NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 10a0265n. 06 N o. 09- 3865 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee,
v. ANTHON Y T. TANKER, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he N o rth e rn D istric t o f

O h io

/ B efore: G U Y , B O G G S , an d S U T T O N , C i rcu i t Jud ges. R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. D e f e n d a n t A n th o n y T . T ank e r p lea d e dg u ilt y p u rsu a nt t o a R ule 11 P l ea A greem ent t o fo ur coun t s of a sup ers eding i nd i ctm e n t:
s p e c i f i c a l l y , t wo c o u n t s o f

t h e f to f p u b l i c mo n e y , 1 8 U. S
. C. § 6 4 1 ( c o u n t s 1 & 2 ) ; a n d t wo count s of m aki ng fal s e s t at ement s , 18 U
. S. C
. § 1001 ( 7 & 8)
. T an k er appeal s fr om t he
concurr ent21- m ont h s ent ence s i m pos ed byt he di s t r i ctcour t, arg u ing (1) t hathe w as not aff or ded an oppor tuni t y for al l ocut i on as r equi r ed byFed. R
. C r i m . P. 32( i ) ( 4) ( A ) ( i i ) ; and ( 2) t hat h is sent ence , al t hough att he bot t om of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange, w as proced ural l yand subst anti velyun reas on able. T he g ov ernm ent not on l ydis pu t es t hese cl ai m s , butal s o ar gues t hat t he def endant ’ s w ai verof appe al bar s r evi ew of t he
r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f

h i s s e n t e n c e . Af

t e rr e v i e w o f

t h e r e c o r d , we a f

f i r m.No. 09-3865 2 I. A nt honyT ankerand code fenda ntC ar l a R uckerw er e cha rge d w it h offe ns es ar i s i ng outof t hei rr ece i pt of S uppl ement al Secur i t y I ncome ( SSI) benef i t s and Sect i on 8 H ous i ng C ho i ce V ou cher Prog ram re n t s ub si dies i n am ou nts great er than t heyw ere ent i t l ed to as a
m arr i ed coupl e l i vi ng t oget her
. H avi ng r epr es ent ed t o t he Soci al Secur i t yA dm ini s t r at i on ( SSA ) t ha tt he yw e r e s i ng l e a nd l i vi ng a l on e , Tan ke r a nd Ruck e rr e c e i ve d $ 36 , 09 6. 28 i n SSI b en ef it s to w h ich th eyw ere n o t entit led b e tw e e n A p ri l 20 0 1 an d Ju ly2 0 0 8 (co u n t 1). B etw een D ece m ber2001 and N ovem ber2007, t he D epart m entof H ous i ng and U rban D ev elop m en t ( H U D ), thro u g h the C u y ah o g a M etrop o li tan H o u sing A u tho ri ty(C M H A ), pr ovi ded Sect i on 8 r ent al s ubs i di es t o T ankerand R uckert o w hi ch theyw er e notent i t l ed. T ankerr ece i ved $19, 755. 00 foran addr es s t hathe s ubl et to so m eo ne el s e, w hi l e R ucker
rec eive d $ 4 2 , 7 5 2
. 5 0 m o re than sh e sh o u ld h av e sin ce sh e w as li v ing w ith T an k er (co u n t 2). T a n k e r ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s f

o rma k i n g f

a l s e s t a t e me n t s we r e f

o rs t a t e me n t s ma d e t o t h e CMHA i n O ct ober 2004 and O ct ober 2005, i n w hi ch he deni ed eve rhavi ng been a r r es t ed and f ai l ed to rep o rtthat h e w as re siding w ith R u ck er (co u n ts 7 & 8 ). U l t i m at el y , aft erbei ng found com pet ent t o s t and tr i al , T ankerent er ed i nt o a w r i t t en R ul e 11 pl ea a gr eement . T he pl ea a gr eementr ecomm ended thatt he courtfi nd defe ndanthad a t ot al adj us t ed off

