NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 10a0133n.06 No. 07-6495 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, Plaintiff-Appellee

.

v. TA RN I SHAT. WOO DS, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

WEST ERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

Be for e : R

YA N, CO OK

and W HIT E, C ir c uitJudg e s. HELE NE N. WHITE , Circuit Judge. T ar n isha Woods (“Woods”) pled g uilty of possession of the identity

of another with the intent to commit bank fraud, in violation 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 & 1028( a)( 7), af

ter being indicted for a

series of completed or

intended fr audulent cr edit-ca rd and che ck tra

nsactions fa cilitated by

obtaining vic tims’ mail and assuming their identities. The district court, on re viewing the Presente nce I nvestig ation Report (“ PSR ”) pr epar ed by the Probation Of fi c e , o rd e re d th a t r e sti tut ion be pa id i n th e a mou

nt o f t he los s to the vic tim s. Ho we ve r, be c a us e actua l loss amounts for individual victim s w ere not asce rtainable at the time of the se ntencing hear ing, the district court allowe d for a n extra ninety day s from the e ntry of judg ment for e ntry

of the final re stitut ion order. T he district cour t a lso or dere d that any

portion of the ac tual loss amount not paid in restitution would be converted to a fine at the conc lusion of the ninety day s. Be cause no

c la ims fo r re sti tut ion we re fi le d in the nin e ty -d ay pe ri od , the fu ll amou nt o f t he a c tua l lo ss b e c a meNo. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

This f igur e included two assessments of $500 for two counter feit cre dit c ards th e w omen 1 po sse sse d b ut h a d n ot u se d p ur su ant t o U .S. Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s Ma nu a l § 2 B 1. 1 c mt. n. 3( F )( i) (2009), $742.96 f

or counte rfe it checks the women had i n their possession, and attempted, but un su c c e ssf

ul, purc ha se s o f $ 11 ,9 99 .1 8 o n o ne of the c re dit c ard s. - 2 - a fine . That fine e x ce ed ed t he Sentenc ing G uidelines’ sug g ested ra ng e by $436.08. The district

c ourt a lso imp os e d an a

bo ve -G uid e lin e s ter

m of inc arc e ratio n. On

a pp e a l, Wo od s ma

ke s mu lti ple claims of er

ror, both proc edura l and substantive, cha lleng in g th e restitution awar d, fine a nd sentenc e. We affir m. I. Bac kgr ound On Dec ember 19, 2006, Memphis police offic ers we re monitoring an addr ess wher e seve ral

ma il the ft s h a d o c c ur

re d. Th e of

fi c e rs ob se rv e d a veh ic le sim ila r to one de sc ri be d in

e arl ie r r e po rt s pull up to the address’s ma ilbox , and then pull away . The off icer s conducte d a tra ffic stop of the vehicle a nd observe d, in plain view, s ev er al p i ece s of mail belong ing to Miche le L ess, and approximately

20 other pe rsons. Woods, the d ri v er , and her half-sister , Andre a Johnson (“Johnson”), the passe ng er, w ere taken into custody

. At the t ime of t heir arre st, Woods was in poss ession of unused c redit ca rds in victims’ names

and a fr a ud ule nt c he c k ma de pa

y a ble to he r (Wo od s)

. John so n wa s in p os se ssi on of fo ur c ounte rf e it

cre dit cards. Dur ing the subsequent investig ation, office rs discovere d that betwee n May 2006 and Dec ember

2006 , Woods and J ohnson used stolen mail to obtain credit ca rds, che cks and identification in a number of victims’ n am es , wh i ch we re the n used in attempted fina ncial tr ans a c tio ns tot a lin g $4 4, 17 8. 22 , le a din g to $ 30 ,4 36 .0 8 in a c tua l lo sse s. 1No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 3 - On Dec ember

20, 2006, a fe dera l gr and jury indicted Woods and J ohnson for (1) violating 18 U. S.C. §1 70 8 ( 19 94 ) i n th a t th e y “ be inga ide d, a

be tte d, c ouns e le d a

nd ind uc e d b y e a c h o the r, did

rec eive, c oncea l, and unlawf ully have in their

possession over thirty (30) letters, mail, and a rticles contained the rein which had been s tolen, taken, and embezzled from a mail route and ma il carr ier, the n kno wi ng the art ic le s to hav e be e n stol e n, take n, and e mbe zzle d .

