NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0284n.06 Filed: Apr il 15, 2009 Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725 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 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. S ID N E Y D
. A D A M S an d S H E ILA AD AM S, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts
. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL

FROM THE U

NI TED S T ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE OPI NI ON

Before: BOGG S, Chief Judge; and GILMA N and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. RONALD LEE GILMAN, Cir cuit Judge. Sidney and Sheila Adams, a marr ied couple,
wer e involved i n a conspira cy to distribute larg e quantities of mar ijuana. Af ter their a rre sts, they enter ed into separ ate plea ag ree ments with the g overnme nt. Despite ag ree ing to a i d in the g overnme nt’s investigation of the conspira cy , howeve r, the Ada mses actua lly

obstructed the investigation by

misleading the g overnme nt a s to the location of a larg e stash of marijuana and the proce eds fr om its eventual sale. The Adamses now appea l their sentenc es on numerous g rounds, including their conte ntion that th e g ov e rnme nt br e a c he d the ple a a g re e me nts and that the dis tr ic t c ourt imp ro pe rl y de c lin e d to g rant c erta in dow nwar d adjustments to their sentenc es. For the rea sons stated below, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t.
I. BACKG ROUNDUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-2- A. F ac tu al b ac kgr ound Starting in 2004, Mr. A dams, along with coconspirator J ere my Robbins and other s, travele d to Arizona on multi ple occ asions to obta i n l ar ge q uantities of marijuana to resell in ea stern Tenne ssee. Mr. A dams persona lly made at least three of these tr ips, obtaining 900 pounds or more of marijuana

per trip. Jeremy

Robbins was the ringlea der of the oper ation and conduc ted the drug enter prise fr om his home in Dandridg e, Te nnessee . He a lso arra ng ed to have some of the mar ijuana sto re d in a ba rn on the Ad a mse s’ pr op e rt y in ne arb y

Ha mbl e n Co un ty . M rs . A dams o bs e rv e d s iza ble quantities of marijuana

at R obbins’s residenc e and some times assisted in repac kag ing it for resa le.

Whe n Ro bb ins wa s arr e ste d in Marc h 2 00 5, he c on ta c te d M r. Ad a ms a nd a sked hi m to
re mov e a pp ro xima tel y 1, 20 0 p ound s o f m ari jua na fr om t he ba rn . M r. Ad a ms the n a ssume d f ull control of the ma

rijuana a nd sold s o m e o r al l o f it with the help of his frie nd Chris Oakes. The g overnme nt did not learn about the ma rijuana stored in the barn until the foll owing month. By that time, Mr. Adams had a lrea dy moved and/or sold it. Mr. and Mrs. Ada ms hid the procee ds of the drug sales fr om both Robbi ns—who was then in jail—and the g overnme nt. I n N ov e mbe r 2 00 5, the Ad a mse s sig ne d ple a a g re e me nts tha t in c lud e d a

ple dg e to c oo pe rate with the g overnme nt in its investigation of the drugconspirac y , but they did not imm ediately

enter g uilty pleas in court. Mr. Adams eve ntually pled g uilty

in Aug ust 2006 pursuant to his plea

a g re e me nt a

nd wa s pla c e d in the B lou

nt County De te nti on F a c ili ty to aw a it se nte nc ing

. Mr s. Ad a ms did not enter he r g uilty

plea until Fe bruar

y 2007 so that she could re main fre e on pre trial rele ase.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-3- Fe dera l ag ents interviewe d Mr. Adams six t imes betwee n Dec ember 200 5 and September 2006. These inter

views we re c onducted pursuant to his plea ag ree ment and we re intende d to prepa re him for his role as a g overnme nt w itness in the trials of coc onspirators Robbins and Robbins’s wife Diana. T he subjec t of the marijuana sto red in the Adamses’ ba rn wa s cover ed extensively during the interview s. Mr. Adams g ave dif fer ent answe rs in e ach interview r eg ardingthe quantity of the marijuana , who moved it (and how ), and w hat happe ned to it afte r R obbins’s arr est. He c laimed at first that Robbins h ad as k ed h i m to move the marijuana to the door of the ba

rn and that, after

he complied, unknown individuals retrie ved the marijuana overnig ht. L ater , Mr. Adams said that he had deliver ed appr ox imately 350 to 400 pounds of the marijuana to Robbins’s customers, that he had
re c e ive d n o p ay

me nt, and that he the n mov e d the re ma ini ng 60 0 po un ds to the do or of the ba rn to be picke d up per Robbins’s instructions. Mr s. Ad a ms w a s in te rv ie we d a bo ut t he re lo cat ed mar iju ana

in Augus t 20 06 . Sh e ini tia lly claimed not to re member a ny thin g about it, but ulti mately told the ag ents that Mr. Adams was
su pp os e d to mov e the mari

jua na to t he do or of the ba rn , whe re so me pe rs on wh os e ide nti ty sh e did not know or could not re call would collec t it. On September

8, 2006, coconspira

t o r Diane Robbins met with federa l ag ents. She contra dicted Mr. Ada

ms’s story , telling the ag ents that Mr. Adams ha d taken the ma rijuana f rom the barn, sold it, and kept the pr ocee ds of around one milli on dollars for himself. Acc ording to Diana Rob bin s, Mr s. Ada ms kn ew a bo ut t he mari jua na and wa s c ur re ntl y sp e nd ingthe dr

ugpr oc e e ds

.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-4- Rob bin s and

his wi fe e nte re d guil ty

ple a s o n Se pte mbe r 1 3, 20 06 , sho rt ly be fo re the ir

sc he du le d tr ia l, wh e re Mr . A dams w a s e xpe c te d to te sti fy a s a g ov e rnme nt w itn e ss. On September 22, 2006, Mr. Adams met with A ssistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Hug h Ward and other fede ral ag ents. Ward told Mr. Adams at the beg inning of the meetingthat he was g oing to f

ile a motion for downwa rd depa rture ba sed on Adams’s “substant i al assistance ,”
re c omm e nd ing a se nte nc e of 42 mon ths . Mr. Ad a ms a dmi tte d at th e me e tin g that he ha d li e d in his previous intervie ws and duringhis prepar ation for the Robbinses’ tr ial. He a lso con ce d ed that he would have pr esente d perjure d testimony during the trial had the Robbinses not pled guilty