ens e l evel of 10, t aki ng i nt o acc ountt he am o u n t of l os s and maki ng ad justm e n ts f

o r d e f e n d a n t’ s o b s tr u c tio n o f

ju s tic e a n d h is a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility. T h ere
w as no agr eementas t o cr i m i nal hi s t or y , exce pt t hat i t w oul d be det er m i ned by t he courtaft er compl et i on of t he pr es ent ence r eport . It w as al s o agr eed thatno departur e, upw ar d orNo. 09-3865 3

dow nw ar d, w oul d be re ques t ed, and t hat a sent ence w i t hi n t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange
w oul d be r ecomm ended. Fi nal l y , t he agr eement cont ai ned w ai ver s of t he r i ghtt o appea l or coll at e r a l l ya tt a c k the de fe nd ant’ s conv i ct i on or sent ence e xcep tfor anypu nis hm ent i n ex cess of t he maxi m um , anys ent ence t o t he ext enti texcee d ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes comput at i on det er m i ned byt he court , anyal l eged e r r ororm i s cal cul at i on of hi s cr i m i nal h isto ry , an d a n yc laim s o f in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l o r p ro se c u to ria l m isc o n d u c t. A tt he cha nge- of- pl ea he ar i ng, t he pr os ecut or out l i ned t he t er m s of t he pl ea a gr eement and added t hatt he governm entant i ci pat ed thatt he def endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yw oul d pl ace him i n cri m i nal hi st orycat ego ryII w ith a S entenci ng G uidel i nes range o f 8 to 14 m on t hs. T h e c o m p let ed p rese n tenc e re p o rt , h o w ev er, fo u n d that d ef en d an t had a c ri m inal h ist o ry cat egoryof V
. T h e p rese nt ence r epor tal s o r ecomm ended a hi gheradj us t ed off ens e l evel t han w hat w as agr eed t o i n t he pl ea a gr eement . A ts ent enci ng, t he di s t r i ctcour tacc ept ed the offe ns e l evel s etfor t h i n t he pl ea a gr eement , butr ej ect ed def endant ’ s ar gum entt hatt he S en tenc ing G u idelines ca lculati o n o v erstated h is crim in al history
. T h e d istri ct co u rt cal cul at ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange t o be 21 to 2 7 m ont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , and concl uded t hatan appr opr i at e s ent ence i n l i ght of t he 18 U
. S. C
. § 3553( a) fac t or s w oul d be att he bot t om of t hat r ange. D efe ndantw as s ent ence d t o t w o concurr ent21- m ont h t er m s of i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol low ed b y t hr ee y ear s of s uper vi s ed r el eas e, and or der ed t o pay
r es t i tut i on i n t he amount of $55, 851. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. A . A l l ocut i onNo. 09-3865 4

A defe ndant ’ s cl ai m t hatt he di s t r i ct courtcompl et el ydeni ed hi s r i ghtt o al l ocut i on at
s ent encing i s r evi ew ed de novo
. U n itedS ta tes v . W

o lfe , 7 1 F
. 3 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 4 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar t er , 355 F. 3d 920, 926 n. 3 ( 6t h C i r . 2004)
. B efor e i m pos i ng s ent ence , th e d istric t co u rt m u st, a m o n g o th e r th in g s, “ a d d re ss th e d e f e n d a n t p e rso n a llyin o rd e r to per m i tt he defenda nt t o s peak or pr es ent any i nfor m at i on t o m i t i gat e the s ent ence . ” F ED . R. C R IM . P . 3 2 (i)(4 )(A )(ii); s ee al s o G r een v. U

n it edSt at es , 3 6 5 U
. S
. 3 0 1 , 3 0 5 (19 6 1 ). “C om pl i ance w i t h R ul e 32( i ) ( 4) ( A ) ( i i ) r equi r es t he s ent enci ng j ud g e t o ‘ per s onal l yand unambi guous l y i nvi t e t he defenda nt t o s peak i n hi s ow n behal f. ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. H

