The Honor able Rober t H. Cleland, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. 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: 08a0352n.06 F iled: Jun e 19, 2008 No(s) 06- 6498; 07-5105 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 , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. JA M ES ELL IS REN NE R; RU F US H OLM ES , De fe nd an ts- Ap pe lla nts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON A PP E A L FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

THE EA STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: SILE R and COL E, Circuit Judges; and CL ELAND, District Judge * R. GU Y COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. I n this c on so lid a te d a pp e a l, D e fe nd ants -A

pp e lla nts J ames Ellis Renner a

nd Rufus Holmes challeng e their se ntence s for c onsp i ri ng to distribute and distributing a qua

ntity of pills containing oxy codone, a Schedule I Icontrol l ed s ubstance , as
unrea sonable. F or the followingrea sons, we AF F IRM bo th s e nte nc e s. I. BACKG ROUND On J une 22, 2006, a grand jury in the Easter n District of Ke ntucky

returne d a ninetee n-count superse ding indictment a g ainst Danny D. Clark, James Ellis R enner , Samuel Duane L awson, Rufus Holmes, and Marlene Holmes, char g ing them with conspiring to distribute and possession with theNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 2 - int e nt t o d istri bute a

qu anti ty of pil ls c on ta ini ngoxy c od on e and me tha do ne , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § 841(a) (1). This indictment ca me as a result of a y ear -long investigation by fede ral, state a

nd local authorities, which include d multipl e contr olled buy s, conf i d ential informants a

nd cooper ating witnesses. On August 14, 2006, Renner plea ded gu i l t y to Count 1, conspiring to distribute and possession with the intent to dis tribute a quantity of pills conta ining oxy codone; Count 13, aiding
and a be tti ngthe po sse ssi on

of , with the int e nt t o d istri bute , a qu anti ty of pil ls c on ta ini nga

de te c ta ble amount of oxy codone; Count 15, aiding and abe tting the possession of, with the intent to distribute, a quantity of pills containing a

detec table amount of oxy codone; a nd Count 19, criminal forfe iture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853. As a part of his ple a agree ment, Renner admitted that, on November 13, 2004, fede ral, state, and loca l aut h o ri ties seized approxim ately twenty eig hty -milligram Ox y Contin t ablets—a presc ription painkiller containingox y codone—a nd $2,125.00 in curre ncy

during a traffic stop. On Marc h 15, 2005, authorities obtained c onsent to sear ch Renne r’s residenc e and found ten and thre equ art e rs Oxy Con tin

ta ble ts, on e hund

re d and thi rt e e n pr e sc ri pti on Xa nax pill s, and

thi rt y -t wo un its
o f hydrocodone , another

Schedule I Icontrolled substanc e. Renne r also admitted that, over the
course of the conspiracy , he purc hased a total of 2,100 Oxy Contin t ablets, mostly for distribution. Ac c or din g to t

he Gu ide lin e s, Re nner pl e a de d guil ty to a n amou nt o f o xy c od on e e qu a l to 1,125.6 kilogr ams of mar ijuana, which put his base offe nse leve l at thirty two. U

NI TED S TA TES S EN TENC I NG G U I D ELI N ES (“U .S.S.G.” or “Guide line s ”) § 2D 1.1(c) (4). The Presentenc e I nvestig ation Report (“ PSR ”) rec ommended an incre ase pursuant to U .S.S.G. § 2D1.1( b)(1) , for theNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 3 - possession of a dang erous firear m during the offense, which resulted in an adjusted offe nse leve l of thirty fo u r. Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), the PSR recommende d a thre e-point dec rea se for
acc eptanc e of r esponsibility . Ba sed on a tota l o ff en s e l evel of

thirty one and a

criminal history cate g ory of six , the PSRcalc ulated the Guide lines rang e as 188 to 235 months of imprisonment. On September

