1 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: 07a0393n.06 F iled: Jun e 14, 2007 No. 06-3609 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. RA P HA EL TU RR

ELL, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE S OUTHERN DI STRIC T OF OHI O

BEF OR E: KEITH , BA TC HELD ER , a nd M OORE, C ir c uitJudg e s. DAMON J. K

EITH , Circuit Judge. Def endant, Raphae l T urre ll, pled g uilty t o (1)
c on sp ir a c y

to d istri bute mor e tha

n 5 00 grams of

he ro in a nd mor e tha n 5 00 g ra ms o f c oc a ine , in vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § § 8 46 and 84 1( a )( 1), and (2 ) c on sp ir a c y to c omm it m on e y

la un de ri ng , in vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 19 56 (h ). He wa s se nte nc e d to 60 months imp ri so nme nt, and no w a pp e a ls his sentence . For

the re asons that follow, we AF F IRM
. I Af te r a g re e ingto p le a d guil ty to (1 ) c on sp ir a c y to dis tr ibute mor e tha n 5 00 g ra ms o f h e ro in and more than 500 g rams of c ocaine (in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 8 4 6 & 8 4 1 (a )(1) ) and ( 2) conspirac y

to commit money

launder ing (in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)), Turr ell was sente nced at the lower

end of the then-mandatory g uideline ra

ng e of 63- 7 8 m o n t h s (to wit, 63 months inc arc e ratio n, 4 y e ar s up e rv ise d r e le a se and $2 00 in sp eci al asse ssm e nts ). Turr e ll a pp e a le d h is2

sentence, but, before this Court could hear or al ar g uments, the parties a g ree d to remand f or
rese ntencingin light of United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). On re mand, the district cour t rese ntence d Turre ll to 60 mont hs, depar ting from the nowadvisory g uideline sentenc ing r ang e of 63- 78 months. (All other ter ms and conditions of the orig inal sentenc e we re r eimposed.) The rec ommended g uideline ra ng e wa s based, in par

t, on the sentenc ing
c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th a t 50 0 gram s of h e ro in a nd 50 0 g ra ms o f c oc a ine c ou ld b e a ttr ibute d to Turr e ll’ s ille g a l dea lin g s. Turr e ll did no t ob je c t to thi s e sti matio n. I n f a c t, h e a dmi tte d r e sp on sib ili ty for 500 gr ams of her oin and 500 g rams of c ocaine during his chang e of ple a hea ring and in his plea ag ree ment. A detec tive’s testimony also supported the district c ourt’s estimation. Nonethele ss, for the se cond time, Turr ell appea ls his sentence—only to claim that the district court’s attribution of 500 gr ams of her oin and 5 0 0 gra m s o f coca ine to him was not based on the evidenc e. He claims responsibility for only “250 g rams of heroin and approximately 135 g rams of
coca ine.” ( Appellant’s B r. 11.) II Since Turr ell made no objec tion to the Pre sentenc e Report (“PSR”) in the district court, the pa rt ie s a g re e that th e sta

nd ard of re vie w i s “ pla in e rr or .” Un de r “ pla in e rr or ” re vie w, Turr e ll mus t sh owthat (1) a n err or occ urre d in the district court, (2) that wa s p l ain, (3) which af fec ted su bs tanti a l r ig hts, (4) and

se ri ou sly int e rf e re d w iththe fa ir

ne ss, int e g ri ty , o r p ub lic re pu tatio n o f t

he jud ic ia l pr oc e e din g s. United States v. Treadway , 328 F.3d 878, 883 ( 6th Cir. 2003). A l e ngthy disc us si on on all fou r pr on gs of “ pl ain erro r rev iew ” is un neces sary becau se T urr ell cannot show that the district court committed an e rror — much less “plain e rror .” His only objectionIt i s t r u e t h a tt h e P S R

s t a t e s t h a t“ T u r

r e l l s t a t e d t h a th e r e a l l y believe d the amount of 1 dr ug s h e dis tr ibute d .
. . wa s probably a little le ss t

ha n th e a mou

nt l ist e d in

the ple a a g re e me nt, [an d th a t ] he did

no t understand how he c ould have possibly distributed a half kilog ram [i.e., 500 g rams] of heroin a s he wa s distributi ng very small amounts each da

y for a pproxi mately

one y e ar. ” (JA 88 ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d. ) N ota bly , h ow e ve r, the PSR o nly state s th a t T ur

