The Honor able William H. Staff ord, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District * of F lorida, sitting by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 06a0870n.06 Filed: De cembe r 1, 2006 No. 05-2515 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.
JESSE L EE WAL KE R, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE W ES TER

N DI S TR I CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fo re : S I L E R

an d C L AY , C i rc u i tJ u d ges ; S T AF FO R D, Di s t ri ct J u d ge * SILE R , Circuit J udg e. De fenda nt J esse L ee Walker

appea ls his 156-month s entenc e for bank robbe ry

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) on the bases that the district c ourt err ed by holding that a se nte nc e imp os e d p ur su ant t o th e Un ite d St a te s Se nte nc ingGu ide lines (US S G) is presumptively

rea sonable, by failing to addre ss the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentenc ing f actor s, and by imposing a se ntence that was unre asonable
. Be cause Walker’s a rg uments lack mer it, his sentence is AF F IRMED. I. BACKG ROUND Walker pl ed guilty to one count of bank robber y in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) , and the district court sentenc ed him to 156 months in prison. At the time of se ntencing , Walker wa s 51 y ear sNo. 05-2515

United States v. Walker

- 2 - old and was a

drug addict. He had numer ous persona l problems, including a history of negle ct by his mother. He a lso had a c riminal history that beg an at a g e 14, including one conviction for a rmed
ro b b ery an d t wo o t h er b an k ro b b ery co n v i ct i o n s . T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt deter mined Walker’s US S G r an ge
w a s 1 5 1

- 1 8 8 m o n t h s b a s e d o n an a d j u s t e d o f f e n s e l e v e l o f

2 9 an d a c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y o f V I. II. DISCUSS ION We revie w t he dis trict court’s sentence for r easona bleness. See United States v. Christopher , 415 F.3d 590, 594 ( 6th Cir. 2005). A s entenc e that is proper ly calc ulated under the USSG car ries a rebuttable pre sumption of reasona bleness. United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006). 1. Whe th e r th e Di st r ic t C our t A c c or de d Too M uc h We igh t t o t he Se nt e nc ing G uide line s Walker ar g ues that the district cour t violated United States v. Book er , 543 U.S
. 2 20, 258 (2005), whe n it used the Guidelines as a “pre sumptive sentenc i n g tool.” I n W illiams , 436 F.3d at 707, we r ejec ted the ar g ument that the “district cour t pr es u med the Guidelines r ang e to be
rea sonable, and that this pre sumption depr ived [defendant] of a proper integ ration of the statutory fac tors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” He re , th e fa c t th a t th e dis tr ic t ju dg e us e d th e USSG a s a “pre sumptive tool” does not imply that he gave the Guidelines undue weig ht beca use he r ecog nized his a bil ity to d e pa rt fr om t he USS G a

nd on ly us e d th em as on e of

a numbe r o f c on sid e ratio ns in
rea ching the sentenc e. Thus, Walker’ s argument fails. 2. Whe th e r th e Di st r ic t C our t P r ope r ly D isc uss e d t he § 3 55 3( a) F ac to r s Walker conte nds that the district court did not adequately state the g rounds for imposing the sentenc e in ac corda

nce w ith § 3553(a) be cause it did not properly consider his history

of drugabuse,No. 05-2515

United States v. Walker

- 3 - ag e, and pe rsonal proble ms . He re lies on United St ates v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673, 679 (7th Cir. 2005) , wher e the c ourt held that “[a] rote statement that the judge considere d all the re levant fa ctors
w il l n o t a lw ay s s u f

f ic e ” to ju s ti f

y th e s e n te nce. I n C u nningham , howeve r, the trial c ourt “pa ssed
ov e r i n s ile nc e the pr inc ipa l argume nt m a de by the de fe nd ant e ve n th ou g h th e argume nt w a s n ot s o
weak as not to merit discussion.” Id. Her e, the district c ourt did c onsider Walker’s drugabuse, a g e, and per sonal problems and de termined that those fac tors helped justify a sentenc e at the bottom of the rang e. The court need not have spec ifically mentioned ea ch § 3553 fa ctor. See United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 554 ( 6th Cir. 2006). 3. Whe th e r Wa lke r ’s Se nt e nc e Wa s R e as ona ble Bas e d On Hi s C ir c um st anc e s The district c ourt sentenc ed Walker to the bottom of the USSG r ang e based upon his violent pa st a nd h i s l i k e l y f

u tu r e b e h a v i o r . W a l k e r a l s o c l a i m s t h a t b e c a u s e o f h i s a g e h e i s l e s s lik e ly to
c omm it f utu re c ri me s th an a

y oung e r o ff

e nd e r w ou ld be
. Ye t, Wal ke r c omm itt e d th is c ri me wi thi n a y ear of his rele ase on pa

role for bank robbe ry . He now claims that his a g e should be a fa ctor for
a re du c e d s e nte nc e , b ut h is r e c e nt c ri me e sta bli sh e s h is c a

pa bil ity of re c idi vis m. Additionally , Walker ar g ues that the trial court did not give pr oper w eig ht to his arg ument that the non-c are er of

fende r Gu i d el i n e ra

ng e wa s more re asonable than the ca ree r off ender rang e. I n fac t, the court re cog nized W alk er ’s long c riminal history and re asonably

deter mined that the
car eer offe nder G uidelines wer e more appropr iate. AF F IRMED.No. 05-2515

United States v. Walker

- 4 - CL AY , C ir c uitJudg e , c onc ur r ing
. I c o n c u r . I n li g h t o f h is r e li a n c e o n th e f

a c to rs set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) at sentenc ing and his c lear indication that he could “g o above, be y ond, or any wher e [he wante d] from the g uidelines,” the district court judg e’s state ment that he “use d the g uidelines as a pr esumptive sentenc ing tool” doe s not render Def endant’ s sentence unrea sonable. Ho we ve r, Iwr ite se pa

rate ly to no te that su c h langua g e is to be a vo ide d ina smu c h a s d ist ri c t c ourt s in se ntencing should not treat the Guidelines rang e as presumptively rea sonable, even if this Court aff ords Guidelines sente nces a rebuttable p re s umption of reasona bleness. See U

nited States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2006) (“This rebuttable presumption does not relieve the sentenc ing c ourt of its o b ligation to ex plain to the parties a nd the re viewing court its rea sons for imp os ing a pa rt ic ula r s e nte nc e .” ); United States v. Fore man , 436 F.3d 638, 644 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“ [A] di str ic t c ourt ’s job is n ot t o im po se a “ re a so na ble ” se nte nc e . Rathe r, . . . [r]ea so na ble ne ss i s the ap pe lla te sta

nd ard of re vie w in j ud g ingwh e the r a dis tr ic t c ourt

a c c omp lis he d it s ta sk .” ); United States v. Cage , 458 F.3d 537, 548 (6th Cir. 2006) (Clay , J ., dissenting) (“It is not t he district cour t’s job to as su m e t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

a G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e . ” )
. R a t h e r , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts h o u ld consider the advisory Guidelines rang e “as one factor of sever al laid out in § 3553(a).” United States v. Johnson , 4 6 7 F. 3 d 5 5 9 , 5 6 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g United St ates v. J ackson , 408 F.3d 301, 304 (6th Cir. 2005)) (inter

nal quotations omitt ed).