. Mr. Adams stated a

t the meeting that he and his fr iend Chris Oake s, on their own initiative, had take n the marijuana

from the ba

rn shortly afte r Robbins’s arr est an d t ra n s p o rted it to a re ntal house in Roge rsville, Tenne ssee, whe re it re mained for a couple of we eks. Nex t, at Robbins’s reque st, Mr. Adams moved ar ound 600 pounds of marijuana back to the ba

rn by himself, afte r which
someone e lse had re trieved it. M r. Adams admitted deliver ing ma rijuana to four

of Robbins’s
c us tom e rs , b ut d e nie d r e c e ivi ngany pa y me nt. He a lso de nie d that he ha d so ld the mari jua na him se lf and kept the proce eds. Mr. Adams claims that, befor e leaving the meeting , AUSA Ward told Mr. Adams’s c ounsel that he still intended to file the motion for a downwar d depar

ture, but that he w as no longe r in a position to tell the court that Adams qualified for a “sa fety -valve ” sente nce r eduction. On Octobe r 6, 2006, howe ver, A USA Ward sent a letter to Mr
. Adams’s counsel infor ming him that, b e c a

us e Ad a ms h a d no t be e n tr uth fu l in his e arl ie r int e rv ie ws , War d wa s no t g oin g to f ile the motion for a downw ard de parture . Ward instead st ated that he was g oing to ask t he district cour tUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-5- to enhanc e Mr. Ada

ms’s sentence for obstruc tion of justice. The g overnme nt l at er fi l ed a sealed
se nte nc ingme mor and

um r e qu e sti ngthat th e c ourt a pp ly an o bs tr uc tio n- of -j us tic e e nh anc e me nt t o Mr. Adams’s sentenc e. I n the memora ndum, the g overnme nt asserte d that Mr. Adams ha d not been truthful in his int ervie ws subsequent to sig ning his plea ag ree ment, and that he was still withholding in f o r mati o n an d e v id e n c e r e le v an t to th e c a s e . T h e me mo r an d u m c o n c lu d e d th a t, a s o f that time, Mr. Adams did not meet the c riteria f or a sa fety -valve below-minimum sentence

. Whil e Mr . A dams w a s in c arc erate d at th e B lou nt C ounty De te nti on

F a c ili ty fo llo wi nghis g uilty plea, he made f

reque nt calls t o M rs . Ad am s . They knew, ba sed on a w arningplay ed at the beg inning of eac h call, that their calls wer e beingrec orded a nd wer e subjec t to monit oring . A Drug E n fo rc em en tAd m i n i s t ra t i o n(D E A) agen two rk i n g o nt h e c as e s u b s eq u en t l y

o b t ai n edt h e r ec o rd i n gs of those phone c alls. The re cording s reve al that Mr. Adams instructed Mrs. Ad am s to lie to the inv e sti g a tor s r e g ard ingthe fu nd s th a t th e y

ha d r e c e ive d f

ro m th e sa le of

the mari jua na . M r. Ad a ms
can a lso be hea

rd admitting that he had lied to the investig ators about the ma rijuana in the ba

rn, while Mrs. Adams stated that she had lied to he r own attorney about the drug m o n ey . T h e tapes
re f le c t th e A d a ms e s ’ e v o lv in g s tr a te g y r e g ar d in g h o w mu c h in f o r mati o n to d is c lo s e to the investigators. At one point Mr. Adams mulled over the possi bility

of coming clea

n with the investigators by

“tell[ing] them every

thing a bout ever y thing, don’ t hold a

ny thing back. I might have to help them find some things.” I n November

2006, when the Adamses wer e confr onted with the rec ording s, they admitted to the investigators that they wer e hiding drug proce eds. Mrs. Adams subsequentl y surre ndere dUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-6- $30,380 throug h her attorney . DEA age n t s also rec overe d an additional $128,000 hidden on the Adamses’ proper

ty afte r Mr. Ada

ms revea led the location of the stash. Mr. Adams wa s interviewe d a final time in Dec ember 2006. I n that interview, he claimed that he and his c ousin, Dion Carter, store d the marijuana from the ba

rn in a va n for a b o u t a week following Robbins’s arre st. He said that he a nd Chris Oakes subseque ntly repa ckag ed the mar ijuana for r esale and deliver ed some of it to R obbins’s old customers. Mr. Adams ag ain conc eded that he would have pe rjured himself at the Robbinses’ trial had he testified. At the conc l u s i on of the int e rv ie w, AUS A W ard told M r. Ad a ms the re wa s n o w ay to b e sure that he wa s te lli ngthe tr uth without the use of a poly

g raph e x amination. Ward identified three are as of c oncer n: (1) information he h a d r e c e iv e d f

r o m o th e r in d iv id

u a ls th a t, a t th e ti me o f Ro b b in s ’ s ar r e s t, Ro b b in s had stored $3 00 ,0 00 in dr

ug pr oc e e ds in sa fe s in the Ad a mse s’ ba rn ; ( 2) a dd iti on a l in fo rm a tio n th a t Mr . A dams ha d in iti a te d th e de liv e ry of mar ijuana

to o ne of Rob bin s’ s c us tom e rs and c oll e c te d $ 10 0, 00 0 in proce eds; and (3) that Ward co u l d n o t b e p ositive that Mrs. Adams had turne d over a ll the drug money in her possession. Mr. Adams’s c ounsel was notified by AUSA Ward the ne x t m o n th that the g overnme nt would be see king a

sentenc ing e nhance ment for obstruc tion of ju s t ice. Ward a lso stated that Mr. Adams would not qualify for a s af et y -valve sentence reduc tion unless Mr. Adams submitted to a poly g raph e x amination. Shortly there afte r, Mr. Ada

ms’s counsel ar

rang ed for

Mr. Adams to take a polyg raph te st with a private e x aminer. Mr . Adams wa s asked a b o u t t h e first two of the thre e previously

mentioned areas of

conce rn identified by

Ward. Acc ording to Mr. Adams’s c ounsel, Mr.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-7- Adams “pa ssed” the e x amination. Ward responde d, howeve r, that the g overnme nt would not acce pt the re sults of the examination because it wa s “self- serving ” and ha d not been a dminist ere d by the g overnme nt. After her Fe b ru ar y 2007 g uilty plea, Mrs. A dams ag ree d to submit to a DEA polyg raph examination, which was conduc ted the follo wi n g m o nth. The examination consisted of two signific ant questions. When Mrs. Adams was asked, “Ar e y ou hiding a ny drug proce eds fr om the g overnme nt? ”, she r esponded “ no.” The poly g raph a naly sis deemed t his answer inconclusive. When Mrs. Adams was a sked if she ha d participated i n any drug transac tions afte r post ing bond, he r neg ative answ er w as dee med to be dec eptive. Mrs. Adams was give n an opportunity to clarify her
answe r. She then admit ted t hat “she had provide d marijuana to her fr iend Misty

on seven or

eig ht
occa sions after her r elea se.” Mr s. Adams also conc eded that she took ox y codone a lthough she had no presc ription for the drug