27, 2006, Hol mes pleade d g uilty to Count 1, conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to dist ribute a quantity of pills containing oxy codone; Count 12, aiding and abettingthe distribution of a quantity of pi lls containinga dete ctable a mount of ox y codone; Count 17, aiding and abe tting the distribution of pills containing a dete ctable a mount of ox y codone; a

nd Count 19, criminal forfe iture pursua nt to 21 U.S.C . § 853. As a pa rt of Holmes’s plea ag ree ment, Holmes admitted that, on September 22, 2004, f eder al and local authorities used a cooper ating witness to pur chase three Oxy Contin t ablets fr om him for the pr ic e of

$3 00 .0 0. On

Ap ri l 28 , 2 00 6, ano ther

c oo pe ratin g wi tne ss p ur c ha se d tw o O xy Con tin ta ble ts f ro m H olm e s f

or the pr ic e of

$2 00 .0 0. As a

re su lt o f t he se c on tr oll e d b uy s, wh ic h w e re a ud io
rec orded, a

uthorities determined that Holmes and his wife, Ma rlene , purcha sed the pills from Clark fo r r edi strib uti on . A lto g e the r, Ho lme s and his wi fe purc ha se d a

pp ro xima te ly

31 ,2 00 Oxy Con tin tablets and sold appr ox imately two hundred Ox y Contin tablets per week for three y ear s, all of which
wer e supplied by

Clark. Ac c or din g to t

he Gu ide lin e s, Ho lmes pl eaded g uil ty to a n amou nt o f o xy c od on e e qu a l to 16,723 kilogr ams of marijuana , which put his base offe nse level at thir t y s i x . U.S .S.G. § 2D1.1(c )(4)
. The P SR rec ommended a two-point decr ease pursuant to the saf ety valve in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)( 9), w h i ch re s u l ted in an adjusted of fense level of thirty

four. Pursuant to U.S.S.G.Nos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 4 - § 3E1.1(a) , the P S R recommended a three -point decr ease for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty . Ba sed on a total offe nse leve l of thirty one and a criminal history cate g ory of one, the PSRcalc ulated the Guidelines ra

ng e as 108 to 135 months of imprisonment. Th e Un ite d St a te s D istri ct Cour t f or the Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Ke ntu c ky

se nte nc e d Re nn e r t o 200 months on each c ount to be serve d concur rently , and Holmes to a term of 87 months on ea ch count to be ser

ved conc urre ntly . Both de fenda nts tim ely appea led. II. AN AL YSI S A. Jam es Ellis Renn er Renner a rgues that (1) the district court’s e nhance ment of hi s s en tence for possession of a firea rm violated United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), because the court relied on a fac t not fo un d b y a jur y be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t; a

nd (2 ) t he dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t pr op e rl y

c on sid e r h is p o o r h ea l t hd

u ri n g s en t en ci n g. W e f

i n d n ei t h er ar gu m en tco mp el l i n g. 1. J udicial Fa ct-F inding Renner’ s argument that the district court violated Booke r by jud ic ia l f a c t- fi nd ingis m e ri t le ss. I n Booke r , th e Su

p r e me Co u rt c la

r if ie d th e c o n s ti tuti o n a li ty o f ju d ic ia l f a c t- f in d in g u n d er the Guidelines by

decla ring that the Guidelines ra ng e wa s to be consider ed advis o ry ra t h er than mandatory
. Booke r , 543 U.S. 259-60. But, as this Court has repea tedly held, “judicial f

act- finding in s e nte nc ingpr oc e e din g s u sin g a pr e po nd e ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e sta

nd ard po st- Booke r

does not violate either

Fifth Ame ndment due process rights, or t he S ix th Amendment right t o trial by jury .” United States v. Gate

s , 4 61 F .3 d 7 03 , 7 08 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ; se e als o United States v. Cook, 453 F.3d 775, 777 (6th Cir. 2006). Contrary to Renner’ s claim, Bo ok

e r did not hold that judicial fac t-findingNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 5 - is unconstituti o n al u n l ess t he fa cts applied to the sente ncingdeter mination are f

