The Honor able Thoma s L
. Ludington, United States District J udg e for the E astern D istrict * 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 File Na me: 09a0028n.06 Filed: January

15, 2009 Nos. 08-5637/08-5640 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. J ANET NE TTERS AUSTI N, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF TENNESSEE

Be fore : SI L ER and McKEA GUE, Circuit Judges; LUDI NGTON , District J udg e. * THOMAS LUDI NG T O N, Di s tric t Judge . D e fe nd ant- Ap pe lla nt Jane t N e tte rs Au sti n (“ De fe nd ant” ) a

pp e a ls the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s c ri min a l se nte nc e , wh ic h wa s imp os e d a ft e r sh e ple d guil ty to four fe lony

offe nses for he r involvement in a fr audulent marria g e sche me. The district c ourt sentenc ed De fenda

nt to two months in custody , two months home d e te nti on, and twenty -four months of super vised rele ase. While Def

endant a cknowledg es that the district court c orre ctly calc ulated the United S tates S entenc ing Guidelines (“U .S.S.G.” or “Guidelines”) rang e and imposed a sentenc e at- 2 -

the low end of

the Guidelines, she c ontends that the sentence i m p o s ed by the district court wa s proce durally

and substantively

unrea sonable. F or the followingrea sons, we AF FI RM. BACK GR OUND De fe nd ant

w a s i n d i c t e d

f o r p a r t i c i p a t ingin a c on sp ir a c y

to h e lp f or e ig n n a tio na ls f

ra ud ule ntl y obtain leg al immigration status. Defenda nt and a g roup of other s, all citiz ens of the United States of Am e ri c a , tr ave le d to Mo ro c c o f or the p ur po se of arr ang ingsh am ma

rr ia g e e ng a g e me nts
. De fe nd ant t

he n p ro vid e d f

ra ud ule nt i nf or mati on reg ard inghe r o wn marr ia g e e ng a g e me nt i n v isa applications to faci l i t ate the e ntry of her “fia ncé,” a for eig n national, into the United States. On F e br ua ry 21 , 2 00 6, De fe nd ant e nte re d into a ple a a g re e me nt i n w hic h s he a g re e d to e nte r a g uil ty plea to two counts of c onspiracy to defra ud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of e nteringinto a marria g e for the purp o s e o f evading the immigration laws of the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C . § 1325(c) , and one c ount of aiding and ab et t i n g in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Defenda

nt’s daug hter a

nd son were also indicted as membe rs of the c onspiracy
. The plea ag ree ment acknow ledg ed De fenda nt’s coop er at i o n in the prosec ution of other
c on sp ir a tor s. Con se qu e ntl y , th e Go ve rnme nt a g re ed it would n ot o pp os e a mot ion purs ua nt t o U.S.S.G. § 5 K1 .1 fo r a

re du c tio n o f sen ten ce o r D e fe nd ant r e c e ivi nga c c e pta nc e of re sp on sib ili ty
cre dit pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. De fe n d ant admit ted her involvement in the conspirac y from the inception of the investigation and willingly participated i n t h e i n v estig ation of fe llow
c on sp ir a tor s. Th e re c or d a lso de mon str a te d that De fe nd ant re c ru ite d othe rs to the c on sp ir a c y a s w e ll as par ticipated in the fr audulent mar riag e eng ag ements. Statut or ily , D e fe nd ant’ s maximume xpos ur e fo r e a c h o ff e ns e wa s a

te rm of fi ve y e ars in cust o dy an d thr e e y e ar s o f

s u p e r v is e d r e le a s e . D e f

e n d an t d id

n o t h av e an y

p r e v io u s c r iminal- 3 -

convictions, resulting in a cr iminal hist ory cate g ory of I . Her total offense level wa s calc ulated as
a level twelve, with a criminal history cate g ory of one. The prese ntence investigation report (“ PI R”) also noted that a te rm of at lea st two y ear s supervised r elea se wa s required bec ause a term of imprisonment in ex cess of one y ear could be imposed. The Guidelines r ang e wa s determined to be ten to six teen months in custody , Z one C
. A Guidelines provision also rec ommended two to t hree y ear s of supervise d rele as e. T h e re port adde d two points to her offe nse leve l for her role in the conspirac y , but deducted two points for her a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty
. On May 13, 2008, United States District J udg e J
. Daniel Br een se ntence d Def endant. At the b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s e n t e n c i n g h e ar i n g , D e f e n d an t ’ s c o u n s e l d i d