. B. P roce dural h istory 1. Mr. Ada ms’s se nte nc ing The sente ncing hear ing f or M r. Ad am s was he ld in J anuar y 2007. Mr. Adams’s c ounsel argued for

a saf ety -valve sentenc e re duction. The district c ourt found that there was “ overw helming
e vid e nc e ” that Mr . A dams h a d o bs tr uc te d— and

c on tin ue d to obstru c t—j us tic e , in viol a tio n o f h is ple a a g re e me nt, su

bje c tin g him

to a tw o- le ve l e nh anc e me nt u

nd e r U .S. S.G . § 3C1 .1 . Citin g the same
e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u rt f

o u n d t h a t A d a m s c o u l d n o t m e e t t h e r e qu i r e m e n t s f o r a p p l i c a t i o no f

t h e s a f e t yvalve pr ovision of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). The c ourt al s o fo u n d t hat Mr. Adams had not acc eptedUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-8- responsibility

for his ac tions wi t hin the meaningof U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 beca use he ha d not been truthful about the disposition of the marijuana le ft in his possession. B a se d o n th e se fi nd ing s, the Pr ob a tio n O ff ic e c a lc ulate d th a t Mr
. Ad a ms h a d a tot a l of fe ns e level of 34 and a criminal history cate g ory of I , resulting in a Guidelines ra

ng e of 151 to 188 months
o f i mp r i s o n m e n t
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtt h e ni n v i t e d t h e p art i e s t o s p e a k

r e g ar d i n g ana

pp ro pr ia te sentenc e. Counsel for Mr . Adams ar g ued that, despite the court’s f inding a n obstruction of justice, Mr. Adams ha d acc epted re s ponsibili ty for his ac tions and should thus receive no more than the mandatory

minimum sentenc e of 120 months’ imprisonment. Mr. Adams then testified, cla iming that he had ultimately

provided truthful a

nd complete information to the cour t about his involvement with the marijuana

and its proce eds. But he admitted on cross-e x amination that he had lied during six se pa rate int e rv ie ws , h a d als o lie d to th e pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r w ho pr e pa

re d th e Pr e se nte nc e Re po rt , and had e ven lied to his own attorney s until t he conte nts of his jailhouse calls wer e re veale d. The district cour

t se ntence d Mr. Adams to 151 months of imprisonment, the bottom of the applicable Guidelines ra

ng e. Explaining its decision, the cour t stated: The de fenda

nt admitted to obstructing justice in this case and, in the cour t’s opinion, is continuing to obstruct justice by not informing the court of all the information he ha s r e le va

nt t o th e wh e re a

bo uts of the mis sin g mari

jua na and its pr oc e e ds . Si mpl y stated, Mr. Ada

ms, Idon’t believe y ou. Th e c ourt a c kn ow le dg e s th a t th e de fe nd ant h a s w or ke d la wf ull y his e nti re lif

e un til he wa s rec ruited into this conspiracy and has no pr ior criminal hi story
. Def endant’ s actions subseque nt to signing his Plea Ag ree ment cost him sa fety valve e ligibility as we ll a s a re du c tio n fo r a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty , re su lti ng in a su bs tanti a l in c re a se in the leng th of defe ndant’s sente nce.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-9- Thus , th e c ourt

be lie ve s th a t a

se nte nc e a t th e low

e nd of the Gu idel in es r ang e is sufficie nt but not gre ater

than nece ssary to punish the defe ndant for his a ctions . . .

. 2. M r s. Ada m s’ s se nt e nc ing Mrs. Adams’s se ntencinghear ing w as held in May 2007. Her

counsel arg ued that she wa s elig ible for a

sentenc e re duction due to her acc eptanc e of r esponsibility for he r ac ti o n s . The g overnme nt counter ed that she should be give n an enha nceme nt for obstructingjustice. Noting that it face d a “dif

ficult issue,” the district c ourt ultimately ag ree d with both sides’ arguments. The cour t found that Mrs.Adams had obstructed justice by protec ting he r coc onspirators and by ly ing a bout her financ ial assets to her pr obation office r. Mrs. Adams was th er ef o re gi v en a two- level upwa rd adjustment and dee med inelig ible for the sa fety -valve reduct i o n . But be cause Mrs. Adams had “done e very

thing that the g overnme nt asked he r to do,” including taking a polyg raph e x amination, the cour t found that Mrs. A dams’s ca se pre sented one of those “e x traordina ry ” cir cumstance s contemplated by Application Note 4 to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, wher e an a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty can coexist wit h an obstruction-of -justice enha

nceme nt under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The Probation Of

fice calc ul ated Mrs. A dams’s total offe nse leve l to be 24 with a cr iminal history cate g ory of I , resulting in a Guidelines rang e of 60 to 63 months. After Mrs. Adams dec lined her oppor tunity to speak re g arding the appropr iate sentenc e, the cour t sentence d her to 60 months in prison—the bottom of the applicable Guidelines ra ng e.
II. AN AL YSI S A. Breac h of

the Adam ses’ plea agre em entsUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-10- “[W ]hen a plea r ests in any signific ant degr ee on a promise or ag ree ment of the prose cutor, so that it can be sa id to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promis e mus t be fulfilled.” Sa nto be llo v . Ne w York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). Mr. a nd Mrs. Adams ar g ue on appe al that the g overnme nt brea ched va

rious aspec ts of their re spective plea ag ree ments. But ne ither of them made this arg ument prior to or duringtheir sentenc ing hear ings. We must t here fore apply the plain-e rror standard of