aygood , 549 F. 3d 1049, 1054 ( 6t h C i r . 2008) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 875 F. 2d 559, 562- 63 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 9 )). A ts ent enci ng i n t h is c as e, t he di s t r i ctj udge addr es s ed the obj ect i ons t o t he pr es ent ence r epor t , cal cul at ed t he S ent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange t o be 21 t o 27 m ont hs , and t hen i nv i t ed argu m ents w i t h respectt o the app ropri at e sent ence. D efen se coun sel spok e fi rs t on defe ndant ’ s behal f. T hen, t he di s t r i ctj udge addr es s ed the def endantdi r ect l yand the fol l ow i ng excha nge occ ur r ed:

T H E C O U R T : A l l R i ght
. M r . T anker , w oul d y ou l i ke t o s peak t o t he c o u rt? T H E D E F E N D A N T : Y es, si r, y o u r H o n o r. W hatI w oul d l i ke the courtt o know , I m ade a m i stake i n m yl i fe a nd I ’ m acc ept i ng r es pons i bi l i t y . A nd s om e ki nd of w ay , I ’ l l m ake s ur e s om e ki nd of w ay , i f I evergett he money , I ’ l l m ake pa y m ent s t o r epay every pennyof t he m oneyback. T hatw oul d be my goal , t r yt o gett hes e peopl e pai d back. A nd I ’ m ver ys or r yt hati thappene d, and i tw on’ thappen a gai n.No. 09-3865 5

Sin ce the gov ernm ent does not argue it, and it is clear from the rec ord that defend ant was afforded 1 an opportun ity

for allocutionas required by Ru le 32 (i)(A)(4 )(ii), we need not c onsid er wh ether the waiver of a pp ea l rights in the p le a agre eme nt wo uld e nco mp as s this c la im. T he di s t r i ctj udge th en ex p lai ned hi s vi ew t hatdefe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yw as not
overr epr es ent ed, and ques t i oned how defe ndant had s o m anychar ges t hatw er e di s m i s s ed. D efe ndant a sk ed if he c oul d s ays om ethi ng, and w as al l ow ed an opportuni t yt o expl ai n. W hi l e thi s per t ai ned s peci fi cal l y t o t he defe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , defe ndanthad al r eady b e e n in v ited p e rso n a llya n d u n a m b ig u o u sly to a d d re ss th e c o u rt c o n c e rn in g th e a p p ro p ria te
sen tenc e. W e find that the de fe n d an t w as no t d en ied his ri g h t to al loc u tio n b e f o re
s ent enci ng. 1 B . R eason ab l en ess D e f e n d a n t ar g u e s th a t th e 2 1 -m o n th se n ten c e o f im p riso n m e n t w a s b o th p ro c e d u ra lly
a n d s u b s t a n t i v e l y u n r e a s o n a b l e . Th e g o v e r n me n t ’ s t wof o l d r e s p o n s e d e f

e n ds t he
rea so n ab lene ss o f th e se n tenc e, w h il e a lso a rgu ing that thes e c lai m s are b arred bydefe n d an t’ s
w ai ver of ap peal r i gh t s. W i t ho ut chal l eng i ng t he vali dity of t he w ai ver o r den y i ng t hat these cl ai m s ar e enc om pas s ed byt he w ai ver , defe ndantr epl i es t hatt he governm entfor fei t ed the
r i ghtt o r el yon t he w ai verbyr ai s i ng t he i s s ue fort he fi r s tt i m e i n i t s m er i t s br i ef. W e hav e “st rongly enco urage[d ] t he gov ernm ent t o p rom ptl yfi l e a m oti on t o d i sm i ss t he def endant ’ s appeal w her e the def endantw ai ved hi s appel l at e r i ght s as par tof a pl ea agr eem en t, an d t o att ach a copyof t he appe l l at e- w ai verpr ovi s i on and the tr ans cr i ptof t he pl ea c ol l oquy s how i ng t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s compl i ance w i t h R ul e 11( b) ( 1) ( N )
. ” U ni t ed Stat es
v. McG i l very , 403 F. 3d 361, 363 ( 6t h C i r . 2005)
. W e have al s o r ec o g n ized t hatt heNo. 09-3865 6

