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: 08a0135n.06 F iled: Marc h 6, 2008 No. 07-1258 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, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. TRAVI S HORTON, Defendan t-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN O P I N I O N

BEF ORE: NO RRIS, BA TC HELD ER , a nd G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. ALAN E . NORRIS, Circuit Judge. I n November 2001, defe ndant Travis Horton enter ed into a plea a g reem en t wi t h the g overnme nt in which he conc eded that he had pa rticipated in a conspirac y

to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 8 4 6
. T he district cour t sentenc ed him to 144 mo n t hs of imprisonment under the the n-mandatory fede ral sente ncing g uidelines . No appe al was taken, despite de fenda nt’s reque st that counsel do so. After defe ndant fi l ed a pro se mo ti o n f

o r r e li e f p u r s u an t to 2 8 U
. S. C. § 2 2 5 5 in 2 0 0 3 , th e d is tr ic t c o urt e n tere d an
or de r v a c a tin g the jud g me nt, g ra nti ngde fe nd ant a

de lay e d a

pp e a l, a nd a pp ointin g c ouns e l. Def endant now r aises a numbe r of issues re lating to his sentenc e. The g overnme nt conce des that a re mand fo r r e se nte nc ingun de r a

n a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s sc he me is r e qu ir e d b y th e law of th is
c ir c uit . With r e sp e c t to the oth e r i ssu e s r a ise d b y de fe nd ant, we a ff

ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt
.No. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

- 2 - I. A sec ond superse ding indictment f iled on September 12, 2001, char g ed defe ndant, his wife, and thre e other

individuals with conspiring to distribute 50 g rams or more of a mix ture or substance containingmethamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. A second count, which is not before us, char g ed co- defe ndant Chad Johns on wi t h u s i n g a telephone to fac ilitate the distribution of methamphetamine. Since all of the de fenda

nts eventually

enter ed guilty pleas, the de tails of the conspira cy are not at issue. Suffice it to say that the superse ding indictment alleg es that the drug -traf ficking , which
occur red in a nd around Kalamazoo, Michig an bega n in the s ummer of 2000 and ended on April 26, 2001. Th e plea agre e me nt e nte re d into b y de fe nd ant c on ta ins se ve ra l pr ov isi on s th a t me ri t
me nti on ing : it

a dv ise s de fe nd ant that a

dis tr ic t c ourt

jud g e wh o is no t bo un d b y any sti pu latio ns in t h e a gre em en t wi l l i mp o s e t h e s en t en ce ; i t p ro v i d es th at d ef en d an t i n t en d s t o co o p er at e i nex ch an ge fo r a po ssi ble mot ion fo r do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e fr om the g ov e rn

me nt; it s pe c if

ie s a dr ugqu anti ty ; it
c on te mpl a te s a

thr e e -l e ve l do wnwa

rd a dju stm e nt f

or a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty ; and it e xplic itl y states that there is no ag ree ment about a possible enha nceme nt for defe ndant’s role in the offe nse. Th e pr e -s e nte nc e re po rt

(“ PSR” ) echoe d th e ple a a g re e me nt’ s a sse ssm e nt t hat th e ba se offe nse leve l was 34. I t rec ommended a f our-leve l upward a djustment for def en d an t ’s role in the of fe ns e and a lso su g g e ste d that de fe nd ant n ot b e re wa rd e d f or a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty

be c a us e he tested positive for

methamphetamine while fre e on bond. W hen couple d with a cr iminal hist oryNo. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

Th e c ourt thu s im pli c itl y fo un d th e a

pp lic a ble g uid e lin e ra

ng e to b e 21 0 to 26 2 mo nth s. 1 - 3 - cate g ory of I I I , the adjusted off

ense le vel of 38 re sulted in a g uidelines rang e betwe en 292 and 365
months of

imp ri so nme nt. At the sent en ci n g h ear ing, the district court dec ided to g rant the thre e-le vel dec rea se for
acc eptanc e of r es ponsibili ty , a position with which the g overnme nt concur red. The court then proce eded to we igh the appropr iate adjustm ent for role in the offense. The g overnme nt advocated a two-le vel incre ase but the court was skeptica l, believing that defe ndant was a leade r or or g anizer of five or more individuals and ther efor e dese rved a four- level incr ease : I ’ve g ot a re al problem with [a two-leve l inc rea se] be cause Iwent throug h this report and all these repor

ts very , very

car efully . And it appea

red to me that y our client wa s an o rg anize r a

nd a le a de r, if no t of the e nti re c on sp ir a c y , c e rt a inl y that br anch of