n o tr e n d e r

an y o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e P IR upon the cour

t’s inquiry
. I n light of Def endant’ s cooper ation, the Government moved for a sentenc e
re du c tio n p ur su ant t o U .S. S.G . § 5K 1. 1, but no te d th a t D e fe nd ant w a s n ot e nti re ly fo rt hc omi ngwi th respe ct to her c hildren’s involvement in the c onspi ra cy . Def endant’ s counsel then a ddresse d the court re g ardingthe Gover nment’s view o f Defenda nt’s cooper ation. The c ourt then aske d De fe nd ant’ s c ouns e l f

or any a dd iti on a l se nte nc ingc on c e rn s. De fe nd ant’ s c ouns e l c lari fi e d c e rt a in fac tual discrepa

ncies re lating to De fenda

nt’s employ

ment and per sonal bac kg round conta ined in the PI R. At the court’s r equest, De fenda nt addre ssed the cour

t with respec t to her sentenc e. De fenda nt’s counsel also provided an additional statement reg arding Def endant for the court’ s co n s i d eration. Counse l e mp h a s iz e d

D e f e n d a nt’ s a g e , e d

u c a ti o n a l b a c k gr o und, employ ment background, and a

rgued that it was not likely

that she would eng ag e in future criminal conduc t. B e fo re imp osin g t he se nte nc e , th e c ourt re vie we d th e c ha

rg e s a g a ins t D e fe nd ant, acknow ledg ed a two le vel incre ase f or De fenda

nt’s role a s an orga

nizer pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1( c), a

nd a two leve l reduc tion for her acc eptanc e of r esponsibility . The c ourt ac knowledg ed- 4 -

that it must consider the fac tors enumer ated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) , including “to impose a sentenc e sufficie nt but not gre ater than necessar y . . . .” The court noted the nature a nd the circ umstances of the of fe ns e a s f oll ow s: I n rea ding thr oug h the pre sentenc e re port, it’s in th e court’s mind clear that [De f e n d an t ] w a s qu i t e i n v o l v e d i nt h e s e e v e n t s an d

o n e o f t h e p r i m ar

y i nd ivi du a ls involved in this conspiracy , aiding and abettingthe conspira cy as we ll. Certainly

any attempt or effort by an indi vidual to provide or defr aud the United States and provide false inf ormation, particula

rly in reg ard to the immig ration laws, is a se rious matter. Ce rt a inl y it w ou ld –

it wou ld in tur

n r e qu ir e the c ourt

to c on sid e r a

n a pp ro pr iate sentenc e in this case ba sed upon that ty pe of of fense
. The co u rt also rec og nized Defe ndant did not have a prior cr iminal hist ory

and conside red the Gover nment’s motion for a reduction of sentenc e pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. I n the cour t’s view, De fe nd ant p ro vid e d s ub sta nti a l a ssi sta

nc e to t he Go ve rnme nt, jus tif

ying a th ree le ve l of

fe ns e
re du c tio n f

ro m th e of

fe ns e le ve l tw e lve to o ff

e ns e le ve l ni ne . A s a

re su lt, De fe nd ant’ s a

pp lica ble Guidelines ra

ng e wa s in Z one B, which reduc ed the potential term of imprisonment f rom a ra ng e of ten to six teen months to a ra ng e of f our to ten months. Ultimately , the cour t sentence d Def

endant to a term of two months imprisonment, t wo m o nths home detention, and two y ear s of supervise d
re l ea s e, wh i ch wa s at t h e l o w en d o f t h e Gu i d el i n es ra n ge. W h i l e t h e l o w en d o f t h e Zo n e B ra n ge was four months im prisonment, the cour t’s sentenc e of imprisonment per missibl y substitut ed two months of home detention for two months imprisonment rende ring it eq uivalent to four months imprisonment and within the Guidelines rang e. SeeU.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(c)(2)
. After imposing the sente nce, the court inquired of Def endant’ s counsel whether “ any matters or objec tions” neede d to be addr essed. Counsel indicated that no other issues neede d to be addre ssed. On May