. . ” and (2 ) v iol a tin g 18 U. S.C. § 1 02 8( a )( 7) (2 00 6) in that the y “ in a mann e r a ff e c tin g int e rs ta te c omm e rc e , d id k no wi ng ly po sse ss, wi tho ut lawf

ul a uth or ity , a me ans of ide nti fi c a tio n of ano the r to wi t: the c ounte rf e it d ri ve r’ s li c e ns e of Michele L ess with the intent to commit, any unlawful activity that constitutes a fe lony

violation of F eder al law to wit: violations of Tit le 18, United S tates C ode, S ection 1344, that is Bank F raud . . . .” Woods e n te r e d in to a Pl e a A g r e e me n t ( “ A g r e e me n t” ) th a t p r o v id e d th a t s h e w o u ld plead g uil ty to C ount T wo of

the I nd ic tme nt, and that Coun t O ne wo uld be dis mis se d. Th e Ag re e me nt a lso stated: The Sentencing Guidelines, which e stablish the penalty rang e, will be comput ed o n t h e t otal amount of re levant conduc t. The par ties ag ree that the total amount of re levant conduct an d an y other sente ncing enhanc ements will be determine d

b y th e s e n te n c in g c o u rt uti li zi n g a p r e p o n d e r an c e o f

th e e v id e n ce standard of

revie w. Any restituti o n o rd er ed by

the Court will be based on the total amount of re le va nt c on du c t. The PSR calc ulated Woods’ of fense level at twelve and detailed three juvenile convictions and twenty -three adult convictions in Woods ’ cr iminal hist ory rec ord, re sulting in a c riminal historyNo. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

Woods criminal hist ory

score subtotal due to her prior convictions was thirty . Howeve r, the 2 PSR r e du c e d th a t to se ve nte e n b e c a us e U. S. Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s Man ua l § 4A 1. 1( c ) ( 20 09 ) o nly allows a maximum of four points to be acc umulated under that provision. The P SR t hen incr ease d the score by

two points because Woods was on probation at t h e ti me she c ommitt ed the instant offe nse, and by an additional point beca use it had bee n less than two y ear s since the de fenda nt had been r elea sed fr om imprisonment. U.S. S entenc ing G uidelines Manual §§ 4A1.1( d), (e ) (2009)

. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l ch. 5, pt. A (2009) ( thirteen or more crimi nal history 3 points establishes a Criminal History Categ ory of VI ). - 4 - score of twenty

. This g ave Woods a criminal history cate g ory of VI

. The P SR also li sted seven 2 3 pending char g es and te n “Other Ar rests” that did not result in convictions. W oods’ re sulting Gu ide lin e Rang e wa s th ir ty to t hir ty -se ven mon ths of

imp ri so nme nt, su

pe rv ise d r e le a se of

tw o to three y ear s, and a f

ine of be tween $3,000 a

nd $30,000. On November 29, 2007, the district c ourt conducte d a sentenc ing hear ing, addre ssing t he fac tors it was c onsidering in setting Woods’ sentenc e. The se fa ctors included “ the offe nse conduc t its e lf ,” the imp a c t of

ide nti ty the ft on so c ie ty and ind ivi du a ls, Woo ds ’ “ his tor y and c ha ra c te ri sti c s” noting that ther e wa s a “substantial history ” and that there w ere “a lot of points that could not be counted,” and Woods’ criminal history p o int count. The cour t also opined that the lac k of appropr iate punishment in response to previous crimes had led to “[ i] ng raine d behavior that has not been de alt with,” o b s er v ed t h at as Woods’ offe nses continued ther e wa s “a se rious problem and

we ’r e sti ll n ot g e tti ngit add res se d, ” and that he r h ist or

y ind ic a te d th a t sh e wa s p ro g re ssi ve ly involved in “more and more, bigg er and bigg er ticke t items in t he sense of the now f org ed che cksNo. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 5 - and that sort of activity .” Finally , the cour t analy zed what nee ded to be done “to meet the obje ctives of 18 U.S.C. Section 3553,” to protec t the public and to provide a dequate deter renc e. The district cour