it that’s her e in West Michiga n, particula

rly Kalama zoo. . . . But ba sed on what I ’ve r ead, he ’s telling pe ople when to pic k stuff up. He ’s direc ting people on packa g ing it. He ’s the g uy that’s g ot the money . That’s a nother thing y ou look at. I f som eone wants a thous and-buc k loan, he g ives them a thousanddollar loan. He ’s the guy that g ives them $500 to drive the stuff. He tells them where to drive, who to mee t, wh er e t o p i ck it up. I t doesn’t work out, he makes the arr ange m en t s t o pick it up somewhere else, a ll of which is org anizational ty pe a c t i v i t y. After hear ing the arguments of counse l, the court c ited a number of passa g es fr om the PSRwhich supported a f

inding of a lea dership role befor e impos ing a four- level incr ease . Finally , the cour t 1 enter tained the g overnme nt’s USSG § 5K1.1 motion for a downwa rd depa rture ba sed up on
su bs tanti a l a ssi sta

nc e . It g ra

nte d the mo ti on and

awa rd e d d e fe nd ant a

fo ur -l e ve l r e du c tio n in

his offe nse level, there by offse tting the upwa rd depa rture f or role in the of

fense . The c ourt then imposed a sente nce at the lower end of t he guidelines rang e that resulted from g rantingthe § 5k1.1 motion,No. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

- 4 - 135 to 168 months, sentenc ing defe ndant to 144 months of incarc eration, five y ear s of supervise d rele ase, a fine of $2,500, a

nd a spec ial assessment of $250.

II. We now t urn to the issues ra ised by defe ndant: 1) that re sentenc ing is re quired now that the fede ral sente ncingg uidelines are advisory rathe r than mandatory ; 2) that the di strict court e rre d when it impos ed a f

our-leve l enhanc ement to defe ndant’s offe nse level based upon his r ole in the offe nse; and 3) that the g overnme nt brea ched the terms of the ple a agree ment by not filing a

motion pursuant to F e de ra l Ru le of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e dure 35 (b ) ba se d up on de fe nd ant’ s a ssi sta

nc e to t he g ov e rnme nt. 1. Resente ncing This circuit has m ad e clea r that re sentenc ing is re quired if the district c ourt imposed a sentenc e base d upon a pre sumption t h at the fe dera l sentencingg uidelines wer e mandatory
. See Un ite d S tates v . B ar

ne tt , 398 F.3d 516, 530 (6 th Cir. 2005). I n this case, the district c ourt pronounce d sentenc e in 2002, three y ear s befor e United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), wa s d ec i d ed . Howeve r, bec ause de fenda nt has bee n permitted a de lay ed dire ct appe al, Booke r an d the
case law interpr eting it apply here . The g overnme nt conce des that a r emand is re quired. 2. Ro le in t

heOf fe ns e As mentioned ea

rlier , t h e P S R

re co m m en d edth at d ef

en d an tre ce i v e afour- level enha nceme nt to his base offe nse leve l beca use he w as “a

n org anizer or leade r of a criminal activity that involved five or mor e par

ticipants or was othe rwise e x tensive.” U SSG § 3B1.1( a). Both defense c ounsel and the g overnme nt took the positi on during the sentenc ing hear ing that defe ndant’s sente nce should be enhanc ed by

only two levels p u rs u an t to USSG § 3B1.1(c) (“de fenda nt was an or g anizer, lea der,No. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

- 5 - manag er, or

supervisor in any

criminal activity other than descr ibed i n (a) or (b)”). In its objections to t he PSR, the g ov e rnme nt a dd re sse d th e iss ue in the se te rm s: “ [A] 2- le ve l in c re a se is a pp ro pr iate under U SSG § 3B1.1(c) beca use this criminal ac tivity involving the unhe althy ass o ci at i ons of
me tha mph e tamin e a dd ic ts w a s a sma ll c ri min a l e nte rp ri se re lativ e to g ang lor ds , ma fi os i, t e rr or ist s and violent i nterstate dr

ug traff icking org anizations and should not otherwise be c onsidered a s extensive in scope or in planningor pre paration.” The district cour

t responded by pointing to pa ragraphs in the PSRthat descr ibe def endant’ s
c on tr ol o ve r v ari ou s in div idu a ls who pa rt ic ipate d in

the c on sp ir acy . I t th e n c on c lud e d, “ if [defendant] wasn’t an org anizer, t he thi ng was not org anized. He was the center of it, org anizing the wh ole thi ng , dir e c tin g a ll the se oth e r p e op le wh os e name s I ’v e me nti on e d, and c on tr oll ingho w this methamphetamine or g anization was workingin Kalamazoo.” De fe nd ant h a s b a c ke d o ff his po sit ion