22, 2008, Def

endant timely

filed a notice of appe al. DI SCU SSIO N- 5 -

A district court’s se ntence is revie we d u n d er a rea sonablene ss standard. United States v. Vo we ll , 516 F.3d 503, 509 ( 6th Cir. 2008) (citing Un ite d S tates v . S mi th , 474 F.3d 888, 892 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (c iting United States v. Collington , 461 F.3d 805, 807 ( 6th Cir. 2006))). Sentenc es within the Guidelines ra

ng e ar e pre sumptively

rea sonable, id. (citing United States v. Fore man , 436 F.3d 638, 64 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 6)) , b ut s e nte nc e s o uts ide of the Gu ide lin e s r ang e are no t pr e sumpt ive ly
unrea sonable. Id. (citing Colli ngton , 461 F.3d at 808). “The Supreme Court has e x plicitly reine d in ap pe llate re vie w of se nte nc e s, ho ldi ng that [ a pp e llate c ourt s] mu st r e vie w e ve ry se nte nc e that is fre e from signific ant procedura l err or under a defere ntial abuse- of-discr etion standard, r eg ardle ss of whether the s entenc e is within the Guidelines rang e or sig nificantly outside it.” Id. (citing Gall v. United States , - - - U.S. - - - - , 128 S. Ct . 586, 597-98 (2007) ). I n a cir cum stan c e wh e re a de fe nd ant d oe s n ot o bje c t to the pr oc e dure s e mpl oy e d at a sentenc ing he aring , the plain err or doctrine applies. United States v. Vonne r , 5 16 F .3 d 3 82 , 3 86 (6 th Cir . 2 00 8) (e n ba

nc ). He re , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ov ide d a n e xplic it o pp or

tun ity to r e g ist e r o bje c tio ns . A d e fe nd ant t

hat do e s n ot r a ise ob

je c tio ns to t

he se nte nc e a t the he ari ng “ un de rm ine [s] his ri g ht t o challeng e the a dequac y

of t he court’s explanation for the sentenc e–an issue that bec[omes] apparent
a s soon a s th e c o u rtf

i n i s h e [s ] a

n n o u n c i n g i t s p r o p o s e d

s e n t e n c e an d

t h a tc o u n s e l n o n e t h e l e ss decline[s] the court’s invitation to addre ss.” Id. (c i t i n g Un ite d S tates v . B os tic , 371 F.3d 865, 872- 73 (6th Cir. 2004)). The plain e rror

standard of

revie w re quires that De fenda nt demonstrate “ (1) error (2) that wa s ob vio us or

c le ar, (3 ) t

hat a ff e c te d [De fe nd ant’ s] subs tanti a l rig hts and (4 ) t hat a ff e c te d th e fa ir

ne ss, integ rity , or public re putation of the judicial proc eedin gs .” Id. (citation and quotations omi tted).- 6 -

Plain error

is f ound “[o] nly in e x ceptional circ umstances
. . . wher e the err or is so plain that the trial judge was de relict in counte nancingit.” Id. (citation and quotations omi tted). A. P r oc e dur al R e as ona ble ne ss Her e, re view of the district court’s a dhere nce to se ntencingproce dures is g overne d by the plain err or doctrine
. The rec ord demonstrates that the district c ourt provided De fenda nt’s counsel the opportunity

to raise objec t i ons at the beg inning, middle, and c onclusion of the sente ncing hear ing. See id. (“I n an ef fort to bringsome clar ity to the matter a

nd to ensure that plain-err or revie w applied only

when the pa

rties fairly

wer e g iven a c hance to object to the sentenc ing proce dure, Bo sti c , 371 F.3d at 872, sugg ested tha t d i s t ri ct courts, after a nnouncinga propose d
s e n te n c e , ‘ a s k

