The Honor able Ave rn Cohn, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District 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: 07a0416n.06 F iled: Jun e 19, 2007 No. 06-3458 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. J OSEPH PETTI E, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT COURT FOR T H E NOR THERN DI STRI CT OF O H IO O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE an d McK EAGU E, Circuit Judges; and COH N, Distric t Judge. * McK EAGU E, Circuit Judge. J oseph Pettie rec eived a 77-month sentenc e o f

im p r is o nme nt for be ing a

felon in possession. The se n tence is at the bottom of the advisory United States SentencingGuidelines (the “ Guidelines”) rang e. On a ppeal, Pettie conte nds that the district court fa ile d to c on sid e r s e ve ra l of his a rgume nts f

or a les ser

se nte nc e , r e su lti ngin a

n unr e a so na

ble sentenc e under United States v. Book er . F or the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , w e a ff

ir m.

I Pettie pleaded guilty

to being a felon in posse ssion of a fire arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1)

. Ba sed on his pr ior drug traff icking offe nses, his base-of fense level under

the Guidelines

e qu a le d 2 4. He re c e ive d a thr e e -l e ve l re du c tio n f or a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , r e su lti ngin a tot a l-No. 06-3458

Un ite d S tat es v . P e tti e

- 2 - o ff en s e l ev el o f 2 1

. W i t h a cr i m i n al h i s t o ry ca t ego ry o f VI, h i s ad v i s o ry Gu i d el i n es s en t en ci n g ra n ge tot a le d 7 7 to 96 mon ths of imp ri so nme nt. Pettie sought a

sentenc e below the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e. He pointed out the following to t he dis tr ic t c ourt : ( a ) h is g oo d b e havio r s inc e ple a din g g uil ty ; ( b) his ro le a s p ri mary c are g ive r t o his pa re nts , w ho we re in p oo r heal th ; (c ) h is o wn po or he a lth ; and

(d ) h is f ianc e e ’s a ssi sta

nc e in helping him to transition into the community upon his relea se. The G overnme nt responded that he should rece ive a within-Guide lines rang e s en t en ce , g iven his seven pr ior criminal convic tions for drug and fire arm off

enses. I t further

took the p o s i t i o n t h at h is parents’ he alth problems did not

war rant a lower se ntence
. I n announcingPettie’s sentenc e, the district cour t judge explained: Ihave listene d to both counsel, and of c ourse to Mr. Pettie, and I have r eviewe d the tho ro ug h p re -s e nte nc e re po rt
. As I mentioned ear lier, the Guidelines are now only advisory . Howeve r, the Court mus t c on su lt the m, a

nd in e sse nc e , s ta

rt the re in i ts a

na ly sis , a nd ult imate ly co nsider all the f

acts a nd circ umstances of

this particular of

fense , the nature , qu a li ti e s , an d

c h ar a c te r is ti c s o f

th is p arti c u la

r d e f e n d an t, an d

im p o s e a s e n te nce which is rea sonable a

nd ap p ro p ri ate to meet the four statutory objectives of sentenc ing se t out in Tit le 18, Section 3553(a ) whic h ar e punis hment, deter renc e, r e h a b i l i t a t i o nan d

p r o t e c t i n g t h e c o m m u n i t y. I nt h i s ca s e, Ico n cl u d e t h at a s en t en ce wi t h i n t h e a d v i s o ry Gu i d el i n e r an ge is reasona ble and a ppropriate

. Mr. P ettie has a 20-y ear history of drugand we apons offe nses. He ha s a ver

y sporadic w ork histor y . I n his latest offense , he had both a g un and drug s when he was a rre sted. Iwill ex erc ise my

discretion and impose a s entenc e at the low e nd of the advisory Guidelines rang e. I think that that is rea sonable and appropr iate, and is not more—that sente nce is not more ha rsh than nece ssary to a ccomplish the purpose s of s en t en ci n g.No. 06-3458

Un ite d S tat es v . P e tti e

I nh i s ar gu m en t o n ap p ea l , P et t i e do es n o t re fe re n ce h i s go o d b eh av i o r p ri o r t o s en t en ci n g. 1 - 3 - So I will sentence y ou to 77 months custody of t he Attorney Gene ral. That will be followed by

a thre e-y ear

period of supe rvised re lease

. . . . * * * And as Mr. Thompson m entioned, I take pa rticular note of y our [fiance e] being prese nt in Court. I know it is hard for he r to be he re, pr obably not so easy

for y ou to h a ve he r h e re , b ut you

are fo rt un a te . A s y our l awy e r s a id, a lot of pe op le c ome in h e re a lon e and

le a ve a lon e , s o y ou

are fo rt un a te to h ave he r s up po rt
.

