The Honor able Micha el H. Watson, United St ates District Judge, Souther n District of Ohio, * sitti ng 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: 07a0626n.06 F iled: August 28, 2007 No. 06-2474 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNITED STAT E OF AM ERICA , Plaintif f-Appellee , v. STE VEN WALLACE , Defendant-

Appellant
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: COLE an d GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; WATSON, Distric t Judge * R. G UY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. After Steven Wallace pleade d g uilty to be ing a felon in a possession of a f

irea rm, possession with intent to deliver marijuana , and possession of a firea rm du r i n g t h e c o m m i s s i o no f a dr u g c r i m e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts e n t e n c e d h i m t o 2 0 0 m on ths ’ imprisonment. On appea l, Wallace cha lleng es the rea sonablene ss of this sentence. F or the following
rea sons, we AF F IRM
. I. BACKG ROUND On M ar c h 9 , 2 0 0 4 , M ic h ig anSt a te p o li c e tr o o p e r s s to p p e d a c ar dr iv e nb y

Wa ll a c e a fter observingthat it had a d am age d side-view mirr or. When the trooper s approa ched the car , theyNo. 06-2474

United States v. W

allace

- 2 - sme lle d ma

ri jua na . Upo n q

ue sti on ing , Wa lla c e state d th a t he ha d b e e n s mok ingmari juana a t a friend’ s house. The troope rs aske d Wallace to ex it the ca r, whe reupon the y

frisked him and f

ound a small club-l i k e weapon in his jacket pocke t, tobacco r olling pape rs and numer ous small Ziploc bag s in his trouser pockets, and a .22 caliber revolve r i n his trouser waistband. A sear ch of the car
uncover ed six teen small bag s of marijuana (totaling 76.56 g rams), six blue t ablets sus pecte d of being Valium, a small elec tronic scale , and twenty -two rounds of a mmuniti on matchingthe re volver found
on Wal la c e . T he tr oo pe rs pla c e d Wa lla c e un de r a rr e st. State criminal proc eeding s were initiated a g ainst Wallace, howe ver, the state dismissed the
c a se and re fe rr e d it

to t he Un ite d St a te s A tto rn e y ’s Of fi c e fo r fe de ra l pr os e c uti on in a c c or da nc e wi th the “Projec t Safe Ne ighbor hoods” prog ram. Projec t Safe Neig hborhoods “is a Department of Justice initiative that encoura g es state a nd fede ral l aw en fo rcement, as we ll as other seg ments of the community , to collaborate in the re duction of ‘gun crime in Ame rica .’” United States v. Thorpe , 471 F.3d 652, 655 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Under the initia t i v e, state la w enf orce ment officia ls refe r ca ses involving gun crimes to the loca l United States Attorney ’s Off ice f or fe dera l prosecution instead of state prose cution. Id
. On May 13, 2004, Wallace wa s char g ed in a thre e-c ount indictment in federa l district court with (1) being a fe l o n in possession of a fire arm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1) ; (2) pos s es s i o n wi th intent to dis tribute marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); a nd (3) possession of a fir ear

m during the commission of a drugcrime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c )( 1) (A ). Af

te r i nit ia lly

ple a din g no t g uil ty , on Ma rc h 7 , 2 00 6, Wal la c e , r e pr e se nte d b y c ouns e l, ple a de d guil ty

to a ll thr e e c ounts wi tho ut a ple a a g re e me nt, pr e se rv inga ll h is a pp e llate ri g hts
.No. 06-2474

United States v. W

allace

- 3 - The district cour

t sentence d Wallace on Nove mbe r 1 3 , 2 0 0 6
. Be cause Wallace wa s convicted under 18 U .S.C. § 924(c) and be cause he had be en convic ted of two prior state controlled- substance felonies, the district c ourt sentenc ed Wallace as a “ca ree r offender ,” under

