1 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: 08a0649n.06 F iled: October 23, 2008 No. 07-1337 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. MI CHAEL

CHENEY, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be for e : C LA Y, G ILM AN , a nd R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s.
R o g e r s , C ir c ui t J ud ge. Def endant Micha el Cheney

challeng es the 97-month prison
se nte n c e i mp o s e d o n h i m f o l l o w i n g a f

e d e r a l j u r y c o n v i c t i o n o n o f

f e n s e s s t e m m i ng fr om a conspirac y

to distribute marijuana
. Cheney argues t hat t he dis trict court unc onstitut ionally applied
se nte nc inge nh anc e me nts ba se d o n fa c ts n ot p ro ve n to the jur y be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. B e c a

us e thi s argume nt i s w ith out me ri t, w e a ff ir m th e se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
. On July 12 , 2 00 6, a

jur y fo un d Ch e ne y

g uil ty of c on sp iracy to d istri bute mari jua na in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; attempted possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)( 1), and 841( b)(1) (B )(vii); and c onspiracy to launder monetaryNo. 07-1337

United States v. Chene

y

- 2 - ins tr ume nts in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C. §§ 19 56 (a )( 1) (A )( i) and 19 56 (h ). Th e jur

y ma de sp e c if

ic finding s that the amount of marijuana involved in the conspirac y violation wa s bet we en 1 0 0 and 10 00 kil og ra

ms and the amou

nt inv olv e d in the a tte mpt e d po sse ssi on wi th int e nt to d is tr ibute vio latio n w a s at le a st 1 00 kil og ra ms. Duringthe sentenc ing he arin g, t h e district cour t ag ree d with the Presentenc e Report’ s conclusion that t he amount of ma rijuana involved in Chene y ’s drugviolations was betwee n 400 and 70 0 k ilo g ra

ms. Th is r e su lte d in

a base lev el off

e ns e of 28 un de r t

he Se nte nc ingGu ide lin e s. U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(a )(1) , (c) (6) (2005). The district court also found t hat C heney should rece ive a two-leve l enhanc ement bec ause he was a leade r in the off

ense. U
. S
. S
. G. § 3B1.1(c) . The c ourt explained:
Ifind he wa s a lea der. H e ra n the bike shop wher e the marijuana was de livered a

nd he arrang ed for the loading of it, and as I rec all the trial re cord, he was the one that order ed the stuff from Ariz ona. That would be a leade r. I mean that’s the basis of the finding of lea dership. The district court rejec ted the Prese ntence Report’s ca lculation of a c riminal history cate g ory of I I , finding that it “overstate s the criminal history .” The court’s c al cu l ations produce d a fina l offe nse leve l of 30, which, with a criminal history cate g ory of I , resulted in a Guidelines se ntencing rang e of 97 to 121 months in prison. T he district c ourt sentenc ed Cheney to 97 months in prison— “the low e nd of the re commended guide lines”— t o be followed by four y ear s of super vised rele ase. Cheney ’s sole ar g ument on appea l is that the di strict court im proper ly based its sentenc e on a 40 0 -7 0 0 k i logr am drugquantity and Chene y ’s leade rship role, whe re the se finding s were notNo. 07-1337

United States v. Chene

y

I n a footnote, Chene y

appea rs to attack the district c ourt’s finding that he was a leade r in the 1 offe nse. The district c ourt consider ed the tri al t es t i m o ny as we ll as the rec ommendations of the Pr e s e n te n c e Re p o rt, an d

e xp la in e d

th e r e a s o n s f

o r c o n c lu d in g th a t C h e n e y w a s a le a d e r in the offe nse. The c ourt did not cl ea rl y err in making this Guidelines de termination. United States v. J e ro ss , 521 F.3d 562, 579 (6th Cir. 2008) (“ A district court’s de termination reg ardinga def endant’ s ro l e in t h e o ff