t opted for the a ctual loss amount of $30,436

. 0 8 as re s t itution, wit h the victim lis t left open for

ninety day s. The court further

provided that a

ny amount of re stitut ion left

un pa id at th e e nd

of the nin e ty da

y s wou ld be c on ve rt e d into a fi ne so that Woo ds wo uld no t be ne fi t financ ially

from her crimes. The district c ourt explained to Woods the operation of the re stitut ion

and fi ne a mou

nts : You would be r equire d t o p ay 1 0 perc ent of g ross income towa rd the reduc tion o f fi rs t y our re stitut ion and then y our fine a mount. The fine amount, of cour s e, would not ex cee d $30,436.08, and, of c ourse, e very do lla r t hat g oe s to re sti tut ion

wi ll b e re du c e d f

ro m th e fi ne a mou

nt. Woo d s ’ o n ly

o b je c ti o nto th e s e n te n c e in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt w a s to th e c o u rt’ s u pwar d depar ture fr om the Guidelines inca rce ration ra

ng e. The district c ourt enter ed judgme nt on Dec ember 3, 2007, sentenc ing Woods to fifty -one months of imprisonment and three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. U nder a section of the Judgme nt titled “Criminal Monetary Penalties,” the district court left blank t he area under the title “Total F ine” and wr ote “$30,436.08" under the title “T o tal Restituti on.” The n, under a sub-sec tion entitled “F I NE” the district court wrote “N o fi n e imposed.” The district c ourt put an aster isk nex t to a second sub- section entitled “RESTI TUTI ON,” be low which the c ourt wrote:

*Restituti on shall be paid to a ny victims identified within 90 day s of the entry of thi s Judg me nt. Any ba lanc e of un c la ime d moni e s sha ll be pa id as a fi ne in t his case .No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 6 - Th e Judg me nt als o in c lud e d a “ Sc he du le of

Pay me nts ” fo r t

he mon e tary

pe na lti e s, stating that the district c ourt, “[h] aving assessed the defe ndant’s ability to pay ” orde rs that “[t] he def endant sha ll pay

restitutio n i n re gular monthly installments of not less than 10% of g ross monthly

income.” T he district cour t als o wa i v ed the intere st require d on the monetary penalty under 18 U .S.C. § 3612(f) (2002). II. Ana lys is A. The Di st r ic t C our t C or r e c tl y C alc ula te d Re le va nt Co nduc t fo r Se nt e nc ing Woods arg ues t hat t he dis trict court commit ted error by including in its sentenc e ca lculation monetary loss amounts that ar e n ot connec ted to the cr ime of convic tion. W oods claims that the

cre d it an d d e b it c ar d an d f r a u d u le n t c h e c k a c ti v it ie s th a t r e s u lt e d in th e mo n e ta r y lo s s e s do not qualify as “r eleva

nt conduct” f

or Sentenc ing G uidelines purposes in dete rmini n g h er sentenc e for the offe nse of possession of a counter feit driver ’s license with the intent t o co m m it bank fra ud. Be cause Woods di d not object to the district c ourt’s deter mination r eg arding rele vant conduct, we revie w this claim for plain e rror . Se e Un ite d S tat es v . Clar

k , 4 6 9 F. 3 d 5 6 8 , 570 (6th Cir. 2006) (h old ingthat if

no ob je c tio n is mad e a t sen te nc ing he ari ngon an is su e , th a t ob

je c tio n is su

bje c t to plain err or re view on appe al). Pla in e rr or

is: (1) e rror (2) that “ was obvious or clea r,” ( 3) that “a ffe cted de fenda nt’s substantial rig hts” and (4) that “a ff

ec t ed the fairness, integ rity , or public re putation of the judicial proce eding s.”No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

U.S . SentencingGuidelines Manua l § 3D1.2(d) ( 2007) lists § 2B1.1 cr imes as offe nses 4 cover ed by

§ 1B1.3( a)( 2). - 7 - United States v. Vonne r , 5 1 6 F. 3 d 3 8 2 , 3 8 6 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Gardiner , 463 F.3d 445, 459 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). U. S. Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s Ma nu a l § 1 B 1.3( a )( 2) (2 00 4) state s th a t th e sp e c if ic of fe ns e char acte ristics “shall be de termined on the ba sis of