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(c )(3) (2004), whic h, even w ith a three -leve l reduc tion for ac cepta nce of responsibility , s u gges t ed a Guidelines ra

ng e of 262 to 327 months’ imprisonment. Had Wallace not qualified as a car eer of fe nd e r, the Gu ide lin e s wo uld have su g g e ste d a se nte nc ing ra ng e of on ly 11 7 to 13 1 m on th s’ imprisonment. After f

inding that Wallace ’s Guidelines ra ng e wa s “slightly

overstate d” and that the “leng th of sentenc e [was] [ un]necessar y to meet the fa ctors set for th in the se ntencing statute,” the dis tr ic t c ourt

se nte nc e d Wa lla c e to 2 00 months ’ i mpr iso nme nt. II. DI SCU SSIO N On a pp e a l, W all ace argue s th a t hi s se nte nc e wa s b oth pr oc e dura lly

and su bs tanti ve ly
unrea sonable. This Court revie w s a criminal sentenc e for

rea sonablene ss. United States v. J ones , 489 F .3 d 2 43 , 2 50 (6 th Cir . 200 7) . “Re a so na ble ne ss ha s both su

bs tanti ve and

pr oc e dura l c omp on e nts , and ac cording ly , we consider not only the l eng th of t he sentence but also the factors eva luated and the proce dures employ ed by the district court in re achingits sentencingdeter mination.” Id . (citations and interna l quotation marks omitted). The United St ates Supreme Court rec ently decide d Rita v. United States , 1 2 7 S
. C t
. 2 4 5 6 (2 0 0 7 ), wh i ch h el d t h at a co u rt o f ap p ea l s m ay ap p l y a n o nb i n d i n g, rebuttable presumption of re asonable ness t o a within-Guidelines se ntence
. Id . at 2462–63. We do not, howev er , “adopt a

presumption of unre asonable ness” be cause Wallace r ece ived a be lowGuidelines sentenc e. Id
. at 2467 (“Appellate c ourts may not presume that e very

varia nce f rom the advisory Guidelines is unrea sonable.” ).No. 06-2474

United States v. W

allace

- 4 - A. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss “A se ntence may

be proc edura lly

unrea sonable if ‘ the district judge fails to “conside r” the applicable Guidelines ra

ng e or ne g lects to “c onsider” the other factors lis ted i n 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and instead simply

selec ts what the judg e dee ms an appropr iate se n t ence without such require d consideration.’” United States v. Fe rguson , 4 5 6 F. 3 d 6 6 0 , 6 6 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005) ). To satisfy this procedur al re quirement the “ sentenc ing jud g e sh ou ld s e t f

ort h eno ug h to satis fy

the a pp e llate c ourt

tha t he ha s c on sid e re d th e pa rt ie s’ arguments and has a

r e a s o n e d basis for e x erc ising his own leg al dec isionmaking a uthority .” Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2468. The a

mount of rea soning r equire d varie s acc ordingto context, and we have never require d a “ritualistic incantation” of the § 3553(a) fac tors. United States v. Mc Bride , 434 F.3d 470, 474 (6th Cir. 2006). He re , th e dis tr ic t c ourt

c or re c tly c a lc ulate d th e a

pp lic a ble Gu ide lin e s r ang e , n oti ngits advisory nature
. The court then went on to addre ss the relevant § 3553(a ) fa ctors. The district court hig hli g hte d th e unus ua l c ir c ums tanc e s o f t his c a se : Wal la c e “ c a me fr om a ve ry g oo d h ome ” ; “ [h]is siblings ha[d] not found themselves in the same position”; a nd Wallace wa s able “ to function and make strides and acc omplish thing s under the watchf ul ey e of the Court,” but not while fre e. See 18 U. S.C. § 3 55 3( a )( 1) . The dis tr ic t the n co ns ide re d Wall a c e ’s his tor y and c ha ra c te ri sti c s, no tin g his ag e, his supportive fa

mily , his five childre n, his dr ug addiction, and that this was his fifth cr iminal conviction involving “ narc otics or fire arms or both.” Se e id . The district court also consider ed the nature of the off

ense a nd Wallace’ s prior convic tions, describing them as involvi n g weapons andNo. 06-2474