“governm ent can for fei t a w ai ver ar gum ent by fai l i ng t o r ai s e i ti n a t i m el yfas hi on. ” H unt er
v. U ni t ed Stat es , 1 6 0 F .3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 1 3 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (h o ld in g th a t g o v e rn m e n t’s f a ilu re to
ra ise w a iv e r in § 2 2 5 5 p ro c e e d in g in th e d istric t c o u rt re su lted in f o rf e itu re o f th e rig h t to re ly
on t he w ai ver on appea l )
. T hi s cour t has not hel d, how ever , t hat t he fai l ur e t o fi l e a mot i on t o di s m i s s w oul d r es ul ti n for fei tur e of the r i ghtt o rely o n an otherw i s e val i d w ai verof appea l
. A l t hough defe ndant r el i es on ourdeci s i on i n U nit ed Stat es v. B erro , 3 4 8 F
. A p p ’x 9 8 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ), cer t . deni ed , 1 3 0 S . C t. 1 1 1 3 (2 0 1 0 ), th a t ca se is n o t p re c ise lyo n p o in t. T h e re , w e d id n o t f

in d f o rf e itu re ; r a th e r, w e d e c id e d to a d d re ss th e m e rits sin c e th e a p p e llate
w a iv e r is s u e w a s n o t r a is e d b yth e g o v e rn m e n t o r b ri e f e d b yth e p a rt ie s . See i d. at100- 01. W e nee d notdeci de w hethert he governm entas s er t ed the w ai ver i n a t i m el yfas hi on beca us e, al t hough t he appe l l at e w ai verw as r efe r r ed t o as j ur i s di ct i onal i n McG i l very , cl os er
cons i der at i on of t he i s s ue has l ed t o t he conc l us i on t hatan appe l l at e w ai verdoes notdepr i ve th e c o u rt o f ju ri s d ic tio n to d e c id e th e c la im s o n th e m e ri ts . U nit ed S t ates v. C aruthers , 458 F. 3d 459, 472 n. 6 ( 6t h C i r . 2006)
. I n t hi s cas e, d efendant ’ s cl ai m s of pr ocedur al and
su b sta n tiv e u n re a so n a b len e ss a re w ith o u t m e rit. A s ent ence i s pr oce d u ral l yunr eas onabl e i f t he courtcomm i t t ed s er i ous pr ocedur al
err or“s uch as fai l i ng t o cal cul at e (or i m pr oper l ycal cul at i ng) t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes
r ange, t r eat i ng t he Sent enc ing G u ide l i nes as m andat or y , fai l i ng t o cons i dert he § 3553( a) f a c to rs, s e lec tin g a se n ten c e b a se d o n c lea rly e rro n e o u s f a c ts, o r f a ili n g to a d e q u a telye x p lain th e c h o s e n s e n te n c e
— in c lu d ing an ex p la n a tio n f o r a n yd e v ia tio n f

ro m th e G u id e lin e s ra n g e .” G al lv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 (2 0 0 7 ). “ A se n ten c e m a yb e c o n sid e re d su b sta n tiv e lyNo. 09-3865 7

unr eas onabl e w hen the di s t r i ctcour t ‘ s el ect [s ] the s ent ence arbi t r ar i l y , bas [es ] t he s ent ence on i m per m i s s i bl e fa ct or s , fai l [s ] t o cons i derper t i nent§ 3553( a) fac t or s orgi v[es ] an
unr eas onabl e amount of w ei ghtt o anyper t i nentfac t or . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. C o l l i ngt on , 461F. 3d 805, 808 ( 6t h C i r . 2006) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. T he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s s ent enci ng deci s i ons
a re re v ie w e d f

