T h e H on or abl e Ave r n L. Cohn , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or th e Eas t er n D i s t r i ct of M i ch i g an , s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n. 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: 07a0320n.06 F iled: May 8, 2007 Case No. 04- 6208 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. ER IC K D. WI LLIA M S, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE WE STE RN DI STR IC T OF TEN NE SSEE

BEFORE: BATCHELDER, MOORE, Circuit Judges; and COHN, District Judge. *
ALICE M. BATCH E L DE R, Ci rcuit Judge. On June 24 , 2 00 4, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt, Er ic k Wil lia

ms ( “ Willi a ms” ), ple a de d guil ty to o ne c ount o f c on sp ir a cy to po sse ss w ithint e nt t o distribute coca ine and c ocaine base in v i o l ati on of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The Prese ntence Report (“PSR”) ca lculated W i l l i ams’s sentenc e under the then-ma

ndatory SentencingGuidelines, and
rec ommended a total of

fense level of 33, a C riminal History Categ ory I I , and a se ntencingrang e of 151 t o 1 8 8 m o n t h s . P u rs u an tt o W i l l i am s ’s p l eaagr ee m en t , h o we v er , t h e G o vernme nt rec ommended that the re levant conduc t be limited to 2 to 3.5 kilogr ams of coca ine, re sulting in a ba se off ense le vel of 28. The G uidelines and the G overnme nt also rec ommended a two le vel enh an ce m en t for2

possession of a fir ear

m and a thre e leve l reduc tion for ac cepta nce of responsibility , resulting in a tot a l of fe ns e le ve l of

27 and a se nte nc ingra

ng e of 78 to 9 7 mo nth s. On September

23, 2004, the district court acc epted the Gover nment’s re commendation and sentenc ed Wil liams to 78 months’ imprisonment followed by four y ear s of supervise d rele ase, the lowest sentenc e under the then-mandatory Guidelines. The district c ourt also imposed an identica l alternative sentenc e at the conclusion of the s entenc ing hear ing, stating that “if another court is going to reviewthis , as an al t ernative to the sentenc ing unde r the guidelines and mer ely using the g uidelines as an as s i s t i v e d evice to determine the sentenc e . . . the c ourt is also g oing to impose a sentenc e of 78 months in this matter . . . .” The court did not elabor ate on its rea son for imposing the 78 month sentence either unde r the Guide lines or in treating them a s “an a ssisti ve devic e.” I. The e vents underly

ing Williams’s sentence are undisputed. I n 2003, law en fo rcement office rs wire tapped a

telephone use d by

Re gi n al d Pullen. Monit ored c onversations revea led that Pul le n w a s th e so ur c e of

a c oc a ine ne tw or

k o f M e mph is a

re a dr ug de a le rs and

tha t E ri c k Wil liams assisted Pullen. W itnesses later c onfirmed that Pullen direc ted drugcustomers to Will iams when Pullen was unava ilable. On J uly 30, 2003, Pullen arr ang ed a c ocaine delivery to J ames Tunstall. Prior to speaking with Tunstall, Pullen spoke wit h Wil liams, and W illiams asked Pul len i f he should bring“all of it,”
or the “ 2 1⁄2, ” and Pul le n a sk e d him to br ing “ the 2 1⁄2, ” an a pp are nt re fe re nc e to a qu anti ty of dr ug s. On Au g us t 1, 20 03 , She lby County sh e ri ff s e xec ute d a se arc h w arr ant at 44 74 Ho dg e , in Me mph is, Tenne ssee, a

nd arr ested James Tunstall and his son Rodney Tunstall. Office rs re cover ed substantial qu anti tie s o f p ow de r and crack coc a ine . O n Se pte mbe r 3 0, 20 03 , p ur su ant t o a se arc h w a rr a nt,3

office rs sea

rche d Wil liams’s residenc e at 867 Nor th McL ean, Memphis, wher e they found evide nce of drugdistribution activity , including trac es of coca ine, a small amount of cr ack c ocain, mar ijuana,
and a pis tol
. II. Wi ll ia ms ar g u e s th a t h is p re- Booke r sentenc e should be va cate d and re manded f or
rese ntencingunder the now-a dvisory SentencingGuidelines fr amewor k. We ag ree . The Gove rnment contends that remand is unnec essar y beca use the district cour

t issued an identical alter

native sente nce in a

nticipation of the Supreme Court’ s rul ing in United States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). In United States v. Christopher , 415 F.3d 590, 593 ( 6th Cir. 2005),
we state d th a t “ wh e n a

dis tr ic t c ourt

imp os e s a lte rn a tiv e , ide nti c a l sen te nc e s, on e un de r a r e g ime in
w h i c h G u i d e l i n e e n h an c e m e n t s ar e n o tm an d a t o r y, t h e h ar

m l e s s n e s s o f

an y Booke r

e rr or is established.” We reiterated t his position i n United States v. Mc Bride , 434 F.3d 470, 473 ( 6th Cir. 20 06 ), no tin g “ that wh e n a dis tr ic t c ourt art ic ulate s an ide nti c a l a lte rn a tiv e se nte nc e in a dd iti on to a sente nce unde r the guidelines, the har mlessness of the Booke r

err or is established. B eca use the district court ar

ticulated an ide ntical alter native sente nce, the Booke r err or is harmless.” McBride provided, howeve r, that “[e]ven thoug h a Booke r violation is rende red ha rmless by a district cour

t’s articulation of an identica l alternate sentenc e, this Court must s till determine if that al t er nate se ntence is reasona ble.” Id . Acc ording ly , we r eview Williams’s sentence for
rea sonablene ss. See United States v. J ones , 445 F.3d 865, 869 ( 6th Cir. 2006). I n r e vie wi nga

de fe nd ant’ s se nte nc e fo r re a so na ble ne ss un de r the po st- Booke r framework, we look to the district cour t’s consideration of t he sentencing fac tors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id . A lth ou g h we have he ld t hat “ the re is n o r e qu ir e me nt t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

e ng a g e in a

ri tua lis tic4

incantation of the § 3553(a) fac tors it considers,” United States v. Chandler , 419 F.3d 484, 488 ( quoting United States v. W ashington , 147 F.3d 490, 491-92 (6th Cir. 1998)) ( internal c itations and q uotation marks omitted), we ha ve also e x plained that “the district court’s opinion should be sufficie ntly

detailed to re flec t the considerations li sted in § 3553(a) .” McBride , 4 3 4 F
. 3 d a t 4 7 4
. We the re fo re re qu ir e the dis tr ic t c ourt to “ art ic ulate the re a so ns fo r the pa rt ic ula r se nte nc e imp os e d in order to enable this Court to eng ag e in a meaning ful rea sonablene ss reviewof the sente nce.” Jones , 445 F.3d at 869. I n the instant case , despite issuing a n identical alter

native sentenc e in anticipation of Booke r , the district court fa iled to a rticulate a ny of its rea soning f

or the sente nce. I

n imposing its alternative sentenc e, the district court considere d only the amount of drug s distributed, and used the Sentenc ing Guideli n es fo r as s i s tance , but offer ed no indication that it had conside red a ny of the § 3553(a ) sentenc ing f

actor s. The re cord a

nd the district c ourt’s discussion of Wil liams’s sentenc e lac k any analy sis that would permit a meaning ful rea sonablene ss reviewof the sente nce. Jones , 445 F.3d at 869. For

the fore g oing r easons, we VA CA TE Wil liams’s sentenc e and rema nd this matter to the d i s t ri ct co u rt fo r r es en t en ci n g.