. . . all acts and omissions . . . that wer e par t of the same c ourse of

conduct or

common s ch em e o r pl an as the offe nse of c onviction.” “Releva nt 4 conduct is not limit ed to co n du ct fo r wh ich the def endant ha s been c onvicted.” United States v. Make n , 5 1 0 F. 3 d

6 5 4 , 6 5 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Pierc e , 17 F.3d 146, 150 ( 6th Cir. 1994) (c onduct that ca

nnot be prosec uted bec ause of statutes of l imitation or acquittal can be used to determine r eleva

nt conduct)) . I n Un ite d S tat es v . Ko e be rle in , 1 61 F .3 d 9 46 (6 th C ir . 1 99 8) , th is Court dis c us se d h owto a sse ss r e le va nt c on du c t:

To qu ali fy

a s p art of a “ c omm on

sc he me or

pla n” un de r t

he “ re le va

nt c on du c t” g uideline, t he offenses “ must be substantially connec ted to eac h other by at least one common fac tor, such as c ommon victims , common acc omplices, common purpose, or similar mo du s o

pe ra nd i. ” I f o ff e ns e s d o n ot q

ua lif y a s p art of a c omm on sc he me or plan, off

enses a re none theless consider ed t h e “s ame c ourse of conduct” if “they are sufficie ntly

connec ted or related to e ach othe r as to wa rra nt the conclusion that they are part of a

single episode, spre e, or ongoingseries of offe nses.” The thre e fa c tor s re le va

nt to de te rm ini ng wh e the r o ff e ns e s are su ff

ic ie ntl y re la te d to c on sti tut e the “same cour se of c onduct” include “the d eg ree of similarity of the off

enses, the regularity (re petitions) of the offe nses, and the time interva l betwee n the offe nses.” The c ommentary

require s courts to balanc e these fact o rs s u ch that “whe n one of [the se ] fa c tor s is a

bs e nt, a stro nger presen c e of

a t le a st o ne of

the oth e r f

a c tor s is require d.”No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 8 - Id. at 9 5 0 (q u o t i n g United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 ( 6th Cir. 1996)). I n Ko eberl e in , th is Co u rt h e ld th a t e v e n a s s u mi n g s a ti s f a c ti o n o f th e f

ir s t thr e e p r o n g s of plain err o r re view, an a

ppellant ca

nnot meet her

burden on the fourth prongwher e “[t]he releva nt conduct, while not a

mirror imag e of the offe nse of c onviction, shares many of i ts traits” and where “def endant was provided with a r eport prior to sentencingthat contained the rele vant conduc t analy sis, giving him ample opportunity to object.” Id. at 950. The a cts o f fr au d W oods participate d in that produce d the ac tual loss amount were sufficie ntly

related to her 18 U .S.C. § 1028(a)(7) char g e to survive plain err or revie w. The c rimes have f our common fa ctors such that they can f airly be conside red p ar t o f a “ common scheme or plan”: a c ommon accomplice , common victims, c ommon pur poses and a similar mo du s o pe ra nd i. Woods’ accomplice in all of the ac ts of fra ud was her half-sister, J ohnson. Woods’ and Johnson’s mod us op eran di was to “use [] stolen mail to obtain credit ca rds, che cks and ide ntification in the vic tims’ name s. ” Th e y

ha d a c omm on purp os e in o bta ini ngg oo ds and mon e y in o the rs ’ n a me s. And, Woods’ and J ohnson’s intent was t o “tar g et[] elder ly individuals . . . because primarily they

wer e an easy g roup that would not report the c rime . . . .” See U nited States v. Mc

Daniel , 398 F.3d 54 0, 55 3 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 5) (f

ind ingre le va

nt c on du c t w he re “ the mo du s o pe ra nd i ( ste a lin g ma il, washing chec ks in ace tone, and a l t er i ng the che cks’ pa y ees a nd amounts), the victims (financ ial ins tit uti ons in th e Gra

nd Ra pid s, Mic hig an a

re a ), a nd the tim e pe ri od

(f a ll 2 00 1) inv olv e d in [defendant’ s] s tate and f

eder al prosec utions were the same.” ). B. A ny Er r or in A war ding Re st it ut ion was H ar m le ss.No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 9 - Woods ma k e s v ar io u s c la im s o f e r r o r in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s im p o s it io n o f an aw ard of restitution. However , beca use the e ntirety

of the re stitut ion awar d was c onverte d to a fine at the end of the ninety -day

period, a nd thus W oods was not re quired t o p ay any restitution, any

err or wa s harmless. United States v. J ohnson, 467 F.3d 559, 564 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (an e rror is harmless wher e it did not cause the de fenda nt to rece ive a more sever e sente nce)