revie w. Se e Un ite d S

tat es v . S wan be rg , 370 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that plain-er ror r eview a

pplies where a def

endant f ails to raise a

n objection during sentenc ing that the g ov e rnme nt h a s b re a c he d th e ple a a g re e me nt) . Fo r thi s cou rt to fi nd pla in er

ro r, the a pp e lla nt m us t “s h o w ( 1 ) [an ] e r

r o r , ( 2 ) th a t w a s o b v io u s o r c le ar , ( 3 ) th a t a f

f e c te d [th e ] d e f e n d an t’ s s u

b s ta ntial rig hts[ ,] and (4) that af

fec ted the fa irness, i nteg rity , or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s.” United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 386 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (interna l quotation marks omitted). 1. Mr. Ada ms’s ar

gumen ts Mr . A dams a

rgue s th a t th e g ov e rnme nt b re a c he d it s a g re e me nt wi th him in t hr e e re sp e c ts: (1) by using the information he pr ovided “a g ainst him,” (2) by not moving for

a sente nce r eduction based on his substantial assis tance to the gover nment, and (3) by

not advising the court of the extent of his cooper ation. We addre ss these ar g uments separ ately below.

a . U s eo f i n f o r ma t i o n p r o v id

e d b y M r . A d a ms “ a ga i n s t h i m” Mr. Adams notes that AUSA Ward told him at bot h the beginning and at the conc lusion of the ir Se pte mbe r 2 00 6 in te rv ie w that Ward wa s g oin g to fi le a

mot ion fo r a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e in Mr. Adams’s se ntence based upon his “substantial a ssistance.” Acc ording to Mr. Adams, Ward’sUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-11- assura nces a mounted to “a pr omise not to use any thing [ Mr. Adams] said ag ainst him,” assuranc es that he alleg edly

relied on to his detriment. Mr. Adams’s asser

tion that Ward’s comments somehow estopped the g overnme nt from later reque sting the sentenc e that it did is unfounded. War d simply stated that, as of

the September

2006 interview, he intended to see k a sentenc e reduc tion based on Mr. Ada ms’s substantial assistance; he
ne ve r p ro mis e d th a t Mr . A dams’ s f utu re lie s to inv e sti g a tor s w ou ld n ot c a us e War d to c ha

ng e his min d. Mo re ov e r, the re is n o p ro of tha t Mr . A dams r e lied to his de tr ime nt o n Ward ’s c omm e nts
. R at h er t h an i m m ed i at el y

t el l i n g t h e w h o l e t ru t h t o t h e i n v es t i gat o rs , M r. Ad am s co n t i n u ed t o ch an ge his story so as to lead them a stray
. Mr . A dams’ s p le a

a g re e me nt p ro vid e d in

re le va nt p art : I f, in the opinion of the United States, the defe ndant rende rs substanti al assi stance within the meaning of U.S .S.G. § 5K1.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) , the United States wi l l file a motion pursuant to one or both of these pr ovisions. The defe ndant acknow ledg es that, under the terms of this P lea Ag ree ment, [t he] United States reta ins complete discre tion in determining w hether a depa rture mot i o n wi l l be filed . . . . Be cause the totality

of the e vidence indicated that Mr. A dams, rathe r than providingsubstantial

a s s i s t an c e , a c tu a l l y impeded the inv e sti g a tio n with his re pe a te d li e s, the g ov e rnme nt w a s w e ll w ith in its discretion to decline to see k a downwa rd depa rture a nd inste ad t o seek a

n enhanc ement for obstruction of justice.

b. No t mov ing

fo r a do wnwa rd

de pa rtureba se d o n sub sta ntia l assistan ceUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-12- Mr. Adams ne x t argues that the g overnme nt impro p er l y re fu sed to move for a sente nce reduc tion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. That sec tion of the Guidelines provide s in pertinent par t
a s f oll ow s: Upon motion of the g overnme nt stating that the defe ndant has provide d substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who ha s committed an o ff e ns e , th e c ourt

may de pa rt fr om t he g uid e lin e s. Id. Under W

ade v. U nited States , 504 U.S. 181, 185-86 (1992), howeve r, t his court may not consider such an a rg ument absent a

showing that the g overnme nt’s ref usal to file the motion wa s based on an unconstitutional motive. “[A] lthough a showing of assistance is a nec essar y condition for re lief, it is not a suff

icient one.” Id. at 187. The e ssence of Mr. Ada

ms’s argument is that once AU SA Ward stated his intent to file a depar ture motion, the gover

nment no longe r retained any discretion in the matter , but “was oblig ated to file a de parture motion unless the defenda nt brea ched the Plea Agre ement.” Even if we ac cepte d this claim f

or the sake of ar g ument, howeve r, Mr. Ada ms repea tedly brea ched the plea a g ree ment beca use he did not “coope rate fully , truthfully , and complete ly .” Mr. Ada ms’s brea ches of

the plea ag ree ment thus relieved the g overnme nt of any obligation to m o v e fo r a downward de parture
. Be cause the gover

nment’s decision was clearly not based on an unconstit utional motive, such as Mr. Ad a ms’ s r a c e or

re lig ion , h is a

rgume nt o n th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t.
c . Fai

lure to i nf or m the c ourt of

the nat ure of Mr. Ada ms’s cooperation Finally , Mr. Adams make s the unsupported a rg ument that the g overnme nt brea ched his plea ag ree ment by

failing to advise t he dis trict court of the “nature, ex tent, and value” of his cooperation.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-13- B ut t he re c or d in dic a te s th a t th e c ourt wa s fu lly awa re of the e xten t of

Mr . A dams’ s “ a ssi sta

nc e ” to the inv e sti g a tor s. B e c a

us e Mr . A dams d oe s n ot i de nti fy wh a t in fo rm a tio n th e g ov e rnme nt c ou ld have pr esente d that was not alre ady befor e the c ourt, his argument on this point fails. 2. Mrs

