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: 09a0223n.06 F iled: Marc h 24, 2009 No. 07-1917 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. L ORNE EUGEN E OSBORN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OnA p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n it e d St ates Dis tr ic t C o u rt f

o r th e We s te rn District of Michig an

B e fo re : B OG GS, Chi e f Jud g e ; and GI L MA N a nd RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e s. BOGG S, Chief

Judge . L or

ne Os bo rn , h a vin g be e n d e pr ive d o f h is o pp or tun ity to
a pp e a l be c a

us e of ine ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta

nc e of c ouns e l, n owtake s a

be la te d a pp e a l a s o f r ig ht f

ro m hi s 20 04 c on vic tio n f

or the manu fa c tur e of

mari jua na pla nts . H e ra ise s tw o alleg e d e rr or s in his sentenc e, arguing that it shoul d be vac ated be cause the sentenc ing judg e re lied on acquitted c onduct and bec ause his sente nce w as imposed pursuant to the mandatory Guidelines sche me invalidated by United States v. Booke r , 5 43 U. S. 2 20 (2 00 5) . In a dd iti on , h e argue s th a t sh ou ld w e va c a te his
se nte nc e and

re mand fo r r e se nte nc ing , w e sh ou ld al so va c a te the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on to r un his sentenc e consecutively with an unrelated state sentenc e. B eca use we ag ree that the sentenc e violates the rule of Booke r , we r emand f or the limited purpose of r esente n cing under the now advisory Gu ide lin e s.No. 07-1917

United States v. Osborn

Osborn wa s convicted in a Michig an cour

t on J uly 18, 2002 for “ Oper ating Under the I nfluenc e” 1 and for “Res i s t i n g an d Obstructing a Police Of fice r,” a nd sentenc ed to 38 to 60 months of i mp r i s o n m e n t
. H e s e r

v e d 5 6 m o n t h s o nt h i s s e n t e n c e an d i s n o w i nf

e d e r a l c u s t o dy. - 2 - I I n 2002, during the cour se of a lawful sear ch of the residenc e shar ed by Osborn and Kr a ig Ea rl Rob e rt s, po lic e dis c ov e re d 7 54 mari jua na pla nts . O sb orn eve ntu a lly

ple d n ot guil ty

to the c ha rg e of manu fa c tur ingmor e tha

n 1 00 mari

jua na pla nts
. Af te r a jur y tr ia l, he wa s fo un d g uil ty of a le sse r- inc lud e d o ff

e ns e – th e manu fa c tur ingof 50 -9 9 ma

ri jua na pla nts
. At sentenc ing, the district court ca lculated the initial offe nse leve l at 22, based on the total numbe r of se ized marijuana plants. Osborn, ha ving two pr ior convictions for c rimes of violence, w as found to be a car eer offe nder, and the c ourt ac cording ly incre ased his off

ense le vel by 10 and a ssi g ne d h im a

c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y of VI . U nd e r t

he the n- mand a tor

y g uid e lin e s, thi s of fe ns e le ve l and

c ri min a l hi sto ry c arr ie d a Gu ide lin e s ra ng e of 21 0 – 26 0 mo nth s o f i mpr iso nme nt. T h e cour t, expl aining that it had “ca ref ully considere d the fa ctors in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553,” sentenc ed Osbo rn t o 210 months of imprisonment. The court imposed this bottom-of-theGu ide lin e s- ra

ng e se nte nc e be c a

us e it did “ no t a

pp e ar that muc h is a c c omp lis he d b y se nte nc inghim to above the bottom of the guideline ra ng e.” At the tim e , O sb or

n h a d a lso be e n c on vic te d a nd se nte nced for an unr e la te d s ta te offe nse that he committ ed after his arr est but prior to his fede ral c onviction. Be cause his term of 1 imprisonment for his state offens e had not y et bee n discharg ed, Osborn a rg ued that the se ntence s should run concur

rently with eac h other. The court re cog nized that it had discretion under U .S.S.G.No. 07-1917

United States v. Osborn

- 3 - § 5G1.3(c ) to run the f

eder al sentenc e conse cutively or concurre ntly to the state punishment in order to “ac hieve a

rea sonable p u n ishment for the instant offe nse,” a nd decide d that the sentenc es we re to b e c on se c uti ve . Os bo rn re qu e ste d tha t his att or ne y fi le an ap pe a l, but no pa pe rs we re fi le d o n h is be ha lf a ft e r t he no tic e of

a pp e a l. Som e y e ars la te r, Os bo rn

pe tit ion e d th e dis tr ic t c ourt pro se under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleg ing ineffe ctive assist ance of counsel for f ailure to pe rfe ct his appea l. His origina l trial counsel admitted that he had f

ailed to pursue O sborn’s appe al as re quested. The dist rict cour t gr anted the petition and g ave O sborn leave to file an a ppeal. This appe al followed. II A Osborn conc edes that under our de cision in Un ite d Sta te s v . W hit e , 5 51 F .3 d 3 81 (6 th Cir. 2008) (en ba