. C. The D istrict Court Did Not Com m it P lain E rrorIn Converting the Rest itution Aw ard to a F ine. Woods arg ues that the phra s e “N o fine imposed” on the district court’s Judgment Or der prohibited the conve rsion of the restitution a war d to a fine. Woods further argues that eve n if the district court could impose a fine, it failed to consider Woods ’ ability to pay the fine a s require d by 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) (1996) , and did not adequately justify depar ting upwa rd fr om the sug g ested fine rang e under the Guidelines. Woods also argues that the conver sion of the restitution awar d to a fine was itself e rror . I n the district court, Woods’ attorney objected to the district c ourt “g oing outside the rang e” when imposing sentenc e and the ref ore thi s co u rt reviews the upwar d depar tures for abuse of d i s cr etion. Gall v. United States , 1 2 8 S. Ct

. 5 8 6 , 5 9 1 ( 2 0 0 7 )

. H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e Wo o d s d id not object to the conve rsion of the re stitut ion amount to a fine, that issue is re viewed f or plain er

ror. 1. The Di st r ic t C our t’ s U se of t he Wo r ds “ No F ine Im pos e d”No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) (1996) and U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5E1.2(d) (2003) 5 list slightly differ ent fac tors. Statutes pr evail over conflicting Guidelines. United St ates v. Butler , 207 F.3d 839, 850 ( 6th Cir. 2000) (“When the Commission’s int erpr etation, as e mbodied in a g uideline, does not squar e with clea r Cong ressional intent, cour ts will not apply

that g uideline.”)

. - 10 - Woods cites no authority

for her arg ument that the inclusion of the phra se “N o fine imposed” in the district court’s Judgment prohibit ed the later conversion of the restitut ion awa rd to a fine . The Judg me nt, on

its fa c e , is c le ar a s to its int e nti on s: Restituti on shall be paid to any victims identified within 90 day s of the entry of thi s Judg me nt. Any

ba lanc e of

un c la ime d mo nie s sh a ll b e pa id a s a fi ne in t his case . Fur ther, at the sentenc ing he aringthe district court wa s clea r as to the o p er at ion of the re stitut ion amount and its conver sion to a fine. We find no err or. 2. The Di st r ic t C our t M ade Suffic ie nt F indin gs Und e r §5 E1. 2( d) The Guide lines rec ommend a fin e o f b et wee n $3,000 and $30,000. B eca use the e ntire restitution amount wa s conver ted to a fine at the expiration of the ninety -day period, the f

ine amount was $30,436.08, a

nd thus ex cee ded the Guide lines rang e by $436.08. I n d e te rm ini ng wh e the r an d to what exte nt to impo se a fi ne , th e c ourt c on sid e rs : defe ndant' s income; ea

rning capa city ; financia l r es o u rc es; the burde n on the defe ndant and his depe ndents; pecunia ry loss inflicted on others as a result of the offe nse; whethe r re stitut ion is ordere d; the need to de prive the de fenda nt of ill e g a l g a in s; and th e ne e d to pr omo te re sp e c t f or the law, pr ov ide jus t punishment, and ade quate de terre nce. Tosca , 1 8 F .3 d at 13 54 (c iti ng18 U. S.C. § 3 57 2(a) & U .S. Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s Ma nu a l § 5E1.2(d))

. 5No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

I n Tosca , this court stated: 6 Some circuits re quire spe ci fi c finding s on the defe ndant' s ability to pay a fine