ound bey ond a
re a so na ble do ub t. 2. Reasonable ness Review Renner a lso challeng es his sentenc e of 200 months, within the Guidelines ra ng e of 188 to 235
months , a s unr e a so na

ble . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s ta sk a t sen te nc ing is to “i mpo se a se nte nc e su ff

ic ie nt, but not gr eate r than ne cessa ry , t o co mply with the purposes” of the fa ctors set for th in Section 35 53 (a ). 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a ). “ ‘T he cou rt need no t r e c ite the [] fa c tor s [lis te d in 18 U. S.C. § 3553(a) ] but m u s t ar t i culate its re asoning in deciding to impose a sentenc e in orde r to allow for
rea sonable a

ppellate r eview.’ ” United States v. Pe nson , - -- , F .3 d -

-- -, 20 08 WL21 67 38 3, a t *3 (6 th C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Kirby , 418 F.3d 621, 626 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). Under Rita v. United States , --- U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007), a nd Gall v. United States ,

--- U.S.

- - - , 1 2 8 S. Ct
. 5 8 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) , w e r e v ie w a d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s s e n te n c in g d e te r mi n a ti o nfor
rea sonablene ss under a

defe rential a

buse-of -discre tion standard. “T his review e ntails a two-step proce ss. The appe llate cour t ‘must first e n s u re t h at t he district cour t committed no significa nt proce dural e rror , such as f ailing to c al culate (or improper ly calc ulating) the Guidelines ra ng e, treating the Guidelines as mandatory , failing to c onsider the § 3553(a) fac tors, selec ting a sentenc e based on c lear ly er ro n eo u s fa cts, or fa iling to ade quately explain the chosen sentenc e.’” Penson , 2 0 0 8 W L2 1 6 7 3 8 3 , at * 4 (q u o t i n g Ga ll , 1 2 8 S
. Ct. at 597). “‘A ssuming that the district cour t’s sentenc ing de cision is proce durally sound, the appellate court should then consider the substantive
rea sonablene ss of t he sentence imposed under an abuse- of-discr etion standard.’ ” Id. (q u o t i n g Ga ll ,Nos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 6 - 128 S. Ct . at 597). We may apply a nonbinding , reb u t table pre sumption of reasona bleness to a within-Guidelines sentenc e. Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2462-63.

(a) Pr oc e du ra l R e as on ab le ne ss Renner’ s centra l claim is that the district c ourt should ha ve g rante d a downwa

rd depa rture beca use of his poor health. Acc ording to the PSR , Renner “ has suffe red f ive hea rt attac ks and three str ok e s, and

ha s und ergone op en- he art surg e ry tw ic e .” Re nn e r h a s a lso ha d tw o a ng iop la sty proce dures a

nd two car diac c atheter izations , and take s eleve n presc ript i o n m ed i cations i n the morning and six at nig ht for h is various hea rt conditions. Pursuant to U.S.S .G. § 5H1.4, “a n extraordinary

phy sical i m p ai rm en t may be a r eason to downw ard de part; e.g ., in the case of a seriously infirm defe ndant, home dete ntion may be as e fficie nt as, and less c ostly than, imprisonment.” The proble m, however , is that Renner did not seek a downwar d depar

ture in the district court, and c annot do so now. U n i t e d Sta te s v . W

ar e , 2 82 F.3d 902, 907 ( 6th Cir. 2002) (holding that defe ndant’s fa ilure to seek a downwar d depar

ture wa ives the cla im on appeal)
. To the extent that Renner’s a rgument co u ld be construe d as a c halleng e to the proc edura l
rea sonablene ss of the sentenc e, we revie w for pla in error beca use at the conclusion of t he sente ncing hear ing, the district court aske d the par ties “if ther e’s a

ny objection to the sentenc e imposed,” a nd Renner’ s counsel responded, “ No objection, Your Honor.” See United States v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc)
. To demonstrate plain err or, Renner must show “(1) that a

n err or
o c c u r r e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt; ( 2 ) th a t th e e r r o r w a s plain, i .e., obvious or clea r; (3) that the err or aff ecte d defe ndant’s substantial rig hts; and (4) that this adver se i m p ac t s eriously aff ecte d theNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 7 - fairne ss, integr ity