th e p arti e s w h e th e r

th e y h av e an y

o b je c ti o n s to th e s e n te n c e . . . th a t h av e n ot previously

been r aised.’” ). The district cour

t must sat i s fy t h re e criteria f or a se ntence to be proc edura lly rea sonable. First, the d istrict court must have “ corr ectly calc ulated the a

pplicable Guide line rang e.” United St at es v. Bo ld , 5 1 1 F
. 3 d

5 6 8 , 5 7 9 ( 6 t hC i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. S e c o n d , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtm u s tp r o v i d e “ b oth p ar t i es t h e opportunit y

to argue for

whateve r sentenc e they

deem a ppropriate . . . .” Id. a t 5 7 9
- 80 (citing Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 596). Third, the di strict court must consider the fac tors enumer ated in § 3553(a) “to deter

mine whether they support the sentenc e re quested by eac h party .” Ga ll , 128 S. Ct
. at 596. Def

endant c oncede s that the district court corre ctly calc ulated the Guide lines rang e. Op. B r.
a t 7. De fe nd an ta s s e rt s ( 1 ) t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i d n o tp r o v i d e e i t h e r

p art y ano p p o rtu n i t y

to pr e se nt a rgume nts c on c e rn ingthe a pp ro pr iate se nte nc e and

(2 ) t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

ina de qu a tely explained the rationale supporting D efe ndant’s sente nce. Id . at 8-9.- 7 -

Whil e Ga ll

c e rt a inl y re qu ir e s th a t th e pa

rt ie s h ave an o pp or

tun ity to a dv oc a te an a

pp ro pr iate
s en t en ce , De fe n d an t ’s co n t en t i o ni s t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt wa s re s p o n s i b l e f o r e l i ci t i n g a
rec ommended sente nce fr o m t he par ties. The re cord is cle ar that the district court elicited
c o m m e n t ar

y f r o m D e f e n d an t b e f

o r e t h e s e n t e n c e w a s i mp o s e d
. In r e s p o n s e t o t h e C o u rt ’ s i n qu i r y, Def endant e x presse d remorse for he r par ticipation in the criminal conduc t. The dist rict cour t then inquired whe ther the Government had additional commentar y , which it did not. Finally , the district court pe rmitted Defe ndant’s counse l to address the c ourt. Counsel emphasized De fe n d ant’s ag e,
e ducat ion a l ba c kg ro un d, e mpl oy me nt b a c kg ro un d, and

the un lik e lih oo d th a t sh e wo uld e ng a g e in future c riminal co n du ct
. At that point, the district court proce eded to a naly ze the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fac tors. The district cour t noted counsel’s state ments in conjunction with the information in the PI R, which demonstrate s that the district c o u r t c o n s ide red the mitigatingfac tors in determining an appr opriate se ntence
. At th e h e ar in g , D e f

e n d a n t a n d h e r c o u n s e l e a c ha dv an c e d

r e a s o n s w h y

th e d is tr ic t c o u rt sh ou ld i mpo se a

mor e le nie nt s e nte nc e . D e fe nd ant d id so by e xpre ssi nghe r r e mor se and c ouns e l di d so by emphasizing mitigating fac tors of Def endant’ s background that supported a shorter sentenc e
– e .g ., De fe nd ant’ s a g e and la c k o f a cri mi nal histo ry . Wh ile ne ith e r a dv oc a te d f or a sp e c if ic sentenc e and the district court did not specific ally elicit a sug g ested se n t ence , Def endant ha d an op po rt un ity to a dv oc a te fo r a

re du c e d s e nte nc e . In a dd iti on , w he n p re se nte d w ithan o pp or tun ity to reg ister an objec tion after the sentenc e wa s imposed, cou n s el did not object to the proce dure
e mp lo y e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. A lt

h o u g hth e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t e xp li c it ly

s o li c it a p r o p osed sentenc e fr om Defe ndant, the re cord de monstrates that the c ourt provided De fenda nt and counse l opportunities to advance substantive arguments supportive of a le sser sente nce.- 8 -

