, Circ uit Jud ge. Re g ina ld S mith p le d guil ty to p os se ssi ngle ss than 100 g ram s o f

h e r o in w it h th e in te n t t o d is tr ib u te
. H e n o w a p p e a ls h is 2 0 0

- mo n th

s e n te n c e, arg uing tha t t

h e d is tr ic t c o u rt e r

r e d b y c la s s if

y in g h im a s a c ar e e r o f

f e n d e r an d b y im

p o s in g an
unrea sonable sente nce. F or the re asons set for th below, we AF F IRM the judgme nt of the district court.
I. BACKG ROUND I n D e c e mbe r 2 006, a

g ra nd jur y re tur ne d a n 1 1- c ount i nd ic tme nt t

hat c ha rg e d Sm ithwi th po sse ssi on

wi th t he int e nt t o dis tr ibute se ve ra l c on tr oll e d su bs tanc e s. Smith e ve ntu a lly ple d g uil tyNo. 08-1060

Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th

-2- to one count of posse ssion with int ent to distri b ute less than 100 g rams of he roin. As par t of the Rule 11 plea a g ree ment, the par ties stipulated that the quantity of her oin was 10 to 2 0 g rams, that Smit h was a

car eer offe nder, that he possessed a dange rous weapon during t he commis sion of the
o ff en s e, and that the applicable Guidelines ra ng e wa s 188-235 months of imprisonment. The Guidelines ra

ng e took into acc ount the g overnme nt’s rec o m m endation that S mith be gr anted a
re du c tio n o f t

hr e e of fe ns e le ve ls fo r ac c e pta

nc e of re sp on sib ili ty and its a g re e me nt t o w ith dr a w a ll
rema ining c harg es. Smith waived his rig ht to appeal his convic tion, but retained the r ight to appe al “the Court’s a dverse deter mination of any

disputed g uideline i ssue t hat was raised at or bef ore the sentenc ing he aring .” The wor ksheets attac hed to the plea ag ree ment calc ulated Smit h’s total of fense level to be 31 and his criminal his tory cate g ory to be VI , resulting in the stipulated sentencingrang e of 188- 235 months of imprisonment. S mith’s Presentence Report (PSR) reac hed the same re sults. At sentenc ing, the district court acc epted the computations in t h e P S R
. S m i th, however , moved for a

sentenc e below the Guidelines ra n ge base d on the limited duration of his crime, the small quantity

of drug s, and his family circ umstances. Promi nent amongthose circ umstances wa s his arg ument that he eng ag ed in dea ling dru gs to pay for his son’s fune ral. The district court ultimately

sentenc ed Smith to 200 m onth s o f i m p risonment, which is in the lower ha lf of the applicable Guidelines ra

ng e. Smith ti me ly a

p p e a le d
. T h e g o v e r

n me n t mo v e d to d is mi s s th e a p p e a l b a sed on Smit h’s stipulations as t o (1 ) his care er- offe nder status, a nd (2) the a

pplicable Guide lines rang e. A pr ior panel of this court denied the g overnme nt’s motion.No. 08-1060

Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th

-3-

II. AN AL YSI S A. Ca r e e r -o ffende r st at us Smit h now challeng es, for the first time, the district court’s deter mination that he is a ca

ree r offe nder. B eca

use Smith st ipulated to his status as a ca re er o ff en d er in the plea a g ree ment and
a c kn ow l e d g e d

t h e v a l i d i t y

o f t h e a g r e e m e n ta tt h e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , h e h a s w a i v e d a p p e l la te revie w of this issue. See U nited States v. Aparco- Centeno , 280 F.3d 1084, 1088 ( 6 t h C ir. 2002) (holding that a def

endant’ s express ag ree ment in district court with a sentenc ing f actor constituted
a wa ive r of his ri g ht to a

pp e a l the a

pp lic a tio n o f t

hat f a c tor ); Un ite d S

tat es v . Ne

sb itt , 90 F.3d 164, 1 6 8 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( h o l d i n g th at a d ef en d an t ’s ex p re s s agr ee m en t re gar d i n g t h e q u an t i t y o f d ru gs
w a iv e d th a t i s s u e o na

