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: 08a0145n.06 F iled: Marc h 12, 2008 No. 06-2176 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. CHRI STOPHER MI CHAEL O’NO N, 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 OR E: NO RRIS, BA TC HELD ER , a nd G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s. ALAN E . NORRIS, Circuit Judge. Def endant Christopher O’Non appea ls the concur rent 96-month sentence s imposed by the district court followinghis guilty plea to maintaining a drug establishment in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 and dis tribution of marijuana within 1000 feet of a

n elementa ry school in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860. Def endant a sserts that t he dis trict court f ailed to appr eciate its authority to depar t downwar d from the advisory g uidelines rang e based on a discharg ed sentenc e imposed in state cour t for conduc t related to the fe dera l offe nse. Howeve r, defendant concede s that no motion or request wa s made for a downwa rd depa rture be fore or at sente ncing and offe rs no evidenc e that would sug g est the district
c ourt wa s un awa

re of its a uth or ity to de pa

rt do wnwa

rd
. Ra the r, a re qu e st wa s ma de fo r c re dit a g a ins t the f e d e r a l s e n t e n c e f

o r t i m e s e r v e d o na r e l a t e d s t a t e o f f e n s e , t o w h i c h t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtpr op e rl yNo. 06-2176

United States v. O’

Non

- 2 - responde d that the B urea

u of Prisons would determine the extent to which any cre dit for time ser ved
was a ppropriate . There fore , we aff irm the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I. B e g inn ingin 1 99 7, wh e n de fe nd ant a nd his br oth e r M a tth e w O ’N on we re in m idd le sc ho ol, the y be g an to dis tr ibute mari jua na to t he ir mid dle sc ho ol a

nd , late r, hi ghsc ho ol c la ssm a te s. De fe nd ant a

nd his br oth e r c on tin

ue d to ob ta in a

nd re dis tr ibute mariju ana

and la te r c oc a ine int o adulthood. I n 2003, law enf orce ment office rs found e vidence of drugdistri b ution in defenda nt’s g arb a g e ou tsi de his re sid e nc e in L e e lana u Co un ty , M ic hig an. Th e y ob ta ine d a

nd e xec ute d a

state
sear ch wa rr an t at the re sidence and re cover ed over two pounds of marijuana and a dig ital scale. I nvestig ators ar

rested de fenda

nt when he r eturne d to his residenc e duringthe execution of the sea rch
w ar r an t
. H e w a s c o n v i c t e d

o f d e l i v e r y/ m an u f a c tu r i n g m ar i

j u an a i ns t a t e c o u rt , an d

i nF e b r u a r y, 2004, he wa s sentence d to nine months in jail and 30 months probation. After committing numerous pr ob a tio n viol a tio ns , de fe nd ant wa s sen t bac k to jail fo r twe lve mon ths . De fe nd ant c on tin ue d to se ll marijuana to others until his arrest on fe dera l drug char g es September 28, 2005. Fe dera l investigators beg an targ eting defe ndant and his brother, Matthew O’Non, afte r the bo die s o f t

wo Te xas- ba se d ma

ri jua na su pp lie rs we re loc a te d b ur ie d on land ow ne d b y the O’ No ns ’ pare nts. During the cour se of the ensuing g rand jury investigation, se vera l w itnesses testified about the drugtraff

icking activities of def

endant a nd his br other. Matthew

O’Non w as eve ntually

tried and convicted of

the two murder s in state court. Seve ral witnesse s testified befor e the gra n d jury that defe ndant helped his brother fle e the jurisdiction following the murder s. After Matthew O’ Non wasNo. 06-2176

United States v. O’

Non

- 3 - convicted of

the two murder s, he and defe ndant were indi cted in fede ral court and charg ed with drug
c ri me s. Def

endant plea ded g uilty

to maintaining a

residenc e in Suttons Ba y , M i chig an, for the purp os e of

dis tr ibutin g and us ing mari jua na in vio la tio n of 21 U. S.C. § 85 6, and to p os se ssi ngwi th t h e i n t en t t o d istribute marijuana in Tr aver se City , Michig an, at a location within 1000 fee t of an elementa ry school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860. The pre sentenc e investi g ation repor t (“PSR”) rec ommended that def endant’ s releva

nt conduct should include 15.2 kilog rams of ma rijuana a nd no coca ine, resulting i n a base offe nse leve l of 16 un de r the g uid e lin e s. An e nh anc e me nt f