. Ad ams’ s a rg uments Mrs. Adams asse rts that the g overnme n t b re ache d her ple a ag ree ment by failing to inform the district court of he r ef fort s t o qualify

for a sentenc e re duction based on a cce ptance of responsibility

and/or the sa fety -valve provisio n o f 1 8 U. S .C. § 3553(f). B ut her brie f does not ide nti fy wh a t in fo rm a tio n r e g ard ingthe a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty

that th e g ov e rnme nt a lle g e dly failed to bringto the court’s attention. Rega rdless, co n s i deringthat the cour t gr anted a

two-leve l reduc tion to Mrs. Adams based on he r ac cepta nce o f re sponsibili ty , she could not have been prejudice d by

any such fa ilure on the pa

rt of the g overnme nt. To the extent that Mrs. Adams arg ues that the g overnme nt w as obligated to prese nt any other infor

mation reg ardingdownwar d depar tures to the court, he r ar g ument fails bec ause he r plea ag ree ment expli citly

provided that the g overnme nt was makingno promises to her. Any expectations that Mrs. Adams mig ht have he ld based on the prosec utors’ prior state ments to her would ther efor e have been supe rsede d by the terms of the plea

a g re e me nt. B . Ap p l i ca ti o n o f

th e s a f et y -v a l v e r ed u ct i o n to Mr . a n d Mr s . Ad a ms Both Mr. a

nd Mrs. Adams contend that the district c ourt err ed in finding that they wer e not
e nti tl e d t o a s a f e t y - v a l v e r e d

u c t i o nu n d e r

t h e V i o l e n tC r i m e C o n t r o l an d L aw E n f o r c e m e n tA c t,USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-14- 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 ( f

)

. T h is A c t p e r

mi ts a d is tr ic t c o u rt t o s e n te n c e b e lo w a s tatuto r y ma n d a tory min imum if

it f ind s at se nte nc ingthat a ll o f t he fo llo wi ngfi ve c on dit ion s h a ve be e n me t: ( 1 ) th e d e f

e n d a n t d o e s n o t h a v e mo r e th an1 c r im in a l h is to r y p o in t, a s d etermined un de r t he se nte nc ingg uid e lin e s; (2 ) t he de fe nd ant d id n ot u se vio le nc e or cred ibl e thr e a ts o f v iol e nc e or po sse ss a fi re arm or oth e r d ang e ro us weap on (o r i nd uc e ano the r p art ic ipa

nt t o d o s o) in connec tion with the offense ; (3) the of fense did not result in death or ser ious bodily injury to any person; (4) the defe ndant was not an orga nizer, leade r, mana g er, or

supervisor of

others in the offe nse, as de termined unde r the sente ncing g uidelines[,] and was not eng ag ed in a c on tin uin g c ri min a l e nte rp ri se , a s d e fi ne d in § 4 08 of the Con tr oll e d Sub sta nc e s A c t; and (5 ) n ot l a te r tha

n th e tim e of

the se nte nc inghe ari ng , th e de fe nd ant h a s tr uth fu lly provided to the Go v er n ment all information and e vidence the def endant ha s conce rning the offe nse . . . . 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( f) . T he se fi ve fa c tor s are inc or po rate d in to U .S. S.G . § 5C1 .2 , w hic h, in conjunction with U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1( b)(6) , allows a de fenda nt who meets all five c riteria to r ece ive

a tw o- le ve l sa fe ty -v a lve re du c tio n in his or he r o ff e ns e le ve l. Def endants be ar the burd en o f p roving by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that they

are entitled to a safe ty -valve reduc tion. United St ates v. Hay nes , 468 F.3d 422, 427 (6th Cir. 2006). A district court’s re fusal to find that a de fenda nt qualifies for safe ty -valve relief is a fac tual finding that we review under the clear -er ror standa rd. United States v. Adu , 82 F.3d 119, 124 ( 6th Cir. 1996). 1 . M r . A d a msUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-15- Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

de te rm ine d th a t Mr . A dams h a d f a iled to sat is fy

the fo ur th a nd fi ft h elem en t s o f t he saf

ety -valve test. Specifica lly , the cour t found that Mr. Adams had eng ag ed in a continuing c riminal enterpr ise and that he had n o t t ruthfully disclosed to the g overnme nt all the information he ha d about the off ense. We n e e d n ot de c ide wh e the r the dis tr ic t court e rr e d in fin din g that Mr . A dams h a d f a ile d to satisfy the fourth sa fety -valve requir em en t b eca use his argument conce rning the fifth § 3553(f ) element—truthfully

providing all of the infor mation he had a

bout the offe nse by

the t ime he wa s sentenc ed—is without merit. Mr. Adams primar ily conte n ds that, after

his dece ption was dis c ov e re d, he did

e ve ry thi ngpo ssi ble to c on vin c e the g ov e rnmen t th a t he wa s b e ingtr uth fu l, including his submission to a poly g raph examination. But the district c ourt found at se ntencingthat “the de fenda

nt has obstructed a

nd co n t i nues to obstruct justice and e va de re sp on sib ili ty

fo r h is ong oing c riminal activity .” Th e di st ri ct cou rt ’s fi nd in g t hat M r. Ad a ms w a s st ill no t be ingtr uth fu l a t se nte nc ing is supported by

the evidenc e. A DE A ag ent testifying f or the g overnme nt pointed out that many of the proce eds fr om the crime w ere still not a ccounte d for, and the taped telephone c onversations show that A dams k

ne w m or e inf

or ma tio n than he wa s shari ng wi th the po lic e . B e c a us e the c ourt ’s dis tr

us t of Mr. Ada

ms is well supported by

the re cord, its findi ng that Adams continued to obstruc t justi ce is not clearly

err oneous. 2 . M r s . A d a msUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-16- M r s . A d a m s a l s o ar g u e s o na p p e a l t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts h o u l d h a v e g r an t e d

h e r a s a f e t yvalve r eduction. He r Prese ntence R eport de termined that the sa fety -valve reduc tion was not applicable beca

use Mrs. Adams had “not truthfully provided the g over n m en t with all [ the] information and e vidence ” that she poss essed about the offe nse. The g overnme nt argued ag ainst the reduc tion before the district court, a nd the cour

t denied the reduc tion. Bec ause Mr s. Adams did not object to this deter

mination at t he sentencing hear ing, we therefor e review it under the plain-er ror standard. See U

nited States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 385 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (en ba nc). The g overnme nt asserte d that it was unclea r whe ther Mrs. Ada

ms was beingtruthful at the time of sentenc ing be cause she had f ailed some of the questio n s on her polyg raph e x amination. Gi ve n M rs . A dams’ s p ri or de c e pti on , th e c ourt