o r a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . G a ll , 552 U
. S. at51. D efe ndanta r g u e s th athi s s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the di s t r i ct j udge s ai d he w oul d us e t he S ent enci ng G ui del i nes cont empl at ed byt he pl ea a gr eementbut t hen ca l cul at ed the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange t o be hi ghert han the part i es had ant i ci pat ed. T hi s ar gum ent , i f i tcan be cat egor i zed a s pr ocedur al err or , i s bas ed on a mi s r eadi ng of t he
r ecor d. D efe ndantr el i es on t he di s t r i ctj udge’ s s t at ement t hat“s i nce t her e i s a di ffe r ence , t he pr es ent ence r epor tcomes outw i t h t he hi gher num bert han w hatw as cal cul at ed bycouns el and the defe ndant , w hen t he part i es ent er ed i nt o thi s pl ea a gr eement . T he court ’ s pol i cyhas al w ay s been t o fol l ow t he cal cul at i ons s et for t h i n t he pl ea agr eement . ” I n fac t , t he di s t r i ct
cour tuphel d defe ndant ’ s obj ect i on t o t he hi g h er adj us t ed off ens e l evel and i ns t ead d e ter m in e d th e S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e b a se d o n th e a d ju ste d o f f e n se lev e l se t f

o rth in t he pl ea a gr eement . T her e w as no s i m i l ar agr eement w i t h r es pect t o cr i m i nal hi s t or yfort he
cour tt o ad her e t o, not w i t hs t andi ng t he pr os ecut or ’ s s t at ement dur i ng t he pl ea he ar i ng t hat he ant i ci pat ed def

endant ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycat egoryw oul d be I I and w oul d corr es pond t o a S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e o f 8 to 1 2 m o n th s. R a th e r, th e p lea a g re e m e n t ex p re ss ly pr ovi d e d t h a t t h e c r i mi n a l h i s t o r y c a t e g o r y wou l d b e d e t e r mi n e d b y t h e c o u r taft er
c o m p letio n o f

th e p re se n ten c e re p o rt.No. 09-3865 8

A ttac k in g th e su b sta n tiv e re a so n a b len e ss , d e f e n d a n t ar g u e s th a t th e 2 1 -m o n th
se n ten c e is u n d u lyh a rsh , p a rticu lar lyb e c a u se d e f e n d a n t h a s s e ri o u s m e n tal d if f icu lti e s, is unabl e t o r ead, and w as not s t eal i ng for “l ei s ur e gai n” butt o s uppor thi s fami l y . D efe ndant
a lso a rg u e s tha t h e h a s stro n g f a m ily ties , a n d th a t a sh o rte r se n ten c e w o u ld h a v e a llo w e d h im t o w or k t ow ar d pay i ng r es t i tut i on. D efe ndant does not cl ai m anyerr ori n t he ca l cul at i on of t he Sent enci ng G ui del i nes r ange, ordi s put e t hat i t w as defe ndant ’ s pr i or cr i m i nal hi s t or yt hat
re su lted in a h ig h e r-th a n -a n ticip a ted S e n ten c in g G u id e lin e s ra n g e . T h e se n ten c e , w h ich is att he bot t om of t he pr oper l ycal cul at ed Sent enci ng G ui del i nes ran g e, i s ent i t l ed t o a
re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n o f s u b s ta n tiv e re a s o n a b le n e s s o n a p p e a l. G a ll , 5 5 2 U
. S . at 5 1 ; U ni t ed St at es v. B olds , 511 F. 3d 568, 581 ( 6t h C i r . 2007)
. N ot hi ng i n t he re cor d convi nces us t hat he has r ebut t ed t hatpr es um pt i on. AF F I RM ED .