or public re putation of the judicial proc eeding s.” Un ite d Sta te s v . D av is , 397 F.3d 340, 346 (6th Cir. 2005). Her e, no er

ror oc curr ed, plain or otherwise, beca use t he dis trict court pr operly calc ulated the applicable Guidelines ra

ng e, g ave both pa

rties the opportunit y to argue for whateve r sentenc e they deeme d appropr iate, and considere d all of t he § 3553(a) fac tors. United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[I ]n reviewingsentenc es for proce dural re asonable ness we must ensur e that the district court: (1) proper ly ca l culated the applicable advisory Guidelines ra

ng e; (2) considere d the ot h er § 3553(a) fac tors as we ll as the parties’ arguments for a sentenc e outside the Guidelines ra

ng e; and (3) adequa

tely articulated its re asoning for imposing the par ticular sente nce chosen, inc luding a

ny reje ction of the pa

rties’ a rguments for a

n outside-Guildeines sentenc e and any decision to deviate from the a dvisory Guidelines ra

ng e.”)
. Aft e r d e ta il in g Re nner’ s ext ensive c riminal history , and noting that “the pe nalties that [R enner ha s] r e c e ive d h ave no t di min ish e d h is a c tiv iti e s, ” the dis tr ic t c ourt c on c lud e d th a t “ it i s n e c e ssa ry to impose a substantial sentenc e in orde r to ade quately deter future criminal conduct of this defenda nt and also to protec t the public.” The court also consider ed Renne r’s re quest for le niency based on the fa c t th a t he is se rv ing an e le ve n- y e ar c on c ur re nt s tate se nte nc e . T he c ourt de nie d th e re qu e st b e c a

us e

“ [t]o im po se a se nte nc e oth e rw ise wo uld un du ly dim ini shthe se ri ou sn e ss o f h is o ff e ns e s and his activities,” but dec lined to sentence Renner at the upper e nd of the Guide lines rang e bec ause to do
so w o u ld v io late “ s u

b s e c ti o n ( 6 ) , th e n e e d to a v o id u n w ar r an te d s e n te n c in g d is p ar ities a mong defe ndant’s with similar rec ords.” Considering“all the f actor s in the case , inclu d in g th e undischa

rg ed state term that he will serve , as well as all of the char acte ristics,” the c ourt ultimately conclude d thatNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 8 - a tw o- hund

re d mo nth

se nte nc e “ wo uld

be a pp ro pr iate and

se rv e a ll o f t

he statut or

y purp os e s . . . jus t revie wed.” T ru e, t h e co u rt d i d

n o t m en t i o nh i s m ed i ca l co n d i t i o nd i re ct l y , b u tt h i s fa ct d o es n o tch an ge
our ana ly sis. Although “the rec ord must refle ct bot h that the di strict judge considere d the def endant’ s argument [for a lower se ntence ] and that the judge explained the basis for r ejec ting it,” United States v. Jone s , 4 8 9 F. 3 d

2 4 3 , 2 5 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. Richardson , 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2 0 0 6 )), Renne r’s c ounsel mentioned Renner ’s poor he alth only in passing dur ing the
se nte nc inghe ari ng . A ft e r d e sc ri bin g the se ve ri ty of R enn er’s dr

uga dd ic tio n, po int ingou t hi s
acc eptanc e of r esponsibility , and re questing lenien c y b a s e d on a conc urre nt eleven- y ear state sentenc e that Renner is curr ently serving , Renner’ s counsel c oncluded: “[G]iven the nature of this offense and it being the same e x act c onduct, my client is in poo r health, and g iven the fa ct that these c ases a re essentially

the same c ase as this conspiracy in this court, we would ask that the Court consider not only sentenc ing Mr . Renner to the lowe r end of the g uidelines but to run his feder al sentenc e
concur rent with the state c harg es.” A district court’s f ailure to re spond to a statement made in such a per functory