p p e a l)
. We th e r e f

o r e d e c li n e to c o n s id e r

Sm it h ’ s c h a ll e n g e to th e d istrict court’s de termination of his ca ree r-of fende r status on appe al. B. Reasonableness of sentence We reviewsentenc es impo s ed b y t h e d i s t rict cour t for re asonable ness. United States v. Vo we ll , 516 F.3d 503, 509 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Reasonable ness re view has both a s u b s t an tive and a proce dural c omponent. Gall v. United States , 1 28 S. Ct . 5 86 , 5 97 (2 00 7) ; Vo we ll , 516 F.3d at 509. When review ing a

district court' s sentencingdeter mination, we “f

irst ensure that the district court committed no significa

nt proce dural e rror .” Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597. “Assuming that the district court’s se ntencingdecision is proce durally sound, the appe lla t e cour t should then consider the substantive rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e imposed under an abuse -of- discretion standa rd.” Id.No. 08-1060

Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th

-4- “A sentence may be proce d u r a ll y u n r e a s o n a

b le if th e d is tr ic t c o u rt f

a il s to c a lc u late, improperly

calc ulates, or f

ails to consider, the applicable g uideline rang e or neg lects to consider the other fa ctors l i s t ed i n 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553(a), a nd instead simply

selec ts what the cour

t deems an appropr iate sentenc e without suc h require d consideration.” United States v. Roc hon , No. 07-5429, 2 0 0 9 U. S
. Ap p . L E XIS 6 5 3 0 , at * 6 (6 t h C i r. M ar 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Ga ll , 128 S.Ct . at 596-97). Although the district court nee d not expli citly ref ere nce eac h of t he § 3553(a) fa ctors, ther e must be
su ff ic ie nt e vid e nc e in t

he re c or d to a ff

ir ma tiv e ly

de mon str a te the c ourt ’s c on sid e ratio n o f t he m. United States v. Simmons , 501 F.3d 620, 625 ( 6th Cir. 2007). The S upreme Court has ma d e c le ar th a t “ [t ]h e a

p p r o p r iate n e s s o f

b r e v it y o r leng th, concise ness or detail .
. . , depends upon circ umstances” that are “lef t to the j udg e’s own pr ofessional judgme nt.” Rita v. United States , 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Particula rly wher e the dist rict cour t chooses as e n te n c e w it

h in th e a p p li c a b le G u id e li n e s r an g e an d “ th e r e c o r d

ma k e s c le ar th a t the sentenc ing judg e conside red the evidenc e and th e ar g uments,” the sente ncing decision “w ill not
nece ssarily

require leng thy

explanation.” Id. at 356, 358. The district c ourt is statutorily require d, howeve r, to explain “the rea son for imposing a sentenc e at a particula r point within the rang e” w hen “that ra ng e excee ds 24 months.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c). Apply ing these principles to the prese nt case , we rema in unpersua ded by Smit h’s ar g ument that hi s se nte nc e is pr oc e dura lly un re a so na ble
. A re vie w of the se nte nc ing he ari ng tr ans c ri pt r e ve a ls that th e dis tr ic t c ourt

art ic ulate d a

nd e xpla ine d s e ve ra l r e a so ns fo r se nte nc ing Smit h in the low e r h a lf of the sti pu la te d G uid e lin e s r ang e , in c lud ingthe fo llo wi ngc omm e nts :No. 08-1060

Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th

-5- Ihave ha d a cha

nce to re ad t h e letters that have been f urnished by family members, indee d y our nephe w in particula r ce rtainly

caug ht my attention. You will be missed during y our term of custody . Ican state that consider ation should be g iven to your family circ umstances in try ing to make a dete rmination with respec t to the sentence that should be imposed. Now, notwithstanding that fac t Mr. Smit h arr ives h er e wi t h three p ri o r c o n t ro l s u

b s t an ce co n v i ct i o n s an d

fo r we l fa re fr au d , ca rry i n g a conce aled we apon, fe lonious assault. The m ater ial that I ’m furnished with refle cts that ammunition and wea pons at t h e location that the g e ntl e man w a s at. Taking that into consideration and the issues of public sa fety that are nece ssarily

raised by those fac ts toge ther with the g entleman’ s history the c ourt is s a tis fi e d th a t w hil e the hig h e nd of the g uideline [is] cer tainly not war