c ou ld reas on ably

c on c lud e that sh e wa s st ill withholding information from the gover nment. Moreove r, Mrs. Adams di d not present a ny evidenc e to rebut the g overnme nt’s argument on this iss u e. The district court’s conc lusion that she did not
car ry her bur den of pr oof wa s theref ore not plainly

err oneous. C. Mr. A dam s’s acc eptance of responsibi lity Th e ne xt iss ue is M r. Ad a ms’ s c on te nti on that th e distr ic t c ourt

e rr e d in de nyinghim

a reduc tion in his offe nse leve l due to his acc eptanc e of r esponsibility . United States Sentencing Gu ide lin e s § 3E 1. 1 p e rm its a tw o- le ve l r e du c tio n in the of fe ns e le ve l of

a de fe nd ant w ho “ c le a rl y demonstrates a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty for his off

ense.” The de fenda

nt bears t h e b u rden of showing that he has inde ed ac cepte d responsibility

. Un ite d S tat es v . P au le tte , 4 57 F .3 d 6 01 , 6 08 (6 th Cir. 2006). We will not set aside the district court’ s d et ermination as to whe ther a defe ndant hasUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-17- acc epted r esponsibility

unless that deter

mination is clearly

err oneous. Id

. ; seealso U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 cmt. n.5 (“The sentenc ing judg e is in a uni q u e posi tion to evaluate a defe ndant’s ac cepta

nce of responsibility . For

this reason, the de termination of the se ntencingjudge is e ntitled to g reat defe renc e on revie w.”)

. The a pplication of a se ntencingenhanc ement for obstruction of j ustice ordinarily indicates the def endant’ s failure to acc ept re sponsibili ty for his act i o n s , alt houg h it is not an absolute ba r. There may

be “extraordinar

y case s in w hich adjustments unde r both §§ 3C1.1 a nd 3E1.1 may

apply .” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n.4. Mr. Adams asser ts that his is such an extraordinary case . He be ars the burden o f p roving this assertion. See Un ite d S tates v . G re

go ry , 315 F.3d 637, 641 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (“[I ]t is the defe ndant’s burde n to demonstrate that his ca se is extraordinary such that he de serve s the downwa

rd adjustment.” ( internal quotation marks omitted))

. Mr. Adams notes that he pled guilty , participated in six interviews with the investig ators, and ultimately

disclosed to the g overnme nt significa nt amounts of truthful informa tion, including the location of $158,000 in drugproce eds. But this arg ument ignor es the fa ct that Adams re peate dly lied to the investigators even a fter e ntering his guilty plea a nd that they had no wa

y of knowing whether he wa s still withholding information at the time of his sentenc ing. I ndeed, the district court stated in the sentenc ing he aringthat Adams “obstruc ted and con t i n u es to obstruct justice and e vade responsibility

for ong oing c riminal activity .” (Empha sis added.) Th e c a se s c ite d b y

Mr . A dams to su

pp or t hi s argume nt o n th is i ssu e are e a sil y dis tin g uis ha

ble . O ne su c h c a se is United States v. Harpe r , 246 F.3d 520 (6th Cir. 2001), overruledUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-18- on other grounds by United States v. Leachm an , 30 9 F .3 d 3 77 , 3 84 n. 7 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 2) , w he re thi s court g ave e x amples of the sor t of extraordinary situations in which a de fenda nt who had obstructe d justice might still be entitled to a downwar d depar ture for acc eptanc e of r esponsibility . For instance,

a de fe nd ant a

wa iti ngtr ia l mi g ht e sc a

pe c us tod y bu t the n im me diate ly

tur n h ims e lf in t o a uth or iti e s. Id. at 528. Simil arly , the cour t note d that a defe ndant might qua lify if he “ immediately

confe ssed afte r writing an obstructive letter and then of

fer ed to plead guilty .” Id. Neither of these e x amples is e ve n a rgua bly a na log ou s to Mr . A dams’ s c on tin ua l ob str uc tio n o f j us tic e a ft e r a g re e in g to cooper ate with the g overnme nt’s investigation. Mr. Adams also relies on United States v. W illiams , 176 F.3d 301 ( 6th Cir. 1999), where one of the de fenda

nts, after pleadingg uilty , provided “ timely and complete information to the g overnme nt conce rning his own i nvolvement i n the offe nse.” Id. at 311 (interna l quotation marks omitted). The def

endant la t er re canted his trial testimony and moved to withdra

w his plea,
nece ssitating a hear ing on the i ssue, before he restate d his origina l positi on and once ag ain ac cepte d responsibility

. Id. This c ourt held that the defe ndant, who rec eived an o b s t ru ction-of- justice enhanc ement base d on the re cantingof his trial testimony , was no n et h el es s subject to a two-le vel reduc tion for his eventua l full acc eptanc e of r esponsibility

. Id. Nothing a bout Mr. Adams’s ong oing scheme of dec eption para llels the W illiams defe ndant’s one- time lapse in coope ration. F ina lly , A dams c ite s U

n i t e d S t a t es v . G r e

g or y , 3 1 5 F.3d 637 ( 6th Cir. 2003), where the defe ndant admitted that he obstructed justice by acc epting and swallowing balloons of drug s g iven to h im b y his sis te r an d by wr iti ng his sis te r a le tte r ur g ing he r not to c oo pe rate wi th t he g ov e rn me nt.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-19- But the de fenda

nt then acc epted r esponsibility and “f ully cooper ated subseque ntly .” Id. a t 640. Al l instances of

obstruction of justice in Gr e go ry occur

red before the defendant pled guilty and beg an cooper ating with the g overnme nt. Id. Her e, as a lrea dy noted, Mr. A d am s continued to lie to the g overnme nt long a fter he supposedly beg an to coope rate with the investigation. The fa cts of Mr. Adams’s c ase a lign much mor e close ly with a re cent c ase c ited by the g ov e rnme nt— Un ite d S

tat es v . J e ro ss , 521 F.3d 562 (6th Cir. 2008). I n J e ro ss , the def

endant in a dr ug -d istri bu tio n c on sp ir a c y e ng a g e d in r e pe a te d atte mpt s, bo th b e fo re and a ft e r p le a din g g uil ty , to
o bstruct justice by

intimi dating a coc onspirator who w as coope rating with the g overnme nt. Id. at 58 2. On ly