. Se e Un ite d Stat es v. F air , 97 9 F .2 d 10 37 , 1 04 1 ( 5th Cir .1 99 2) (s pe c if

ic finding s are nece ssary

wher e the district cour

t adopts a P SR's finding s but then de pa rt s fr om its re c omm e nd a tio ns on fi ne s) ; Un ite d S

tat es v . M as te rs , 924 F.2d 13 62 , 1 36 9 ( 7th Cir .1 99 1) , c e rt

. de nie d, 50 0 U. S. 91 9 (1 99 1) (d istri c t c ourt mus t make f indings on fa ctors such as burden on defe ndant' s family befor e imposing fi ne ); United States v. Cammisano , 917 F.2d 1057, 1064 (8th Cir.1990) (district c ourt mus t mak e sp e c if

ic fi nd ing s on the re c or d tha t de mon str a te that f a c tor s in Guidelines § 5E1.2 we re c onsidered pr ior to imposing fine)

. Other c ircuits require consideration of the fac tors, but do not require express findings. Un ite d S tat es v . S av oie , 985 F.2d 612 ( 1st Cir.1993) (district co u rt 's fa i l u re t o m ak e e x p re s s fi n d i n gs i no p en c o u r t co n ce rn i n g ap p el l an t 's financ ial condition and prospec ts did not necessitate re versa l); United States v. Ma rq ue z, 94 1 F. 2d 60 , 65 (2n d Cir. 19 91 ) (s e nte nc ing c ourt mus t c on sid e r a bil ity to pay , but ne e d n ot a

rt ic ulate its re a so nin g ); Un ite d S tat es v . M as tro pie rro , 931 F.2d 905, 906 ( D.C. Cir.1991) (whe n rec ord demonstrates that judge considere d a bil ity to p ay be fo re imp os ingfi ne , a pp e llate c ourt

wi ll n ot r e ve rs e me re ly beca use no express finding was made but w ill re view the finding of ability to pay nece ssarily

implied by

such consider ation). Id. at 1354 n.2. - 11 - Her e, the district cour

t made no finding s on the re cord r eg ardingWoods’ ability to pay , other tha n th e g e ne ra l st a te me nt i n th e Judg me nt t hat it ha d “ a sse sse d th e de fe nd ant’ s a bil ity to p ay .” Th is Court in Tosca , afte r re viewing 6 va ri ou s Ci rc uit

c ourt s’ re qu ir e me nts fo r c on sid e ra tio n o f t he se fac tors, held that the district cour t had satisfied its obligations unde r the statute bec ause it could be “fa irly inferr ed” that the court c onsidered the fac tors. Fur ther, “ the def

endant ha s the burden of establishing that he or she is not able and, e ven with the use of a re asonable installment schedule, is not li kely

to become a

ble to pay all or par t of the fine.” Tosca , 18 F.3d at 1354.No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 12 - I n th e ins tant c a se , th e re wa s su ff ic ie nt ind ic ia of the c ourt ’s c on sid e ra tio n of Wo od s’ a

bil ity to p ay su c h th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in im

po sin g the fi ne , e sp e c ia lly be c a us e Woo ds did no t re qu e st mor e sp e c if ic fi nd ing s in the dis tr ic t cou rt or c arr y he r b ur de n o f p utt ingfo rt

h evidenc e that she would not be able to pa y her fine under the terms the court spec ified. Id. at 1355 (“ I ti s a ge n er al p ri n ci p l e o f ap p el l at e j u ri s d i ct i o nt h at a p ar t y d es i ri n g m o re p ar t i cu l ar i z edfi n d i n gs at the trial c ourt level must reque st them from the trial cour t.”). The de parture upwar ds from the sug g ested fine rang e, by $436.08, is r eviewe d for pr ocedur al and substantive re asonable ness. Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51.

Review for

proce dural re asonable ness i s a three-step inquiry . An appe llate cour t mus t de te rm ine wh e the r t he dis tr ic t c ou

rt : (1 ) pr op e rl y c a lc ulate d the a pp lic a ble advisory Guidelines rang e; (2) c onsidered the other § 3553(a) fac tors as we ll as the par ties' arguments for a se ntence outside the Guidelines ra ng e; and ( 3) adequately

articulated its reasoning for imposing the par ticular sente nce c hosen, including a