II Pe tti e purs ue s o ne cla im o n a pp e a l: w he the r t

he dis tr ic t c ourt

imp os e d a

n unr e a so na

ble sentenc e bec ause it fa iled to addre ss specific ally his reque st for a lower sentence based on his poor health, the poor

health of his par ents, and the availabilit y of his fianc ee to a ssist hi m to transition back into the community upon his relea se. The Gove rnment ar g ues that the district cour t provided 1 a suff icient explanation of the sentenc e to ena ble appe llate re view. Under United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 ( 2005), the district court a nd the appe llate cour

t have distinct role s in se ntencing

. The district c ourt must “ impose a sentenc e sufficie nt, but not g reater than ne cessa

ry , to comply with the purposes” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)( 2). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); Booke r , 543 U.S. at 260. The a ppellate c ourt, on the other ha nd, must determine whe ther a sentenc e is reasona ble. Booke r , 543 U.S. at 261-62. I n eff ect, “ [r] easona

bleness is the ap

pe lla te standard of revie w in judgingwhether a district cour

t” has fulf

illed its m andate under 1 8 U.S.C. § 3553(a).No. 06-3458

Un ite d S tat es v . P e tti e

- 4 - United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 807- 08 (6th Cir. 2006) (e mphasis in o ri g inal) (quoting United States v. Fore man , 436 F.3d 638, 644 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). The re asonable ness test has s u b s t an t ive and pr ocedur al components. F ocusing on the pr oc e dura l c omp on e nt, Pe tti e c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt fai led to c on sid e r s e ve ra l of his arguments for a

lesser sentence

. To ensure proce dural reasona bleness, thi s court asks whether the dis tr ic t c ourt

a pp re c ia te d the a dv iso ry natur e of the Gu ide lin e s, c or

re c tly c a lc ulate d th e a

pp lic a ble Guidelines ra

ng e, and c onsidered the Guidelines ra ng e alongwith the ot h er re l evant § 3553(a) fac tors in cra fting a sente nce. Un ite d S tat es v . D av is , 458 F.3d 491, 495 (6th Cir.), pe tit ion for c e rt. filed (U.S. Nov. 13, 2006) (No. 06-7784). Th e re is n o q

ue sti on in t his c a se th at the d ist

ri c t c ourt c or re c tly c a lc ulate d th e a

pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s ra

ng e , no r is the re any qu e sti on that it a pp re c ia te d the a dv iso ry natur e of the Gu ide lin e s. Thus, Pettie’s within-Guidelines ra ng e sente nce is a ffor ded a r ebuttable pr esumption of

rea sonablene ss. United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (U .S. J uly 11, 2006) (No. 06- 5275). To succe ed on his claim, theref ore, Pettie “ must show that the district court made sufficie nt error s in apply ing ( or failing to apply ) the re maining se ntencingfac tors such that his sentence was unre asona b le, eve n though his sente nce f ell within the corre ctly

calc ulated Guidelines ra

ng e.” Un ite d S

tat es v . G ale , 468 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2006), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Fe b. 20, 2007) (No. 06- 1157). This c ourt considere d a similar claim made by a cr iminal defenda

nt in Un ite d Stat es v . G ale

. I n that case , the def

endant arg ued that a dis trict court’s se ntence was unre asonable beca use that cour

tNo. 06-3458

Un ite d S tat es v . P e tti e

- 5 - had not addre ssed

e a c h an d e v e r y c la im h e h a d ma d e f o r a le s s e r s e n te n c e . O na

p p e a l, th is c o u rt

re je c te d th a t argume nt: To ena ble us to r eview the rea sonablene ss of a sente nce, a ll we re quire of the district c ourt is t o “ art ic ulate [] its reaso ni ng su ff ic ie ntl y to p e rm it r e a so na

ble a pp e llate revie w.” W

illiams , 436 F.3d at 709. “[A] sentenc ing judg e must ex plain to the parties a nd the re viewing court its re as o ns for imposing a particula r sentenc e.” [ United States v. ] Jones , 445 F.3d [865,] 871 [ (6th Cir.), cert. de nied , 127 S. Ct . 251 (2 00 6) ]. Whe n a

dis tr ic t c ourt

a de qu a te ly

e xpla ins why it impos ed a par t i cu l ar sentenc e, espec ially one within the advisory Guidelines rang e, we do no t fu rt her require that it exhaustively explain the obver se— whyan alter native sente nce w as not selec ted—in ever

y instance. Jones , 445 F.3 d a t 87 1; see also United States v

. Fernandez , 443 F.3d 19 , 3 0 (2 d Cir. 2006) (“[W] e will not conclude that a district jud g e sh ir ke d h e r o bli g a tio n to con sid e r the § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s si mpl y