or ob str uc tio n o f j us tic e wa s r e c omm e nd e d b e c a us e defe ndant wrote letters fr om th e j ai l to severa l witnesses trying to struc ture their te stimony and beca use he a ssisted his brother (a nd alleg ed co- conspirator ) to flee the j urisdiction afte r def endant’ s brother shot a

nd killed the ir two Texas-based marijuana suppliers. The PSR also rec ommended a two-leve l enhanc ement for possession of a da

n ger o u s weapon. Be cause he obstructe d justice, the PSR d id n ot r e c omm e nd

a thr e e -l e ve l re du c tio n fo r “ a c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty ” purs ua

nt t o U SSG § 3E1.1. Since defendant’s criminal history was de termined to be c ateg ory V, def endant’ s adjusted g uid e lin e s r ang e fo r e a c h c ount w a s 6 3- 78 mon ths of imp ri so nme nt. Def endant objec ted to the drugquantity at t ri b u ted to him, the two-level e nhance ment for possessing a dang erous wea pon, and the re commendation that he not r ece ive a thre e-le vel re duction fo r a c c e pta

nc e of re sp on sib ili ty
. I n re sp on se , the g ov e rnme nt argue d that de fe nd ant’ s b a se of fe ns e level wa s too low. Specifically , the g overnme nt argued that the pr oposed drugquantity did not include 50 pounds of marijuana that defe ndant’s brothe r Matthew r ece ived shortly befor e he killedNo. 06-2176

United States v. O’

Non

- 4 - the two suppliers quantities of c ocaine that a third par ty obtained fr om defe ndant’s brothe r af ter a ref err al by defe ndant. The g overnme nt contended that defe ndant’s total offe nse leve l should be 24
rathe r t ha n 2 0, re su lti ngin a

n a dv iso ry

g uid e lin e s r ang e of

92 -1 15 mon ths
. At the Aug ust 30, 2006 sentencinghear ing, th e Un i t ed S tates ca lled Special Ag ent Rob Birdsongof the F eder al B urea u of Investig ation to the witness stand. I n addition to de scribing the numerous witness stateme nts and g rand jury testimony

he re ceive d during the cour se of the inv e sti g a tio n, Spe c ia l A g e nt B ir ds on g pr od uc e d s e ve ra l le tte rs that w e re wr itt e n b y de fe nd ant t o h is fr ie nd s e sse nti a lly

str uc tur ingthe ir

re sp e c tiv e te sti mony

or state me nts to i nv e sti g a tor s. Th e de fe ns e p ro d u ce d n o ev i d en ce at t h e s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g. The district co u rt sustained def endant’ s objection to the rec ommendation of a two- level
en h an c e me n t f

o r p o s s e s s io no f

a w e a p o n( c o mb a t k

n if e ) , p u r s u an t t o U SS G § 2 D1.1(b)( 1). Howe v er, the district court deter mined that defe ndant was r esponsible for a t least 100 pounds of marijuana , resulting in a base offe nse l evel of 20 instead of 16. F urther, the district court dete rmined t h a td e f e n d an th a d

o b s t r u c t e d j u s t i c e an d d i d

n o t“ c l e ar l y d e m o n s t r a t 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, as cont em p l at ed by

USSG §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1. Consequently , the district court de termined that defe ndant’s total offe nse leve l was 22 and h i s cr iminal hist ory cate g ory was V, r esulting in a

n
a dv iso ry g uid e lin e s r ang e of

77 to 9 6 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt. B e fo re imp os ing se nte nc e , the dis tr ic t c ourt no te d its du ty to imp os e a se nte nc e su ff ic ie nt, b u t n o tg r e a t e r

t h ann e c e s s ar

y , t o c o mp l y

w i t h t h e p u r

p o s e s o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 5 5 3 ( a )
. S p e c i f i c a l l y, the di s t ri ct co u rt noted that while the dur ation of the charged conduct wa s only

a y ear or so, defe ndant’s drug distribution ac tiviti es beg an some seven or eig ht y ear s prior to that. The districtNo. 06-2176

United States v. O’