nc), the sentenc ing c ourt’s re liance on the total number of marijuana plants found (a nd no t ju st the c on vic te d c on du c t) wa s p e rm iss ibl e . Ac c or din g ly , he no w p re sse s o nly his Booke r claim. Under

our ca se law, a

sentenc e such a s Osbo rn’s, im posed under the prior
un de rs tand ingthat th e Gu ide lin e s w e re mand a tor y , is pla in e rr or (O sb or

n fa ile d to ob

je c t be low

to the mandator

y application of the Guidelines), a nd we pr esume that such an er ro r af fec ted the defe n dant’s substantial rig hts so as to entitle him t o a new sentenc ing he aringunder the nowadvisory Guidelines re gi me. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . B ar

ne tt , 398 F.3d 516, 525- 28 (6th Cir. 2005). The g overnme nt, however , can r ebut the presumption of prejudice on a showing that “the trial re cordNo. 07-1917

United States v. Osborn

- 4 - contains cle ar a

nd specific evidenc e that the di strict court would not have, in any event, se ntence d the def endant to a lowe r sentenc e under an advisory

Guidelines re g ime.” Id. at 529. The g overnme nt acknowle d ges that this showing is not an e asy one to make, but alleg es that this is the rare case in which the rec ord actua lly contains cle ar a nd specific evidenc e that the sentenc e would have been the same unde r an advisory reg ime. Specifica lly , the judg e’s de cision
a s to wh e the r O sb or

n’ s se nte nc e wa s to ru

n c on se c uti ve or c on c ur

re nt wi th t he fe de ra l se nte nc e wa s, by law, base d on the judg e’s discr etion in light of the § 3553( a) f actor s. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c). This is the same dec i s i o n -m aking proce ss a district court judg e now use s to sentence a def endant under the advisory

reg ime. Acc ording ly , the g overnme nt argues that we should be confide nt that Osborn would have rec eived the same sentenc e if the judg e had unde rstood that the Guidelines we re
n o tb i n d i n g. We disag ree . First, as se d u ct i v e as the g overnme nt’s rea soning ma y be, the proposition that an exercise of discretion ag ainst the defe ndant re buts the prejudice presumption has be e n f la tly reje cted a s insufficient to demonst ra t e t h at the cour t’s view of the Guidelines – later deter mined to be er

roneous – did not af

fec t the leng th of the sentenc e. Se e Ba rn e tt , 398 F.3d at 529 (h old ingthat a “mid dle -o f- the -r ang e se nte nc e . . . is insu ff ic ie nt to r e bu t th e pr e su mpt ion that B a rn e tt
wa s pr e jud ic e d
. . . . ” ); se e als o United States v. Hudson , 405 F.3d 425, 445 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“As
ca re fu l as the judg e’s de liberations wer e, these ref lections, offe red at a time when the G uidelines
we re c on sid e re d ma

nd a tor y , do no t c on sti tut ion ‘c le ar and sp e c if ic e vid e nc e ’ that the jud g e wo uld today . . . [i mpose the same] sentenc e . . . .”). Second, a bottom-of-the -ra ng e sente nce like O sborn’s tends to bolster the pre sumption even wher e oth er p o rt ions of the re cord c ut ag ainst rese ntencingNo. 07-1917

United States v. Osborn

- 5 - beca use it sugg es t s an “e ven g reater c hance ” that the district cour t would have imposed a

lower sentenc e had it known that the G uidelines wer e advisory
. United States v. Trammel , 404 F.3d 397, 402 (6th Cir. 2005). Third, the district c ourt’s decision to r un Osborn’s se ntence s consec utively was
no t pa ra lle l to po st- B o o ker s entencing in a n important way : it was made subseque nt to and independe nt of the ca lculation of a ma ndatory Guidelines ra

ng e. Cf. Oregon v. Ic e , 129 S. Ct . 711, 717 (2009) ( distinguishing be tween the imposit ion of a sentenc e for a discrete crime a

nd the dec ision to run that sentenc e concurre ntly or consecutively with another sentenc e). I

ndeed, the application note to § 5G1.3 expressly distinguishes betwe en the c oncurr ent/consec utive decis i o n and a downwar d depar

ture that alters the leng th of a sentenc e. See U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.3( E)) (“U nlike su b s ec t ion (b), subsec tion (c) doe s not authorize an adjustment of the se ntence for the instant offense . . . .”). Eve n on the best vi ew of the g overnme nt’s argument, then, we a re in doubt
a s to whe the r the dis tr ic t court ’s se nte nc e wa s inde pe nd e nt of its mand a tor y vie w o f t he Gu ide lin e s. I n fac t, the record c ontains ambig uity that cuts ag ainst a finding that the pre sumption has bee n rebutted. While it is cle ar that the sentenc ing judge understood his discr etion to impose a “re asonable ” sente nce, he also emphasized in th e course of e x erc ising that discr etion that the Gu ide lin e s w e re mand a tor y : “ Th e punis hme nt is wh a t it is. Th e re a so na ble punis hme nt under the gu ide lin es wi ll begin whe n he’s c omp le te d h is [s ta te ] se nte nc e . . . . ” (e mph a sis su pp lie d) . T his could be inter