manner does not rende r a s en tence proce durally unrea sonable. See United States v. Liou , 491 F.3d 334, 339 n.4 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (“[W] hile a district cour t’s failure to addre ss eac h
argume nt [o f t

he de fe nd ant] h e a d- on

wi ll n ot le a d to aut omatic va c a tur , we wi ll va c a te a se nte nc e if t h e ‘c o n t ex t an d t h e re co rd ’ d o n o t ‘m ak e cl ea r’ t h e c o u rt ’s re as o n i n g. ”) (q u o t i n g Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2469). Fur thermore , the re cord de monstrates that the district cour t corre c tl y c a lc u la te d th e Gu idelines sentenc ing r ang e, conside red the availability of Guideline depar tures, independe ntly applied all theNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 9 - § 3553(a) fac tors, including Re nner’ s arguments for a lower sentenc e, and explained its reasons for imposing a se ntence of 200 months. The district court a lso noted i n d etail t he natur e and circ umstances of

Renner’ s criminal history , including multiple prior f elony and misdemea

nor drug convictions. In short, the district court adequate ly explained the chosen se ntence to allow for meaning ful appe llate re view. Bolds , 511 F.3d at 580-81.

(b) Su bs tan tiv e Re as on ab le ne ss We reviewRenner’ s challeng e to the substantive rea sonablene ss of his sentence for a

buse of d is c r e tion. Ga ll , 12 8 S. Ct. a t 59 7. We h a ve he ld t hat “ [a] s e nte nc e may

be su bs tanti ve ly
unrea sonable whe re the district court selec ts the sentence arbitra rily , bases t h e s entenc e on impermissible factor s, fails to consider pe rtinent § 3553(a) fac tors or gives an unr easona ble amount of we ight to any

pertinent fa ctor.” Jones , 489 F.3d at 2 5 2 (interna l quotations and alterations omitted). Howeve r, sentenc es within the Guidelines ra ng e ar e af forde d a re buttable pre sumption of
rea sonablene ss. United States v. W illiams , 436 F.3d 706, 708 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Her e, Renne r has not re butted the pre sumption of reasona bleness we acc ord to withinGuidelines sentenc es. F irst, the rec ord does not support the pr oposition t hat Renner ’s med i cal condition cannot be adequately treated by

the B urea u of Prisons. See, e .g ., United States v. Jone s , 197 F. App’ x 455, 458-59 (6th Cir. 2006) (de clining to f ind a sentenc e unreas o n able based on the defe ndant’s ag e and phy sical condition). Second, a policy statement conta i n ed i n the Guidelines states that the def

endant’ s phy sical co n d ition is “not ordinar ily rele vant in deter

mining whe ther a de pa rt ur e may be wa rr ante d. ” U. S.S. G. § 5 H1 .4 ; se e als o United St ates v. J ackson , 408 F.3d 301, 305 n.3 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that if a district cour t r elies on a discourag ed fa ctor in sentenc ing, suc hNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 10 - a s phy sic a l con dit ion , “th e dis tr ic t court wi ll ne e d to add re ss the se pr ov isi on s and

de c ide wh a t w e ig ht, if any , to affor d them in light of Booke r ” )
. B e c a u s e R e n n e r ’ s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o ni s n o to r d i n ar i l y a rele vant g round for

imposing a lower sentenc e under the Guidelines unless it “is pre sent to an
e xce pti on a l de g re e ,” U. S.S. G. § 5K2. 0( a )( 4) , the fa ilure to re du c e his se nte nc e on the basi s o f his health—either

sua sponte or through a motion for down wa rd departure—was not an a buse of discretion. Given Re nner’ s ext ensive cri m i n al h i s t ory and the nature of the offe nse, and g iven the court’s c are ful consider ation of his remainingarguments for lenie ncy , we c annot conc lude that the district court selected R enner ’s s entenc e arbitrarily or g ave a n unrea sonable amount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor. S

ee Un i t ed Stat es v. Collier , 246 F. App’ x 321, 334 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that defe ndant’s ag e and me dical condition “do not suf ficiently impugn the rea sonablene ss of a withinGuidelines ra

ng e sente nce” ). B. Ruf us Hol m es 1. Reasonable ness Review Holmes cha lleng es his sent ence of 87 months, below the Guidelines r ang e of 108 to 135 months, as unrea sonable. Ac cordingto Holmes, t h e d i s t ri ct cour t did not properly

explain and
a dd re ss t he fa c tor s us e d in de te rm ini ng his se nte nc e , no r do the § 3 55 3( a ) f a c tor s su pp or t th e le ng th of that sentenc e.