United States v. W

allace

- 5 - small quantities of drug s. Se e id . The district cour t considered the kinds of sentenc es ava ilable,
rec ommending that Wallace par ticipate in a dr

ug -treatment prog ram a

nd vocational- training prog rams while in prison, and taking into ac count that at the time Wallace pleade d g uil t y he wa s fac ing a Guidelines ra

ng e o f o n l y 180 to 212 months’ imprisonm ent base d on his then-known
c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y. See id. §§ 3553(a) (3) a nd (a) (2)( D). Finally , the district court c oncluded that Wallace’ s sugg ested ra

ng e of 262 to 327 months was “slightly overstate d” and unne cessa ry to meet the fa c tor s se t f

or th in § 35 53 (a ). F or

pr oc e dura l r e a so na

ble ne ss, thi s is a ll that th is C ourt re qu ir e s. See, e .g. , United States v. Trejo-Martinez , 4 81 F .3 d 4 09 , 4 13 (6 th C ir .2 00 7) (“ [A] se ntenc e is proce durally

rea sonable if the rec ord demonstrates that the sentenc ing c ourt addre ssed the re levant fa c tor s in re a c hin g its c on c lus ion .” ); ac c or d Ri ta , 127 S. Ct. at 2548 (explaining that a sentencing judge must set forth enoug h to satisfy appellate revie w and a full opinion is not nece ssary in ever y
case ). Nonethele ss, Wallace maintains that his sentenc e wa s p r o c e d u r ally unrea sonable be cause the distr ic t c o u rt f

a il e d to ta

k e into a c c o u n t th e r a c ia ll y d is c r im in a to r y n a tu r e o f th e Pu

b li c Safe Neig hborhoods prog ram, whic h he co n t ends disproportionately selec ts Blac ks for fe dera l pr os e c uti on , a

nd tha t th e dis tr ic t court fa ile d to app re c iate that th e Gu ide lin e s o ve r- re pr e se nte d h is
c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt wa s un de r no ob lig a tio n to take int o a c c ount t hat Wa lla c e ’s pr os e c uti on in fede ral c ourt was a l l eg edly rac ially motivated. As an initial matter, this is not the sort of circ umstance c ontemplated in any of the § 3553(a ) fa ctors, and the ref ore the district court did not
err when it re fused to var

y its sentence downwar dly beca use of it. In any

event, t o set forth aNo. 06-2474

United States v. W

allace

- 6 - selec tive-prose cution claim, Wallace must pre sent some evidenc e tendingto show that the Project Safe N eig hborhoods prog ram has a discriminatory eff ect a nd intent. See Thorpe , 471 F.3d at 657. Wallace ha s not made this showing, a nd conce des as much. Finally , Wallace’ s contention that the district court f ailed to appr eciate that the Guidelines
over- repr es en t ed his criminal history is meritless. The district court e x pressly noted that the Gu ide lin e s o ve r- re pr e se nte d Wa lla c e ’s c ri min a l hi sto ry wh e n it state d th a t “ the g uid e lin e ra ng e is slightl y o v er s t at ed , ” a n d

t h at t h e s u gges t edGu i d el i n es ra n ge “ [ wa s ] [ u n ] n ec es s ary t o m eet the fac tors
se t f or th i n the se nte nc ing statut e .” To the e xten t th a t Wa lla c e argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld have va ried more , that is properly seen a s a substantive-re asonable ness cha lleng e and is a ddresse d below. Thus, we hold that the district court imposed a pr ocedur ally rea sonable sente nce. B. Su bst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss “A se ntence may be substantively unrea sonable wher e the district cour t selects the se ntence
arb itr ari ly , b a se s the se nte nc e on imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa ils to c on sid e r p e rt ine nt § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s, or g ives an unre ason ab l e am ount of weig ht to any pertinent fa ctor.” Jones , 489 F.3d at 252 (alter ations and interna l quotation marks omitted). I n challeng ing the substantive rea sonablene ss of hi s sentenc e, W allace first contends that the 20 0- mon th s e nte nc e is unr e a so na ble be c a us e it is si g nif

ic antl y ha rs he r t ha n th e ma ximumfo rt

y -s ix
m o n t h s ’ i mp ri s o n m en th e w o u l d h av e b ee nfa ci n g h adh e b ee np ro s ec u t edi ns t at e c o u rt
. Al t h o u gh Wallace’ s convictions may have c arr ied a maximum s entenc e of only forty -six months in Mi chig an, this has no bear ing on Wallac e’s f eder al sentenc e. I

ndeed, one of the principal motivations behind the Guidelines is to eliminate sentenc ing dispa rities in the fe de ra l sy stem. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) ;No. 06-2474