ny reje ction of t he par

ties' arguments for a

n outside-Guidelines sentenc e and a

ny decision to deviate from the a dvisory Guidelines ra

ng e. United States v. Y

oung , 553 F.3d 1035, 1054 ( 6th Cir. 2009). The PSR corr ectly calc ulated the Guideline rang e to provide for a fine of between $3000 and $30,000. During the sentenc ing he aring , the district court c onsidered the 18 U.S.C. § 3 5 5 3 (a) fac tors, and cle arly

stated that it wa s imposing the fine as an alter native to re stitut ion beca

use “no one should ac tually

benef it from committing the cr ime.” Al so , b e c a us e the fi ne a mou

nt w a s ti e d to the restitution amount, the f ine was substantively

rea sonable. The ref

ore, the district court did not commit an abuse of

discretion in depa

rting upwar ds from the sug g ested fine rang e by $436.08.No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 13 - 3. The District C ourt’s OrderIm posin g a Conversio n f ro m R es titution to F ine Was Not Err or Woods’ arg ument that the district court c ommitt ed er ror in orde ring the conve rsion of the restitution amount to a fine wa s waived be cause she did not rai s e i t in the district court. United States v. Uk

omadu , 236 F.3d 333, 340 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[T] he defenda nt waived any rig ht to appeal t h e i mp o s i t i o no f a fi n e be ca u s e he fa i l ed t o o b j ec t at t h e tr i al co u rt l ev el

. ” ( qu o t i n g Tosca, 18 F.3d at 1355)). I n any event, the district court clea rly has authority

to impose both a restitution award a nd a fine , and it can f

airly be infe rre d that the district court considere d the fac tors for both restitution and fine . 18 U.S.C. § 3571(a) (1987) ; 18 U.S.C. § 3663A (2000). Fur ther, the district c ourt expressed a pr oper pur

pose in order ing that a

ny rema ining r estitution be converte d to a fine ( so that Woo ds wo uld

no t be ne fi t f

ro m he r c ri me ), and

Woo ds did

no t make any

sh ow ingof

an in a bil ity to pay or re quest furthe r spec ific finding s of fa ct re g ardingher a bility to pay

. D. The DistrictCourt Cor rec tly Calculated Woods’ Sentencing Range Woods arg ues that pursuant to U.S. SentencingGuidelines Manua l § 4A1.2(a) (2) ( 2007), a number of c harg es in her c riminal history repor t should ha v e been c onsolidated in calc ulating he r criminal history

score beca

use she wa s sentence d for them on the same da y , J une 22, 2000. Woods did not object to the calc ulation of her criminal history score in the district c ourt, and thus we r eview for plain e rror . Vonner, 516 F.3d at 385-86.No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

“S t an d ar d fo r U p wa rdDe p ar tu re . -- I f r el i ab l e i n fo rm at i o ni n d i ca t es t h at t h e d ef en d an t 's 7 criminal history

cate g ory substantially under- repr esents the se riousness of the de fenda nt's c riminal history or the likelihood that the def endant will commit other crimes, a n upwar d depar

ture may be war rante d.”

- 14 - Consolidating the cr imes for the pur pose of calc ulating Woods’ points would not reduc e her criminal history

point total due to the operation of U.S. SentencingGuidelines Manua l § 4A1.1(c) (2007), whic h allows for the addition of a maximum of only fo u r p o i n t s fo r prior of fense s that

re su lte d in

le ss t ha n s ixty da y s im pr iso nme nt, re g ard le ss o f t he a c tua l po int s th a t w ou ld o the rw ise be scor ed base d on actua l convictions. Howe ver, Woods argues that if the district cour t had

c on sid e re d th e c ha

rg e s c on so lid a te d, it wo uld have be e n le ss inc lin e d to de pa rt up wa rd purs ua nt t o U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 4A1.3(a) (1)( 2003) 7 in order to ref lect Woods’ actual cr iminal history . The district cour t imposed a sentence of 51 months, departing upwar d from the sug g ested 30-37 month rang e. Woods re lies on U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manua l § 4A1.2 (2007) e x empting “ sentenc es that wer e imposed on the same day ” fr om being counted indivi dually

. That same section, howeve r, also states that “[p]rior sentence s alway s are counted separately if the sentenc es we re imposed f or of fe ns e s th a t w e re se para ted by an in te rv e nin g arr e st .