en s e i s re v er s i b l e o n l y

i f c l ea rl y erro n eo u s . ”) (q u o t i n g United States v. Gate s , 461 F.3d 703, 709 (6th Cir. 2006)). - 3 - deter mined by a jury bey ond a reasonable doubt. Cheney claims that his sentence violated United 1 States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Apprendi v. New Je rsey , 5 30 U. S. 4 66 (2 00 0) , b e c a us e “the se ntencingjurist, o n t h e b as i s of judicially -opined ‘f acts’ not pr oven by

the jury ’s ‘spec ial verdic t,’ unconstitutionally ‘excee d[ed] the maxim um authorized by the fa cts established by

. . . [t he] jury [’s] verdic t.’” As Chene y conce des in the final f

ootnote of his brief, t h i s ar gument is contrar y to t he c le ar p re c e de nt o f t

his c ourt
. F ir st, Che ne y ’s argume nt f a ils be c a us e jud ic ia lly

fo un d f a c ts at se nte nc ingdo no t vi olate Bo ok e r un de r a

n a dviso ry

Gu ide lin e s sc he me . “ We h a ve he ld r e pe a te dly that Bo ok

e r and its prec ursor, Apprendi v. New Je rsey , did not eliminate judicial fac t- f in d in g d u r in g s e nte ncing .” United States v. Flores , 477 F.3d 431, 438 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). W e h av e ex p l ained that “[Booker ] has no bear ing on advisory g uideline calculations,” but only applies to judicially

found fac ts used “to impose a m an datory enhanc ement.” United States v. Cook, 4 53 F .3 d 7 75 , 7 77 (6 th Cir . 2 00 6) . “ Th is c ourt ha s sq ua re ly re je c te d [th e ] co nte nti on

that Bo ok e r and Blakely

v. W ashington
re qu ir e a ll fa c tua l fi nd ing s a ff e c tin g a se nte nc e ’s se ve ri ty

to b e ma de by

a jur y be y on d a re a so na ble doubt.” United States v. Se xton , 5 12 F .3 d 3 26 , 3 29 -3 0 ( 6th Cir . 200 8) (c itatio n o mitte d) . B e c a us eNo. 07-1337

United States v. Chene

y

- 4 - the district court made its determination of th e d rug quantity and lea dership role of the de fenda nt under a n advisory

Guidelines ca lculation, the Guidelines de termination did not violate Booke r . Second, Chene y ’s sentenc e did not exc eed the maxi mum statutory penalty that could be imp os e d f

or his of fe ns e s. Che ne y

argue s th a t hi s se nte nc e vio late s Apprendi ’s requ i re m en t that sentenc es not exceed the s t atutory maxi mum because , “the ‘ statutory maxi mum’ for Apprendi purp os e s is the ma ximumse nte nc e a jud g e may imp os e so le ly

on the ba sis of

the fa c ts r e fl e c te d in the jury verdic t or admitted by

the def endant.” Blakely

v. W ashington , 542 U.S. 296, 303 (2005). B ut b e c a us e Che ne y

wa s se nte nc e d und e r a

n a dv iso ry Gu ide lin e s sc he me , w hic h d oe s n ot i mpl ic a te Ap pr e nd i Sixth Am e ndme nt c on c e rn s, “ the ma ximum statut or y pe na lty that the dis tr ic t c ourt c ou ld impose was dete rmined by the stat u t e of c onviction, rather than by a Guidelines r ang e ca lculated
u s i n g only

jury finding s.” Sexton , 5 1 2 F
. 3 d a t 3 3 0
. B a s e d o n th e ju r y v e r d ic t th a t Ch e n e y ’s drug violations invol ved at lea st 100 kilog rams of marijuana , the maxi mum statutory penalty was 40 y ear s in prison. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B )(vii). Chene y ’s 97-month sentenc e falls well under that maxi mum and, there fore , the sentenc e is proper
. For these re asons, we A FF I RM Cheney ’s sentenc e.