a ft e r t he g ov e rnme nt r e vis e d it s reco mm ended of fe ns e le ve l up wa

rd s a s a re su lt o f h is threa t en i n g co nduct did the def endant be g in to cooperate with the g overnme nt by attending debrie fing s with investigators. Id. Th is c ourt re je c te d th e de fe nd ant’ s argume nt o n a pp e a l th a t hi s
c a se wa s o ne of

the e xce pti on a l fe w in whi c h an ob str uc tio n- of -j us tic e e nh anc e me nt co uld c oe xist wi th a n a c c e pta nc e -o f- re sp on si bility

re du c tio n. Con sid e ri ngthe de fe nd ant’ s b e la te d d e c isi on to cooper ate in lig ht of the def endant’ s long pattern of obstruc tion, this court he ld that he had “f ailed to meet the ‘e x actingstandard’ under Gr e go ry of showing that he i s entitled to an ac cepta nce- ofresponsibility

reduc tion after ha

ving obstruc ted justice.” Id Her e, Mr. Adams’s obstruction of j ustice was arguably even mor e sig nificant than that of the J e ro ss defe ndant. There was no sug g estion in J e ro ss that the defe ndant continued to obstruct justice afte r he be g an to assist the investiga tors. Mr. Adams, in contra st, continually lied to the g overnme nt long afte r he purportedly beg an “coope rating ” with the investigation. But even i f w e gi v e Mr.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-20- Ad a ms the be ne fi t of

the do ub t th a t he tr

uly “ c a me c le an” on c e he su bmi tte d to the po lyg ra

phte st, that cooper ation was no more significa nt than t he debriefing s provided by the def endant in J

e ro ss , wh o w a s n o t f

o u n d e l i g i b l e f

o r t h e a c c e p t an c e - o f

- r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e d

u c t i o n . I n s h o rt , M r . A da ms cannot show that his case is one of the “ ex t ra o rd i nary

case s in which adjustments under both §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1 may ap p l y .” See U. S.S. G. § 3 E1 .1 , c mt. n. 4. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt thu s p ro pe rl y declined Mr . Adams’s re quest of a se ntence reduc tion based on his acc eptanc e o f re sponsibili ty
.

D. Mrs. A dam s’s sentence enhancem ent for obstruction of ju stice We now turn to Mrs. Adams’ s co n t en tion that the district court err ed in enha ncing her sentenc e base d on obstruction of justice. I n revie wing a district c ourt’s application of the obstruction enhanc ement under

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, we review de novo the de terminati on that specific conduct
c on sti tut e d o bs tr

uc tio n o f j us tic e , b ut w ill no t se t a sid e the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fact ual fi nd ing s unle ss clea rly err oneous. Un ite d S

tat es v . Ca me

jo , 333 F.3d 669, 674- 75 (6th Cir. 2003). Se c tio n 3 C1. 1 o f t

he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s p ro vid e s a s f oll ow s: I f (A) the def

endant willfully

obstructed or

impeded, or attempted to o b s t ruct or impede, the a dminist ration of just ice with respe ct t o the investig ation, prosec ution, or sentenc ing of

the instant offe nse of c onviction, and (B ) the obstru ctive conduc t related to (i) the defe ndant’s offense of conviction and any rele vant conduc t; or (ii) a c los e ly re la te d o ff

e ns e , in c re a se the of

fe ns e le ve l by

2 le ve ls. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. In finding that Mrs. Adams had obstructe d justice, the district court de termined that she had pers o n ally

spent part of

the drugproce eds duringthe cour se of the inve stigation, had protec ted and wa

rned her coconspirators, and had lied to the probation off icer reg ardingher f

inancialUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-21- assets. These fac tual finding s were abundantly supported by

the re cor d , including nume rous
rec ording s of Mrs. Adams discussing her obs t ru ct i ve ac tiviti es with Mr. Adams. And clea rly the d i s trict court wa s corr ect in conc luding that suc h conduct c onstitut es obstruction of justice unde r § 3C1.1. I

n sum, the court did not err in e nhancing Mrs. Adams’s se ntence based on obstruc tion of justice. E. The dist r ic t c our t’ s us e of t he r e c or de d t e le phone c onv e r sa ti ons The Ada m s es n ex tco n t en d t h at t h e go v ern m en tv i o l at edt h e F o u rth Amendment whe n a DEA
a g e nt o bta ine d a

nd re vie we d r e c or din g s o f t

he ir c on ve rs a tio ns ov e r a

pr iso n te le ph on e . T he y

a lso
asser t that the di strict court erre d by considering those rec ording s at sentenc ing. We r eview a district court’s decisions on the admission of evidenc e at se ntencingunder the abuse- of-discr etion standard. United States v. Bingham , 81 F.3d 617, 630 ( 6th Cir. 1996). As an initial matter, Mrs. Adams’s argument on the issue was arguably waived beca use she did not object to the admission of the rec ording s at the sente ncinghear ing. See W atkins v. Kassulke , 90 F.3d 138, 141- 42 (6th Cir. 1996) (“ [T] he fa ilure of c ounsel to object in a timely manner to the admission of evidenc e obtained in violation of the Fourth Ame ndment waives the rig ht to have that
e viden ce suppr e sse d. ” ); bu t se e Un ite d S tat es v . Ca ldw e ll , 518 F.3d 426, 430 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (“ [T]he re is s ome de bate ov e r w he the r w e sh ou ld t reat a su pp re ssi on

argume nt r a ise d f

or the fi rs t time on appea l as a wa i v er (s u b ject to re view only

if the def

endant c an show ‘g ood cause ’) or a forf eiture ( subject to ‘plain er ror’ revie w)” ) (inter

nal citations omitted).USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-22- Re g ard le ss o f w he the r the Ad a mse s’ su pp re ssi on argume nt wa s wa ive d a s to M rs . A dams, howeve r, their a

rg ument fa i l s o n t h e merits. To challeng e a se arc h on constitutional grounds, a defe ndant must have a “leg itimate e x pectation of privac y ” in the thing that was sea rche d. Rawlings v. Kentuck

y , 448 U.S. 98, 104-06 (1980). The Adamses could not have e x pecte d privac y wher e a messag e at the start of e very telephone c all informed the inmate s that they had no rig ht to privacy and that their conversation was being rec orded a nd possibly