be c a us e sh e did not discuss eac h one individually or did not expressly

parse or addr ess eve ry argument relating to those fa ctors that the de fe ndant adva nced.” ), cert. de nied , — U.S. —, 127 S. C t. 192, — L .Ed.2d — (2006). O f c o u r s e , t h e r e m ay b e a c a s e i n w h i c h a d i s t r i c t c o u rt p r o v i d e s l i t t l e , i f an y, aff irmative indication that it considere d all of the re levant sente ncing fac tors and evidenc e whe n it sentence d a defe ndant. When, on appea l, a def endant’ s argument and supporting evidenc e pre sents an ar g uably meritorious claim for a lesser se ntence , but there is little to sugg est that the district court a ctually considere d it, then remand may be appr opriate. See, e .g. , United States v. Cunningham , 429 F.3d 673, 679- 80 (7th Cir. 2005). * * * As for the arguments the district court did not expressly addre ss, it was not require d to do so. “A sentenc ing judg e has n o more duty than we a

ppellate judg es do to discuss every

argument made by

a litiga nt; arg uments clea

rly without merit can, and for the sake of

judicial economy should, be passed ove r in silence.” Cunningham , 42 9 F .3 d at 67 9- 80 ; see also United States v . Cooper , 437 F.3d 32 4 , 3 2 9 (3 d Cir. 2006) (e x plain i n g t hat to comply with the obligation to consider the re levant sentenc ing f

actor s, a “court need not discuss ever y argument made by a li tiga nt if an argument is clear ly

without merit”).No. 06-3458

Un ite d S tat es v . P e tti e

Pettie relies upon U

n it e d S ta te s v . R ic h a rdson , 4 3 7 F.3d 550 ( 6th Cir. 2006), for the 2 proposition that a district court must a ddress on the re cord e ach a rg ument made f

or a lowe r sentenc e. He r eads too m u ch into the holding of Richardson . The c ourt held in that ca se that “[e]ven when se le c tin g a

pr e su mpt ive ly

re a so nable se nte nc e wi thi n th e Gu ide lin e s r ang e , a dis tr ic t c ourt

mus t ‘ar ticulate[] its rea soning sufficiently to permit rea sonable a ppellate r eview, spe cify

ing its re asons for se lecting ’ the spec ific sentenc e within that rang e.” Id. at 5 5 4 (q u o t i n g W illiams , 436 F.3d at 709). I t then went on to decla

re that “[w]here a de fenda nt raises a particula r ar g ument in seeking a lower sentenc e, the r ecor d must reflec t both that the district judg e considere d the defe ndant’s argument and t hat the judg e explained the basis for reje cting it.” Id. D o in g s o w o u ld “ a s s u r e [] n o t o n ly tha t the defe ndant ca

n understand the basis for the par ticular sente nce but a lso that the review ing c ourt ca n intelligently

deter mine whether

the spec ific sentenc e is indeed r easona ble.” Id. S u b s eq u en t d ec i s i o n s b y t h i s co u rt h av e c au t i o n edaga i n s tre ad i n g Richardson t o o b r o a d l y. The de fenda

nt in Richardson had not pointed to any specific arguments that the district court fa iled to addre ss during the s entenc ing hear ing. Thus, the matter w as not befor e the c ourt on appe al, and i t s d e c l ar a t i o nt h a t a d i s t r i c t c o u rt “ m u s t ” e x p l a i n t h e b a s i s f o r r e j e c t i n g e a c h ar g u m e n tm a d e b y a de fe nd ant w a s dic ta
. See, e .g ., Un ite d S tat es v . F e az e ll , No

. 06 -1 14 7, 20 07 WL 67 56 59 , at *3 (6 th Cir. Mar. 7, 2007) ( unpublished) (“ Contrary to [t he defenda

nt’s] sug g estion, our dec ision in United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2006) , does not compel district cour ts to address eve ry argument the def

endant r aises—no matter how non-meritorious or undevelope d it is—i n imposing a se nte nc e .” ); United States v. Tyler , No. 05-2252, 2007 WL 634436, at *2 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2007) (u np u b l i s h ed ) ( d es cr i b i n g Richardson ’s de c lara tio n a s “ dic ta ”). - 6 - Id. at 940 (e mphasis in origina l). 2 A re view of the dis t ri ct co u rt judg e’s r easoningconfirms that Pettie’s sente nce w as pr oc e dura lly

re a so na ble . T he dis trict cou rt jud g e be g an b y e xpla ini ngthat he ha d li ste ne d to counsels’ a

rg uments, review ed the pr esen t en ce repor t, and consider ed the r eleva nt sentencing fa c tor s. He re c og nize d his duty to imp os e a se nte nc e “ su ff

ic ie nt, bu t no t g re a te r” (o r, in h is w or ds , “m o re h ar s h ”) “t h an n ec es s ar y t o co mp l y wi t h t h e pu rp o s es ” of 1 8 U. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 ). Al t h o u gh not require d to do so, Un ite d S tat es v . D e

x ta , 4 7 0 F. 3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2006), pe tit ion for c e rt. filed (U.S. Fe b. 27, 2007) (No. 06- 9826), he also summarized the various sente ncing fac tors listed in that subsection—“punishment, deter renc e, re habilitation and protec ting the c ommunity .”No. 06-3458