rante d the cour

t is also satisfied that the term of y ear s within the guide line is. Se tti ng a sid e the g uid e lin e s the c ourt wi ll re fl e c t fo r the re c ord its understandingthat those are indeed a dvisory . An d t h e court has independe ntly considere d the factors, as Mr. Her ring ton [ counsel for Smith ] h a s id e n ti f

ie d th e y ar e c o n tr o ll in g f

o r th is c o u rt, in T it le 18 Section 3555(a)
. The district court did not addre ss ever y argument made by Smit h for a downwa rd var iance
. Smit h raised nume rous ar g uments reg ardingthe application of the § 3553(a) fac tors in his sentencing memorandum a

nd at the sentenc ing hear ing. I n particula r, he pointed to his ag e (51 at the time of
se nte nc ing ), po or

he a lth , s ta

ble marr ia g e , a

nd the le ng th o f t ime t hat ela ps e d b e tw e e n h is l a st incar cer ation and the pr esent off ense a s rea sons a lower

sentenc e. He also alleg ed that he ha d
e ng a g e d in

dr ug -d e a lin g to p ay

fo r h is s on ’s fu

ne ra l e xpe ns e s. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t e xpre ssl y addre ss these ar g uments.No. 08-1060

Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th

-6- We r e ma in u

np e rs ua de d, ho we ve r, that su c h o mis si o n s r e n de r S mith’ s se nte nc e pr oc e dura lly

u n r e a s o n a

b l e . “ [ W ] e d o n o tr e qu i r e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t o e x p l i c i t l y a d dr e s s e v e r y ar g u m e n tm a d e b y a defe ndant for a

lower se ntence .” Un ite d S tat es v . O ’D an ie ls , 253 F. App’x 563, 567 (6th Cir. 2007) (c i t i n g Un ite d S

tat es v . G ale , 468 F .3 d 929 , 940 (6 th Cir . 200 6) ). Al tho ug h the dis tr ic t court in t his
c a se c e rt a in ly

c ou ld h a ve be e n mo re tho ro ug h, we c ann ot s ay that th e c ourt

did no t su ff ic ie ntl y articulate its reasons f

or Smith’s sentence suc h that rea sonable a ppellate r eview is im possible. To the c on tr ary , th e re c or d s ho ws that th e c ourt too k in to a c c ount t he § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s and

a de qu a te ly explained why

it chose the sente nce it did. Se e Ga le , 468 F.3d at 940 (“[W] e will not conclude that a district judg e shi rked [ his] obligation to consider the § 3553(a) fac tors simply beca use [ he] did not dis c us s e a c h o ne ind ivi du a lly or did no t e xpre ssl y pa

rs e or a dd re ss e ve ry argume nt r e la tin g to t

ho se fac tors that the def

endant a dvance d.”). Finally , Smit h’s sentenc e wa s a ls o s u b s ta n ti v e ly r e a s o n a

b le
. “ A s e ntence may be substa n t i v el y

u n re as o n ab l e w h er e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt s el ec t s t h e s en t en ce ar b i t ra ri l y , b as es t h e sentence
on imp e r m i s s i b l e f

a c t o r s , f a i l s t o c o n s i d e r

p e rt i n e n t§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c t o r s o r g i v e s anu n r e a s o nable amount of weight to any

pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. J ones , 489 F.3d 243, 252 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (c itatio ns , in te rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s, and a lte ra tio ns omi tte d) . B e c a

us e Smith w a s se nte nc e d w ith in the applica

ble Guidelines ra

ng e, his sentenc e is entitled to a “rebuttable presumption of substantive
rea sonablene ss.” United States v. W ilms , 495 F.3d 277, 288 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Smit h argues that his 200-month sentenc e is substantively unrea sonable beca use the district court did not consider

the re latively

minor nature of

his crime, his ag e, and his low probability for
rec idivism . We disag ree . The district cour t i n this case ba sed its decision on Smit h’s numerousNo. 08-1060

Un ite d S tat es v . S mi th

-7- prior convic tions, his s tatus as a c are er of fende r, and the fac t that he was in posse ssion of a handgun and ammunition when selling the her oin in que s t i o n . De spite these neg ative fa ctors, the c ourt appar ently

sentenc ed Smith to t he lower half of the stipulated Guidelines ra ng e in consider ation of Smit h’s family

circ umstances. We find no a buse of discr etion in the sentenc e so imposed.
III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.