Non

- 5 - court found that defe ndant’s unlawful activity had likely opened the door to g reater drug use for a number o f h i s cu s tomers. The c ourt sentenc ed def endant to 96 months of incar cer ation on eac h count, to run conc urre ntly , and a term of supervised relea se of three y ear s on one count a nd five y ear s
o nt h e o t h e r , a l s o t o r

u nc o n c u r r e n t l y. After imposing sentenc e, the c ourt asked c ounsel if there wer e any leg al objections to the sentenc e. De fense counsel re sponded that def endant “ want s m e t o ask y ou to give him credit for time served on his prior state char g es, twelve months in j ail and nine months in a halfw ay house.” The district cour

t responded: I ’l l le a ve that to the B ur e a u of Pri so ns . I t ha s p e op le that c an c a lc ulate tha t. T he y ’l l have the transcr ipts of the state and other such matters and they ’ll have to make that deter mination. I rea lly

can’ t make that dete rmination.
This exchang e betwee n defe nse counsel and the district c ourt is the linchpin of defe ndant’s appea l and def

endant’ s only

evidenc e that the district court did not appre ciate its authority to depar t downwar d. II. Def end an t conce des that the re quest throug h counsel for a re duced se ntence was not expli citly a re quest for a

downwar d depar

ture, but rather a

reque st for a c redit for

time served on a state convic tion for re lated conduc t. Defe ndant asser ts that his trial counsel appea red to be unawa

re of the possibility

of a dow nwar d depar

ture unde r a s ec t i o n i n the g uidelines which provide s as fo llo ws :No. 06-2176

United States v. O’

Non

- 6 - A downwa

rd depa rture ma y be appr opriate if the defe ndant (1) ha s completed ser ving a ter m of imprisonment; and (2) subsection (b) of § 5G1.3 (Impositi on of a Sente nce on a De fenda

nt Subject to Undischarg ed Term of I mprisonment) would have provided a

n adjustment had t hat completed te rm of imprisonment been undisc harg ed at the time of sente ncing for the instant off ense. A ny

such depa

rture should be fashioned to a chieve a re asonable punishment for the instant offe nse. USSG § 5K2.23. Defe ndant claims that, in addition to trial counsel’s ignora nce of this section, the district court wa s also unawa re of § 5K2.23, based on the district c ourt’s statement that it could not make the de terminati o n t o cr edit defe ndant’s sente nce f or time spent in state custody for c onduct related to the instant offe nse. This court may

not reviewa refusal

to g ra nt a do wnwa

rd de pa rt ur e “ un le ss t

he re c or d r e fl e c ts that the district c ourt was not a war e of or did not understand its discr etion to make such a depar ture.” Un ite d S tat es v .P uc k

e tt , 4 2 2 F. 3 d

3 4 0 , 3 4 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t es v . S t e w ar t , 306 F.3d 295, 329 ( 6th Cir. 2002)) (c onfirming that this standard survived the chang e in t he sente ncing g uidelines afte r United States v. Book er , 5 43 U. S. 2 20 (2 00 5) ). Th e c ourt re vie ws de novo whether the district c ourt was awa re of its a uthority to depar t downwar d. Un ite d Stat es v . S mi th , 278 F.3d 605, 609 (6th Cir. 2002). Whe n e va luatin g wh e the r a dis tr ic t c ourt

a pp re c iated

its a uth or ity , a

re vie wi ngc ourt

“ wi ll presume that the district court under stood its di scre tion to depa rt, absent clea

r evidenc e in the re cord to the contra

ry .” United States v. Crouch , 2 8 8 F. 3 d 9 0 7 , 9 1 0 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g United States

v . F or d , 1 84 F .3 d 5 66 , 585 (6 th Cir . 199 9) ). “ F ur the rm or e , the dis tr ic t cou

rt ne e d n ot e xplic itl y

state that it is aw are of its discr etionary authority to de part downwar d, since there is ‘ no duty on the trial judge to state aff

irmatively

that he knows he possesses the power to make a dow nwar d depar ture,No. 06-2176

United States v. O’

Non

- 7 - b u t d e c li n e s to do so.’” Un i t ed States v. Lucas , 357 F.3d 599, 609- 10 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Un ite d S tat es v . B y rd , 53 F.3d 144, 145 ( 6th Cir. 1995)). The stateme nt by the di strict court that any cre dit for tim e served is proper ly calc ulated by the Fe dera l Bure au of Prisons is a c o rr ec t statement of law . There is simpl y no evidenc e on the
rec ord to indicate that the di strict court did not appre ciate its authority to depar t downwar d from the g uidelines ran g e . A b s e n t s u c h e v id e n c e , th is c o u rt i s n o t p e r mi tt e d to r e v ie w a

d is tr ic t c o u rt’s decision not to g rant a

downwar d depar

ture. III . F or the fo rg oin g re a so ns , th e jud g me nt i s AF F IR M ED
.