be low that on ly

a tw o- le ve l enha ncemen t is appropr iate. He now contends that the district court should have split the baby and imposed a thre elevel enha

nceme nt under USSG § 3B1.1( b) (“I f the defe ndant was a manag er or supervisor ( but not

an o rg a nize r o r l e a de r) and

the c ri min a l a c tiv ity

inv olv e d f

ive or mor e pa

rt ic ipa nts or wa s o the rw ise
e x t e n s i v e , i n c r e a s e b y 3 levels.”) . Such a dec rea se would re duce de fenda nt’s g uidelines sentenc ing rang e to between 121 and 151 months rather than betwe en 135 and 168 months. While his sentence of 144 months of imprisonment falls within e ither rang e, the district cour t noted at sentenc ing that it thought a ter

m at the lower

end of the g uidelines rang e wa s appropr iate. Def endant c o n te n d s th a t, b y

c r e d it in g in f

o r mati o nc o n ta in e d

in th e PS R, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt compromised his rig ht to confront witnesses. He concede s that this court has re cently held that thereNo. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

- 6 - is n o th in g in

e ither Booke r

or Crawf ord v. W ashington , 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004) (holdingthat the Confrontation Clause bar s testimonial out-of-court state ments unless the witness is unavailable a nd the de fe nd ant h a d a pr ior

op po rt un ity to c ro ss- e xami ne ), “ that w ou ld c a us e thi s Co ur

t to re ve rs e its long- settled rule of law that [t he] Confrontation Clause permits the admis sion of testimonial hear say evidenc e at sentenc ing pr ocee dings.” United States v. Katzopoulos , 437 F.3d 569, 576 ( 6th Cir. 2006). While Kat

zo po ulo s c ite s United States v. Chau , 42 6 F. 3 d 1318, 1323 (11th Cir. 2006), for the proposition that this entire are a of law is evolving , it goe s on to note that the rule of Cra wfo rd has y et to be extended to the sentenc ing c ontext
. Id. at 575-76. We are bound by the prior published decisions of this court, Fulcher v . Motley , 4 4 4 F. 3 d 7 9 1 , 8 1 3 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Salmi v. Sec ’y of H e alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 774 F.2d 685, 689 (6th Cir. 1985)), and w e ther efor e hold that the district court’s c onsideration of f acts discussed in the PSR was per missibl e. Ne xt, de fe nd ant c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d t o r e s o l v e f

a c tua l ob je c tio ns to t

he PSR. Def endant a rgues that the district court relied on statements i n para g raphs 40 and 77 of t he P SR. The g overnme nt points out that the district court re solved the objection to pa ragraph 40 in defe ndant’s favor and did not rely upon para g raph 77. Mor eover , the district court c ited information containe d in para g raphs 23 throug h 26, 36 throug h 38, 41, 50, 59, 62, 68, 70, 71, and 73. While the court doe s ref er to pa rag raph 40 in its rec itation, it i s cumulative in l i gh t of the other para g raphs to which defe ndant fa iled to object. When asked by the district court, defe nse counsel indicated that he wa s only raisingone fa ctual objection. As the gover nment notes, “[t] he dis trict court is allowed to ac cept as true a ll factua l alleg ations in a presentenc e report t o which the defenda nt does not object.” UnitedNo. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

- 7 - States v. Levy , 2 5 0 F. 3 d

1 0 1 5 , 1 0 1 8 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tates v . W ar d , 190 F.3d 483, 492 (6th Cir. 1999)). Finally , defe ndant ar g ues that the district cour t took into account information bar red by the te rm s of the ple a

a g re e me nt, wh ic h s tate s, “ Inf or matio n p ro vid e d b y

the de fe nd ant p ur su ant t o h is

a g re e me nt t o c oo pe rate wi ll n ot b e us e d a g a ins t hi m e xce pt a s se t fo rt h in USS G § 1B 1. 8, and

in t his

a g re e me nt. ” Th e c ite d guid e lin e s se c tio n p ro vid e s in pa rt a s f oll ow s: (a) Where a

defe n d an t ag ree s to coopera te with the g overnme nt by providing information concerningunlawful a ctivities of others, and a s part of that cooper ation ag ree ment the g overnme nt ag ree s that self-incr iminating information provided pursuant to the agree ment wi l l not be used a g ainst the defe ndant, then such information shall not be used in de termining the applica ble guideline ra