. . ” U. S. Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s Ma nu a l § 4A 1. 2 ( 20 07 ); se e als o U

nit e d S tat es v . G ale , 468 F.3d 929, 936 (6th Cir. 2006) (“O nly if there was no interveningarr est may the cour t consider the f

actor s that may otherwise rende r prior se ntence sNo. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

This Court in Un ite d S

tat es v . S mi th , 474 F.3d 888 (6 t h Cir. 2007) applied a “ form of 8 proportionality

revie w: the g reater the varia nce from the ra

ng e, the more compelling the justification for va rianc e must be.” Id. at 892 (interna l quotations omi tted). Howe ver, in Un ite d S tat es v . Ta te , 516 F.3d 459 ( 6th Cir. 2008), this C ourt questi o n ed whether such a “propor tionality revie w” wa s appropr iate under Ga ll

. Id. at 470 (“ The Supreme Court, however , recen t l y h el d that ‘while the e xten t of the dif fe re nc e be tw e e n a

pa rt ic ula r s e nte nc e and th e re c omm e nd e d G uid e lin e s r ang e is sur e ly r e le v an t, th e c o u rts o f a p p e a ls mu s t r e v ie w a ll s e n te n c e s

– w h e th e r in s id e , ju s t o utside, or signific antly o u t s i de the Guide lines rang e–under a def ere ntial abuse-of

-discre tion standard.’” (q u o t i n g Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 41)). - 15 - related.” ( internal quotations omitted)). W oods’ criminal history repor t makes clear that eac h of the vio la tio ns that sh e c la ims me ri t c on so lid a tio n w e re se pa rate d b y a n a rr e st. F in a ll y , it w a s n o t s u

b s ta n ti v e ly u n rea s o n a

b le f o r th e d is tr ic t c o u rt t o d e p art u p w ar d

. We revie w the district cour

t’s upwar d depar

ture for abuse of discre tion because Woods obj ecte d to the depar ture in the district cour

t. Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. I n revie wing a non-G uideline sentenc e

the cour t may not apply a presumption of unreasonable ness. I t may consider the extent of the deviation, but must give due defe renc e to the district cour t's de cision that the § 3553(a) fac tors, on a whole, justify the extent of the varia

nce. T he fa ct that the appe llate cour

t might reasonably have c oncluded that a differ ent sentenc e wa s a pp ro pr ia te is i ns uf

fi c ie nt t o ju sti fy

re ve rs a l of

the dis tr ic t c ourt

. 8 Ga ll , 552 U.S. at 51. Howeve r, “[ a] sentenc e will fail t o be subst antively rea sonable if the district c ourt selec ts the sentenc e ar

bitrarily , bases the se ntence on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pe rtinent § 3 5 5 3 (a) fac tors or g ives an unre asonable amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor.” United States v. Smith, 474 F.3d 888, 894 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (interna l brac kets and quotations omitted).No. 07-6495

W oods v. United States

- 16 - The Sentenc ing G uide li n e s e xp r e s s ly a d d r e ss the potential propriety of an upw ard a djustment under the instant circ umstances in U.S. S entenc ing G uidelines Manual § 4A1.3( a)( 1) (2003) (stating that “an upw ard de parture may be wa rra nted” whe re “ reliable i n fo rm ati on indicates that the d ef en d ant’s criminal history cate g ory substantially

under- repr esents the se riousness of the defe ndant’s criminal history ”). This Court in Sm ith , he ld that an u pw ard de pa rt ur e wa s r e a so na

ble wher e the dist rict court analy zed the criminal history

of the de fenda

nt, what the sig nificanc e of that history was in choosinga sente nce a nd the re ason why

it was imposing the se ntence it was. Sm ith , 47 4 F .3 d at 89 2- 94 ; se e als o Ta te , 516 F.3d at 470 (“We do not requir e a r ote re citation of § 3553(a ) fac tors but rather

an explanation of why

the district court c hose the sente nce it did.”)

. The district cour

t considere d the §3553(a ) fa ctors at the sentencing hear ing and g ave sound

rea sons for depa

rting upwar d. Thus, we f

ind that the sentenc e was substantively rea sonable, a nd that the district court did not abuse its discre tion. B a se d o n th e fo re g oin g , w e AF F I RM the dis tr ic t c ourt

.