United States v. W

allace

- 7 - see also, e.g. , Un ite d S

tates v . D av is , 458 F.3d 491, 495 (6th Cir. 2006) (“ I n Bo ok e r itself, the Court indicated that r easona

bleness re view will permit appellate courts to minimiz e sente ncingdisparities b et we en an d

am o n g d i s t ri ct co u rt s (a n d b et we en an d

am o n g c o u r t s o f ap p ea l s ). ”) (c i t i n g United States v. Booke r , 543 U.S. 220, 263 (2005)). A s the Seventh Circuit has explained,

Re d u c in g a f e d e r a l p r is o n e r ’ s s e n te n c e to a c c o r d w it h that of a sim ila rl y sit uate d state c on vic t may

de c re a se on e se nte nc ingdis pa ri ty but simul taneously enlar g es anothe r: that betwe en the f eder al convict and all similarly

situated fede ral c onvicts. Beca use pena lties vary from state to state, se ntence reduc tions to approach state pena lties sim ila rl y va ry wi th the state in wh ic h the fe de ra l se nte nc ingc ourt sit s, unjustifiably

cre ating disparities amongfede ral c onvicts. Un ite d S tates v . W ur zin ge r, 46 7 F .3 d 6 49 , 6 54 (7 th C ir . 2 00 6) (i nt erna l citati on omi tte d) . T hu s, Wal la c e ’s argume nt t

hat hi s se nte nce i s to o ha rs h in lig ht o f c omp ara

ble state c on vic tio ns is
u n av ai l i n g. Wal la c e a lso argue s that the dis tr ic t c ourt “ fa ile d to a pp re c iate that th e g uid e lin e s g e ne ra lly
e nc o u r a g e d e p art

u r e s b a s e d u

p o n o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y . ” W a l l a c e i s w r o n g a s a matter of la

w and f act. F irst, U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b )( 1 ) s t ates that a downwar d depar ture may be
war rante d if reliable information indicated that the defe ndant’s cr iminal hist ory cate g ory substantially

over- repr esents the se riousness of the de fenda nt’s criminal hi s t ory . Under no cir cum st ances do th e Gu id eli nes man dat e a dep arture. S econ d, thedis tr ic t c ou rt did d ownwar dly

vary the sentenc e af

ter c oncludingthat the s ug g ested Guide lines rang e wa s “slightly overstate d” and “[un] nece ssary

to meet the fa ctors set for

th in the sentenc ing statute.” I ndeed, the district court var ied six ty -two months below the low end of the sug g ested sente ncingrang e—an a lmost t wenty -five perc ent downwa

rd var iance
.No. 06-2474

United States v. W

allace

- 8 - To the exte n t t h at Wallace a rgues that the district cour t should have var ied mo re , Wallace has pre sented nothing that would indicate that a lar g er va rianc e wa s warr anted. Ge nera l alleg ations that a sente nce is longer than needed to achie ve the g oals of punishment articulated in § 3553(a) do not help establish unrea sonablene ss. Un ite d S tates v . D e

x ta , 4 7 0 F. 3d 612, 616 (6th Cir. 2006). There is nothing to indicate that the di strict court im posed an arbitra ry sentenc e, based the sentenc e
on i mp e r m i s s i b l e f a c t o r s , f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r

p e rt i n e n t§ 3 5 5 3 ( a ) f

a c t o r s , o r g av e anu n r e a s o n a

ble amount of weight to one fa ctor. To the c ontrary , the district court c are fully revie wed a

nd weig hed all rele vant i nformation provided by Wallace and the United States Probation Off ice be fore arr iving
a t Wa lla c e ’s se nte nc e . T he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fi na l se nte nc e wa s n ot r and om, but a re fl e c tio n o f i ts
c on sid e ratio n o f t

he Gu ide lin e s r ang e and

the § 3 55 3( a ) f

a c tor s. III . C ON CL USI ON For these re asons, we AF F IRM the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
.