Un ite d S tat es v . P e tti e

I n ref ere nce to Petti e’s own health, counsel further argued that the Feder al Burea u of Prisons 3 could fa ce a

n “incr ease d cost” to c are for him. Not only does this consideration not fit into any of t h e s e n t e n c i n g f

a c t o r s l i s t e d i n 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) , i ta l s o w o u l d a p p l y t o a l l p r i s o n e r s g e n e r a l l y, an d a l l p r i s o n e r s w i t h m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s s p e c i f i c a l l y. - 7 - As to P e tti e ’s ow n he a lth pr ob le ms, de fe ns e c ouns e l di d n ot a rgue that th e de fe nd ant c ou ld not rec eive a dequate medical c are in prison, a fac tor under § 3553( a)( 2)(D) . I nstead, c ounsel argued that, as one of

Pettie’s phy sical cha

rac teristics, his ill-health warr anted lenie ncy i n t h e for m of a lower se ntence
. Counsel also listed as one of Pettie’s “admirable traits” the f act that he car ed for 3 h i s p ar en t s . However, it is clear that the district court judg e did consider Pettie’s “history

and char acte ristics” (§ 3553( a)( 1)) in fa shioning his sentenc e, but foc used on his 20-y ear history of drug and weapons off

enses a nd sporadic w ork history , rathe r than his own and his pa rents’ poor

health. The district cour

t judge further

considere d “the nature a nd circ umstances of

the offe nse” (§355 3 (a )(1))—the possession of a g un—as we ll as the possession of drug s, which “r efle ct[s] the seriousness of the offe nse” a nd the nee d to “provide just pu n i s h m en t for the of fense ” (§ 3553(a) (2)( A)). Whil e the district cour

t judge did not ex p l i cit ly discuss the impact that Pettie’s sentenc e would have o nh is p ar e n ts , h e w a s n o t r e qu ir e d to d o s o f

o r o u r r e v ie w . I t i s n o t u

n c o mm o nfor criminal def

endants to have people—c hildren, par ents, spouses, siblings, etc .—who depe nd on them fo r c are and su

pp or t. Un fo rt un a te ly , “‘ tr a g e dy

is a re g ula r c on se qu e nc e of

c ri min a l c on du c t,’ bo th for the vic tims and the defe ndant’s own f amily .” Ga le , 4 6 8 F. 3 d

at 9 3 9 (q u o t i n g United States v. Cage , 458 F.3d 537, 539 (6th Cir. 2006)). This ty pe of r eg ular, re curr ing c ircumstance need not be discussed by

a judg e ea ch and e very

time it is raised by

a cr iminal defendan t , especially in theNo. 06-3458

Un ite d S tat es v . P e tti e

- 8 - absenc e of some f

urther de velopment sug g esting an exceptional hardship. More over, e ven had the district court judg e orde red a l o wer custodial sentenc e, Pettie would still have had to make

arr ang ements for

his parents’ me dical ca

re f or the pe riod of his incar cer ation. Thus, few er months in p ri so n w ou ld n ot h a ve e lim inate d th e qu and ary in w hic h Pe tti e ’s c ri min a l a c tiv ity pu t his pa re nts
. As to P e tti e ’s fi anc e e , th e dis tr ic t cou rt jud g e too k “p art ic ula

r n ote ” that sh e wa s p re se nt i n the courtroom, and ex plained that the def endant wa s “for

tunate to have her suppor

t.” Thus, it is clear that the dis tr ic t c ourt jud g e did c on sid e r he r su pp or t of Pe tti e , e ve n if the jud g e did no t ex pl ici tly discuss such support within the context of Petti e’s e ventual re lease from prison. Acc ording ly , we f

ind that the district court jud ge ad eq u ately articulated the g rounds for Pettie’s sentenc e to per

mit appellate re view. Pettie has not shown that the district court judg e fa iled to c onsider a meritorious argument for a lesser sentenc e, let alone an argument which would re but the pre sumption of reasona bleness of a

within-Guidelines sentenc e.

III For the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM Petti e’s se ntence
.