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: 09a0037n.06 F iled: Janu ary 16, 2009 Case No. 07- 6485 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 of

AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,
v. GREGORY JEROME M cMU RRY, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE M ID DL E D ISTRIC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEF OR E: NO RRIS, BA TC HELD ER , a nd R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Gr e g or y Jer ome Mc Murr

y a pp eals h is
se nte nc e , a

rguin g tha

t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

imp os e d a

se nte nc e that w a s unr e a so na ble , b a se d o n h is pa rt ic ula r, pe rs on a l c ir c ums tanc e s. F or the re a so ns tha

t f oll ow , w e AF F I RM the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. De fe nd ant G re g Mc Murr

y ple d guil ty

to six c ounts of un lawf

ul dis tr ibutio n of c oc a ine ba se (cr ack c ocaine ), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) . By pleadingto t h es e charg es, McMurr y
acc epted responsibilit y for 38.2 g rams of c rac k coca ine, which c orre sponded to a ba se-of fense level of 30, pursua

nt t o U. S
. S
. G. § 2D1.1(c )(5) . But the pr esente nce r eport (PSR) reve aled ten pr ior criminal convic tions, five of t h em d rug off enses, whic h rende red Mc Murry a ca ree r off ender and incre ased his o ff

ense le vel to 34, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b) (B ). F ollowing a three -leve l
acc eptanc e-of

-re sponsibili ty

adjustment, the PSRset McMurr y ’s total offe nse leve l at 31. The ten pr ior convictions translate d to 17 criminal history points, with t hree points added2

beca use he committed the i nstant offe nse wit hin two y ear s of hi s rele ase from prison and while on p ar o l e. T h is resulted in a c riminal history cate g ory VI , the maxim um categ ory . McMurry ’s d e s i g n a t i o na s a

c ar e e r o f f e n d e r a l s o d e s i g n a t e d

h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y c a t e g o r y a s V I. Ba sed on the off

ense le vel of 31 and the c riminal history cate g ory of VI , McMurry ’s advisory g uideline ra

ng e wa s 188 to 235 months i n prison. At the sentenc ing he aring , McMurry ’s attorne y soug ht a downwa

rd var iance to a sentenc e of 70 months, base d on five a rg uments: (1) the c are er offe nder de signation overstated Mc Murry ’s ac tual criminal conduc t; (2) the hig h offe nse leve l was the produc t of a police scheme of sentenc e manipulation or sente nce entrapme nt; (3) the sente nce was inflate d by

the powder -ver sus-cra ck-c ocaine conver sion rate; (4) McMurry is almost retarde d (a n I Q o f 7 4) and

c ann ot b e he ld fu lly c ulp a ble ; and (5 ) Mc Murr

y is too old (a g e 37 ) t o r e c idi vate up on re le a se fr om p ri so n a ft e r 7 0 mo nth s. Th e g ov e rnme nt o pp os e d th e se argume nts
. At the sentenc ing he aring , the district court a ddresse d eac h of these a rgum ents and

a c kn ow le dg e d

i t s d isc re tio n in

se nte nc ingMc Murr

y in a c c or da

nc e wi th t he 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3 f

a c tor s, reg ar d le s s o f th e a d v is o r

y g u id e li n e s . T h e c o u rt th e n r e je c te d e a c h o f M c M u r

r y ’ s ar g u me nts and sentenc ed him to 188 months, t he low end of the advisory rang e. McMurry appea ls and raise s the same five arguments to ex plain why he is entitled to a below- g uidelines sentenc e. The g overnme nt dis a g re e s. II. McMurry conce des that this panel mus t revie w t he dis trict court’s sentencingdecision under the hig hly defe rential a

buse-of -discre t ion standard, see G all v. United States , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597 (2007), a nd that the Six th Cir cu i t ap p lies a pre sumption of reasona bleness to within-g uidelines sentenc es, see Un i t ed S t ates v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 389 ( 6th Cir. 2008). But he insists that the3

court mi sunderstood his arguments, which, prope rly understood, over come the pr esumption and, the re fo re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

fa ili ngto h e e d th e m. After car efully revie wing the sentenc ing tr anscr ipt, we have no doubt that the district court hear d and under stood McMurry ’s ar g uments. The cour t just disag ree d with them. So, the question is wheth er t hat disag ree ment was so unexplained or inexplicable that the pa nel must find that the
c o u rta b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o nb y d i s a g r e e i n g . It w a s n o t
. T h e c o u rte x p l a i n e d i t s e l f f u l l y. The district co u rt clea

rly and per suasively

explained its posi tion on each of McMurry ’s arguments and the rec ord supports its explanations. McMurry had ten pr ior convictions, five of them fo r c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e of fe ns e s, and

any tw o of the m wo uld qu a lif y him a s a c are e r o ff

e nd e r; so the ca r e e r o f f e n d e r d e s ig n a ti o nd o e s n o t o v e r s tate h is a c tu a l c r im in a l c o n d u c t. T h e g o v e r

n me nt produce d testimony to de monstrate that its re peate d purcha ses of c ocaine from McMur ry wer e due to its belief that he wa s a par t of a lar g er ne twork; on the other ha nd, the re cord c ontains no evidenc e to support the acc usation of sentenc e manipulation or sente nce entrapme nt. The district cour t found that the re cent amendments to the sentenc ing guidelines sufficie ntly addre ss McMurry ’s conc erns ab o u t t h e im p a c t o f th e p o w d e r - v e r s u s - c r a c k

- c o c a in e d is p ar it y o nh is s e n te n c e . T h e g o vernme nt pr od uc e d te sti mony that — re g ard le ss of his low I Q — tho se wh o de a lt wi th Mc Murr y in his business capa city (i.e., as a dr ug deale r), f

ound him astute, conver sant, and prof essional. And, rather tha n f ind ingMc Murr

y un lik e ly to r e c idi vate du e to h is ( a lle g e dly ) a dv anc e d a g e , the c ourt

fo un d h im very likely to rec idivate due to his profe ssed i nability to obtain other employ

ment due to a lac k of life skills (and, appa

rently , border line-re tarde d I Q). The court considered all of this collectively and, g ra nti ngMc Murr

y a fa ir bit of me rc y , sen te nc e d him to the low e nd of the g uid e lin e s r ang e . T his was not an a

buse of discr etion.4 III . For the fore g oing r easons, we AF F IRM the district court’s judg ment and sente nce.