(a) Pr oc e du ra l R e as on ab le ne ss At the end of

Holmes’s hea

ring , the district court a sked the pa rties if they

had any objections to th e s e n te n c e , an d

H o lm e s ’ s c o u n s e l r e s p o n d e d , “ N o , Y o u r H o n o r . ” A c c o r d in g ly , w e revie w Holmes’s cla im that his sentence is proce durally unrea sonable for plain err or. Vonner , 516 F.3d atNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 11 - 386. Her e, no e rr o r o cc u rre d, plain or otherw ise, bec ause the district court prope rly calc ulated the appli ca ble Guidelines ra

ng e, g ave both pa

rties the opportunity

to argue for

whateve r sentenc e they deeme d appropr iate, and c onsidered a ll of the § 3553(a) fac tors. Bolds , 511 F.3d at 581. The district cour

t beg an by noting t h e “ s u b s ta nti al quantities” of dr

ug s and the e x tended pe riod of time the conspira cy

lasted. The c ourt went through ea ch s t atutory fac tor, consider ed Holmes’s history and cha rac teristics—including his medical co n d i tion and lack of criminal history

—and explained that it was “sy mpathetic to his position.” The court then c o n cluded that e ighty -seve n months, below the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e of 108 to 135 months, “would not undul y diminis h the offe nse that has be en discussed here,” and “would be sufficient but not g reater than nece ssary to serve all of the statutory

purposes.” The rec ord demonstrates that the district court cor rec tly calc ulated the Gu ide lin e s se nte nc ingra ng e , c on sid e re d th e a va ila bil ity of Guid e lin e s d e pa rt ur e s, ind e pe nd e ntl y applied all the § 3553( a) factor s, including Holmes’s arguments for a lower sentence , and explained its re a so ns fo r i mpo sin g a se nte nc e of

87 months. I n su m, beca us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

a de qu a te ly explained the chosen sentenc e to allow for meaning ful appellate revie w, Bolds , 511 F.3d at 580-81, no plain err or occ urre d.

(b) Su bs tan tiv e Re as on ab le ne ss Ho lme s’ s se nte nc e is al so su bs tanti ve ly re a so na

ble . On a pp e a l, H olm e s me re ly

re ite rate s h is lack of criminal history

and his drugaddiction as re asons for a s horter sentence , but the district court expli citly considere d both of those fa ctors below. G iven the natur e and c ircumstance s of the offe nse—larg e quantities of drug s and the extended period of time of the c onspiracy —and g iven the
c ourt ’s c are fu l c on sid e ratio n o f H olm e s’ s ple a fo r le nie nc y , we c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt didNos. 06-6498; 07-5105

United States v. Re nner/Holmes

- 12 - not select the se ntence arbitra rily or g ive an unr easona

ble amount of we ight to any pertinent fa ctor. Fur thermore , sentenc es within the Guidelines ra ng e ar e af

forde d a re buttable pre sumption of
rea sonablene ss, W

illiams , 4 36 F .3 d at 70 8, and it fo llo ws that a be low -Guid e lin e s se nte nc e is a lso g iven the same presumption of re asonable ness, se e Un ite d S tates v . H am id , 227 F. App’x 475, 479 (6th Cir. 2007). B eca

use Holmes has not a dvance d any argument t o re b u t that presumption, the district court did not abuse its discre tion in sentencing him to 87 mont hs. III . C ON CL USI ON For those rea sons, we AF F IRM both sentence s.