re ll “ believe d” that th e a mou

nt w a s “ pr ob ab ly ” le ss t

ha n 5 00 g ra ms. At be st, thi s so un ds a s if

Turr e ll h a d s ome linge ring doubts about the amount of drug s he distributed. Even so, it was the se ntencingcourt’s 3 on appea l, as mentioned, per tains to the district court’s attribution of 500 g rams of heroin a nd 500 g rams of coca ine to him. But, there was more than a “pre pondera nce of the evidenc e” (the standa rd f o r j u d i c i a l f

a c t - f i nd ing po st- Booke r , see U nited States v. Ferguson , 456 F.3d 660, 665 ( 6th Cir. 2006)) to attribute the se amounts to Turre ll. For one, he ple d g uilty

to a “c onspiracy

to distribute more than 50 0 g ra ms of her oin and more than 50 0 g

ra ms of c oc a ine ,” and

the re is n o d isp ute a s to the va lid ity of hi s pl ea. S econ d, in
re sp on se to t

he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s qu e sti on “ [a]r e y ou

of fe ri ngto p le a d guil ty

to c on sp ir a c y

to d istri bu te and possess with intent to distribute over 500 grams of her oin and 50 0 g ra ms of coc aine be cause y ou did in fact c ommit t h at o ff en s e? ” duringhis chang e of ple a hea ring , Turre ll responded with a resounding“Ye s.” (JA 135.) Even more , afte r listening to a dete ctive’s testimony that “[t] he total
n ar c o t i c s a t t r i b u t a

b l e a s r e l e v an tc o n d

u c tt o R a p h a e l T u r r e l l
. . . i s a

p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 0 g

ra ms of heroin a nd 50 0 g ra ms of coc aine,” id. (empha sis added), the district court aske d Turre ll, “Was the statement cor

rec t? ,” to which he responde d, “Ye s.” Id. The district cour t a sked the que stion in t he neg ative, “Was a

ny part of the statement incorr ect? ” Turre ll r esponded w ith an unequivoca l “No.” Id. at 135. Cle arl y , b a se d o n th e de te c tiv e ’s te sti mony a s we ll a s Turr e ll’ s ow n a dmi ssi on s ( in h is plea a g ree ment and at his cha ng e of ple a hea

ring ), t he sente ncingcourt ha d more than a

“ pr e po nd e rance of th e evid e nc e ” to attr ibute 50 0 g ra ms o f h e ro in a

nd 50 0 g ra ms o f c oc a ine to Turr e ll. 1prer og ative to discount Turre ll’s incertitude—e specia lly in light of the de tective’ s testimony and Turre ll’s subsequent admissions and plea a g ree ment. (JA 134-35.) 4 Supposing the district cour t committed an “er

ror” t h at was “plain,” Turr ell still has not established that such a

n err or w o u l d af

fe ct his “substantial rig hts” (the third prongof plain er ror
re vie w) . T ur

re ll c on te nd s h e sh ou ld b e re sp on sib le fo r onl y “ 25 0 g ra ms o f h e ro in a

nd a pp ro xima te ly 135 g rams of c ocaine .” (A ppellant’s B r. 11.) I f the Court we re t o acc ept this proposition, t hen Turre ll’s se ntence of 60 months would not — i ndeed, cannot — decr ease , g iven that the statutory minimum sentenc e for

a § 841(a )(1) violation involvi ng 100 or more g rams of he roin “may not be less than 5 y ear s” (or

60 months). See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( B) (i). More over, Tur rell has not alleg ed that any

such er ror would a ffe ct his substantial rights in some otherfashion. He nce, e ven had the district co urt committed plain err or in attributing 500 grams of he roin and 500 g rams of
coca ine to Turre ll (as he c laims), his substantial rights would not be a ffe cted. Nee dless to sa

y , beca use Turre ll ha s not established that the district court c ommitt ed (1) an
err or, (2) that was plain, (3) which af fec ted his sub s t an tial rig hts, the fourth prongof plain er ror
re vie w— de a lin g wi th t

he “ fa ir ne ss, int e g ri ty , o r p ub lic re putatio n o f j ud ic ia l pr oc e edi ng s” —is likewise unfulfilled. III Acc ording , beca

use there is no “plain err or,” w e AF F IRM the district court’s se ntence of 60 months.