prete d as an indication that the district c ourt thought that the punishment mandated by the Guidelines should not be affec ted by the fact of a wholly unrelated state off

ense. Cf. Nelson v. United States , 129 S. Ct . 890, 892 (2009) ( per c uriam) (holding that it was err or for a district cour

t to presume a within-the-Guidelines se ntence was re asonable ). This rea ding f inds additional supportNo. 07-1917

United States v. Osborn

- 6 - in t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s e xplanatio n in su pp or t of the de te rm inatio n tha t it saw “ no ba sis
. . . to ru

n th is senten ce co n cu rr ently .” B eca use ar riving at a r easona

ble sentenc e fr om scratc h is differe nt from
arr iving at it by

declining to find an otherw ise mandate d sentenc e unre asonable, the cour t’s conclusion that it was rea sonable is likely a product of adher ing to the Guidelines. See H udson , 405 F .3 d at 44 5. Ev e n if

thi s re adi ng is ul tim a te ly inc or re c t and the se nte nc ingc ourt ’s de c isi on did
a pp ro xima te the po st- Booke r sentenc ing pr ocess, the pla usibili ty of an inter

pretation that the court fe lt b ound by the Gu ide lin e s de fe a ts any c la im that the re c or d c le arl y and sp e c if ic a lly e sta bli sh e s a lack of prejudice
. Ac c or din g ly , w e ho ld t

hat O sb or

n’ s se nte nc e wa s p la in erro r that a ff e c te d h is substantial rig hts and that he is entitled a sentence imposed unde r the prope r, advisory Guidelines reg ime. B

There is a dispute about what c omes next. S pecif ically , the par

ties disag ree over whether the sentenc ing he aringon rema nd should i n cl u d e a relitig ation of the de cision to run Osborn’s sentenc e consec utive to the unrelated state sentenc e. I t should not. (F or c l ar i t y , we
u n d e r s c o r e th a t t

h e d is tr ic t c o u rt’ s d e c is io no nth a t s c o r e w a s n o t i ne r r or, s ee Un i t ed Stat es v. Owens , 159 F.3 d 2 2 1 , 230 (6th Cir. 1998), and that it is not affe cted by our dec ision today .) Whatever sentenc e the district c ourt imposes w ill ther efor e be consec utive to the (now discha rg ed) state sentenc e. Ne ve rt

he le ss, Os bo rn

a lso argue s th a t the dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld b e fr e e to c on sid e r, in its a pp lic a tio n o f t

he § 3 55 3(a) fa c tor s, the fa c t th a t hi s f e de ra l se nte nc e is c on se c uti ve to a stateNo. 07-1917

United States v. Osborn

- 7 - sentenc e bec ause it bea

rs on the total leng th of his incarc eration. We express no opinion as to the
me ri t of the argume nt t

hat a de fe nd ant’ s unr e la te d s ta te se nte nc e a ff e c ts t he re a so nablene ss o f h is fe d er al s en t en ce , b u tagr ee t h at t h e c u rr en ts en t en ci n g s ch em e permit s a d i s t ri ct co u rt t o ac kn o wl ed ge the fact of an unrelated s tate sentence. To the extent that our admonition that “consideration of po stsentenc ing fa ctors is incompatible with the limited scope of a Booke r rema nd,” United States v. K ell er , 4 9 8 F
. 3 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 4 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( e mp h a s is s u p p li e d ) , b ar s th e d is tr ic t c ourt from considering Osborn’s tim e served, Osborn a rg ues and w e ag ree that the cour t need not do so in order to take into acc ount the fact of a c on se c uti ve se nte nc e (w he the r or no t di sc ha rg e d) . In s ho rt , a s in other Bo ok

e r rema nds that occur

red be fore this case, the district c ourt is to corre ct the Booke r err or and sente nce O sborn, under an advisory

g uideline re g ime, to a re asonable sentenc e. See, e .g. , United States v. Hay nes , 468 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir. 2006) (“ Remands ‘in lig ht of Booke r ’ ar e conc erne d
w i t h s e n t e n c i n g . . . . ” ) ; Uni ted St at es v . S e ttl e , 414 F.3d 629, 632 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“On [ Booke r ]
rema nd, the district court must impose a re asonable sentenc e that take s into a ccount the sentenc ing fac tors set forth at 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), as we ll as the SentencingGuidelines.”) III For the above rea sons, we VACATE Osb o rn ’s s entenc e and REMAN D for
rese ntencingconsistent with this opi nion and with the Supreme Court’s de cision in Booke r .