ng e, except to t he e xtent pr ov ide d in

the a g re e me nt. (b) The provisions of subsec tion (a) s h al l not be applied to re strict the use of information: (1) known to the g overnme nt prior to enter ing into the c ooperation ag ree ment[.] USSG § 1B1.8. De fe nd ant s tate s th a t hi s p ro ff e re d in fo rm a tio n is fo un d in pa ra g ra ph s 44 to 51 of

the PSR
and , a bs e nt a sh ow ingby

the g ov e rnme nt t

hat th e inf

or matio n c on tai ned in th e m w a s ava ila ble elsewhe re, United States v. Taylor , 277 F.3d 721, 726 ( 5th Cir. 2001) (placingburden on g overnme nt), the district court should not have considere d it in weighinghis leader ship role. D e f e n d an t d i d n o t o b

j e c t o n t h i s g r o un d b e l o w an d o ur r e v i e w i s th e r e f o r e f o r p l a i ne r r o r . In any ev en t , the district court only ref ere nced one para g raph, numbe r fifty , that defe ndant contends contained proff

ere d materia l, a

nd that information was alre ady known to the g overnme nt: paragraph 36 of the PSR recites the same information fr om another sour ce.No. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

- 8 - The g overnme nt and the district cour t rec og nize d t h at def

endant ha d fully

cooper ated a

nd attempted to g ive him a s horter sentence than what he face d at t he time of his indictment. That said, the d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d

b e f o r e it amp le un d is p u te d

e v id e n c e in

th e r e c o r d

to s u p p o rt a four- level enhanc ement, a conclusion that we revie w for c lear err or, Un ite d Sta te

s v . W ar d , 506 F.3d 468, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). Def

endant concede s that five or more individuals participated and that a three -leve l incre ase is wa

rra nted. I t does not take much of a lea p to conclude that the evidenc e that def endant dir e c te d th e dr

ugtr a ff ic kin g a c tiv iti e s o f o the rs is e no ug h to jus tif y the a dd iti on a l e nh anc e me nt. 3. Rule 35(

b) Motion Fe dera l Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) pr ovides that the g overnme nt can move f or the reduc tion of a sentenc e based upon substantial assistance from defenda nt afte r the initial sentence

. Def endant contends that the g overnme nt br eac hed the plea ag ree ment by

not making suc h a motion. The a g ree ment includes the followinglanguag e: The United States he reby ag ree s to file a motion for the C ourt to consider a downwar d depar

ture whe n and if the United States determines that the defe ndant has substantially

assisted the gover

nment. Unless the United States ha s been r elieved of its obli g ations under this ag ree ment, the United States may m o v e fo r a downwa

rd depar ture pursuant to U SSG § 5K1.1 and/or Fe d. R. Crim. P. 35. The de fenda nt understands that the final dete rmination of what is consider ed substantial assistance will be made by

the United States . . . . Where a s here , “a ple a agree ment allocate s complete discr etion to the go v er nment to consider whether a substantial assistance m o t i o n s h ould be filed, we may only revie w the g overnme nt’s decision for

unconstitutional mot ives.” Un ite d Sta te s v . M oo re , 225 F.3d 637, 641 (6th Cir. 2000). As mentioned ea

rlier, the g overnme nt made a § 5K 1.1 motion at the sentenc ing hear ing, which the dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d a nd a pp lie d a fo ur -l e vel do wnwa

rd a dju stm e nt t o d e fe nd ant’ s o ff e ns e le ve l.No. 07-1258

United State v. Horton

- 9 - Ne ve rt he le ss, de fe nd ant c on te nd s t hat th e go ve rnme nt f a ile d to a dv oc a te str on g ly e no ug h o n h is behalf by not expl aining the extent of his cooper ation to the court. He asks us to remand so that the dis tr ic t c ourt

c an b e fu lly

a pp ri se d o f h is a ssi sta

nc e to t he g ov e rnme nt. Ho we ve r, un de r t

he te rm s o f t

he ple a a g re e me nt, the g ov e rnme nt r e ta ine d d isc retion wi th respe ct to whether

a Rule 35 motion would be filed. Dur ing the h ea ri n g o n h i s § 2255 motion, defe ndant ac knowledg ed that he w as neve r promised that the g overnme nt would file a Rule 35 motion. Under the c ircumstance s, we c onclude that no br eac h of the plea ag ree ment occur

red. III . Th e jud g me nt i s vacate d and the c ase rem anded to enable the district court to re- sentenc e defe ndant under

an advisory

g uidelines scheme

.