monitored. I ndeed, Mr . Adams has
c on c e de d th a t he ha d n o s uc h e xpecta tio n. Th e Ad a mse s’ re c or de d a dmi ssi on s r e g ard ingthe ir ob str uc tio n o f j us tic e we re thu s p ro pe rl y a dmi tte d b y

the dis tr ic t c ou

rt
. F . The reasonableness of the Adam ses’ sente nces The fina l issue on appea l is the reasona bleness of t h e Adamses’ respe ctive sente nces. First, to the ex tent that Mr. and Mrs. Adams claim that the district cour t should have depa

rted do wnwa rd un de r U. S.S. G. § 5K2 .0 , suc h a c la im i s n ot r e vie wa ble on a pp e a l. We will “not review decisions of a

district court not to depar t downwar d unless the re cord r efle cts that the district court

w a s n o t aw a r e o f o r d id n o t u n d e r s ta n d it s d is c r e ti o n to ma

k e s u c h a d e p artu

r e .” Un i t ed S t a t es v. Pu c k e tt , 422 F.3d 340, 345 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (interna l quotation marks omitted). There is no indication in this case that the district cour t was not awa

re of o r d i d n o t u nderstand its discre tion to make a downwar d depar

ture. Moving on to the ove rall re asonable ness of the Adamses’ se ntence s, “[s] entenc es imposed po st- Booke r

ar e r ev i ew edfo r p ro ce d

u ra l an d s u b s t an t i v e r ea s o n ablene ss.” U n it e d S ta te s v . Co n a tse r , 514 F.3d 508, 519 ( 6th Cir. 2008). WeUSA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-23- must first ensure that the d i s t ri ct cour t committed no significa

nt proce dural e rror , such as failing to c alculate (or improperly calc ulating) the Guidelines rang e, tre ating t h e G u i d el i n es as m an d at o ry , fa i l i n g t o co n s i d er t h e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f

ac t o rs , s el ec t i n g a sentenc e based on clea

rly err oneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentenc e—including an explanation for a ny deviation from the G uidelines rang e. Gall v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007). Th e Ad a mse s’ s b ri e fs do no t c ha lle ng e the pr oc e dura l r e a so na ble ne ss o f t

he ir se nte nc e s. Moreove r, we find no indications that the district c ourt committed a ny proce dural e rror s. The re cord

make s c le ar t

hat the c ourt

re vie we d a ll the re le va

nt i nf or ma tio n p ro vid e d b y

Mr . a nd Mr s. Ad a ms, the g overnme nt, and the Probation Off ice be fore i t i m p o sed the sente nces. Thus, ne ither Mr. Adams’s sente nce nor

Mrs. Adams’s se ntence was proc edura lly unrea sonable. We next revie w t he sentences for substantive re asonable ness. Id. at 594. “A se ntence may be conside red substantively unrea sonable when the di strict court selects a sentence a rbitrar ily , bases the sentenc e on impermissible fac to rs , fa i l s t o consider r eleva nt sentencingfac tors, or g ives an
unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.” Conatser , 514 F .3 d at 52 0. Th e a pp lic a ble Guidelines ra

ng e re prese nts the starting point for substantive-re asonable ness re vie w b e c a u s e it is o ne of the § 3553(a) factors and beca use t he Guidelines purport to take into consider ation most, if not all, of the other

§ 3553(a) fac tors. Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 596-97 & n.6. Although a district court may not presume that the r ang e is rea sonable, United St ates v. Fore man , 436 F.3d 638, 644 n.1 ( 6th Cir. 2006), a pr operly

calc ulated within-Guidelines se ntence will be aff orded a rebuttable presumption of re asonable ness on appe al. United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006).USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-24- Mr. and Mrs. Adams’s sentenc es

— wh i ch we re b o t h at t h e b o t t o m o f t h ei r respe ctive Guidelines ra

ng es—we re substantively rea sonable. The only

substantive-re asonable ness ar g ument that Mr . a nd Mr s. Ad a ms c le arl y

art ic ulate in t

he ir br ie fs is that th e ir

se nte nc e s w e re un re a so na bly high r elative to t h o s e received by their coc onspirators. True enoug h, § 3553(a) (6) r equire s the
se nte nc ingc ourt

to c on sid e r “ the ne e d to a vo id unw arr ante d sen te nc e dis pa ri tie s amon g de fe nd a nts with simi lar re cords who ha ve bee n found guilty

of similar conduc t.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)( 6); Conatser , 5 14 F .3 d at 52 1. B ut t his fa c tor “ c on c e rn s national

dis pa ri tie s b e tw e e n d e fe nd ants wi th simil ar c riminal histories convicted of simil ar c onduct—not dispariti es betwee n codef endants.” Conatser , 514 F.3d at 521 (emphasis i n orig inal). “D isparities betwe en the se ntence s of coconspirators can exi st for valid rea sons, such as differ ence s in criminal histories, the offe nses of conviction, or one co-c onspirator’s de cision to plead g uilty and cooperate wit h the g overnme nt.” Id. at 522. Her e, ther e ar e numer ous valid expl anations for the sentenc ing dispa

rities betwee n Mr. and Mrs. Adams on the one hand and the ir coc onspirators on the ot her. Mr. Adams, for example, play ed the primary

role in re moving the ma in stash of marijuana from his barn a fter Robbins’s ar rest. He subsequently

sold the marijuana on his ow n initiative. And, as noted extensively above, both Mr.

and Mr s. Ad a ms r e pe a te dly ob str uc te d th e g ov e rnme nt’ s inve sti g a tio n a nd lik e ly ne ve r c a me completely

clea n about the location of the marijuana and/or the dr

ug proce eds. These circ umstances dic ta te that the dis pa

ri tie s in th e se nte nc e s o f M r. and Mr s. Ad a ms a s c omp are d w iththo se of the ir coconspirators wer e entire ly justified.USA v. Adam s

Nos. 07-5162, 07-5725

-25- I n th e a bs e nc e of any oth e r a rgume nts re g ard ingthe substanti ve re a so na ble ne ss o f t

he ir sentenc es, Mr. and Mrs. Adams have failed to overc ome t he presumption that their sentence s were
rea sonable. We there fore find no err or i n their re spective se ntence s of 151 and 60 months of imprisonment.
VI . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.