Def endant a lso emphasizes that the district court must “conside r[] the parties’ arguments and [pr ov ide ] a r e a so ne d b a sis fo r e xer c isi nghis ow n le g a l de c isi on -m akin g a uthor ity .” Op . B r. a t 8 (citing United St ates v. Liou , 49 1 F .3 d 33 4, 34 0 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 7) ); see also Rita v. United States , 127 S. Ct . 2456, 2468 (2007). Indeed, “ when a defe ndant raises a particular argument in seekinga lower sentenc e, the r ecor d must ref lect both that the di strict judge considere d the defendant’s a rgument and that the judge explained the basis for reje cting it.” United States v. J ones , 489 F .3 d 243 , 250 (6 th Cir . 2 00 7) (c itatio n a

nd qu otatio ns omi tte d)
. Th e dis tr ic t court is n ot r e qu ir e d, ho we ve r, to a dd re ss
ever y point raised or

proff er a full opinion; “the context and the parties’ pr ior arguments” may not
nece ssitate a cour

t to fully express its decision. Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2468. “Empha siz ing that ‘[ j ] udicial dec isions are re asoned de cisions,’ Ri ta e xh o rts th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e to s a ti s f y the proce dural require ment of ‘se t[ ting] forth enoug h to satisfy the appe llate cour

t that he has c onsidered the par ties’ ar g uments and has a rea soned basis for

exercising his ow n leg al dec isionmaking authority .’” Liou , 4 9 1 F. 3 d at 3 3 8 (c i t i n g Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2468). I n th e e ve nt t hat a pa rt y pr e se nts “a nonf rivilous reason f

or imposing a differ ent sentenc e,” prudenc e is se rved by the district court explaining why

the ar g ument is unpersuasive. Id. Th e burd e n li e s w ithDe fe nd ant t o d e mon str a te that the district court “plainly violated its duty to a naly ze the re levant sente ncingfac tors and [her] arguments for lenie ncy .” Vonner , 516 F.3d at 388. Her e, Def endant has not done so. The re cord de monstrates that the district judg e conside red the serious nature of the offe nses and her substantial involveme nt in the c onspiracy
. See18 U. S.C. § 3553(a) (1). He also noted that the c riminal sentence should deter other s from committing the offe nses and pr otect the public f rom further

offe nses. See id. § 3553(a) (2)( B- C). The c ourt deter mined that educational and vocational trai n i n g was not re quired for Def endant. See id. §- 9 -

3553(a) (2 )(D) . Finally , the cour t noted the applica

ble Guidelines ra

ng e and the eff

ect of g ranting the Go ve rnme nt’ s mo tio n f or a do wnwa rd de pa rt ur e , w hic h r e du c e d th e Gu ide lin e s r ang e by six months. Then the di strict court sentenced Defe ndant t o a term of i mprisonment that was at the low end of the Guidelines re commen d ed ra ng e. The rec ord also demonstrates that the district court
c on sid e re d th e PI R, wh ic h dis c us se d e a c h of the mit ig a tin g fa c tor s r a ise d b y De fe nd ant’ s c ouns e l. The district cour

t was not under a

duty to specifica lly

addre ss eac h argumen t ra i s ed . Moreove r, Def endant ha s not identified the ar g uments that the district c ourt alleg edly disreg arde d. There fore , Def endant ha s not demonstrated that the a lleg ed proc edura l irregularities wer e obvious err ors that substantively

aff ecte d her r ights. B. Su bst ant ive Re as ona ble ne ss As discussed above , the abuse of discre tion standa rd g overns Def

endant’ s challeng e to the substantive rea sonablene ss of a senten ce ; however , a def endant is not requir ed to pre serve the argument by way of an objection at the sentenc ing he aring
. Vonner , 5 1 6 F. 3 d at3 8 9
. A c h al l en ge to the substantive rea sonablene ss of a sente nce ne ce s s i tates a r eview of the sentenc e’s leng th and “the f actor s evaluated . . . by the district court in re achingits sentencingdeter mination.” Liou , 491 F. 3 d at 3 3 8 (c i t i n g United States v. W ebb , 403 F.3d 373, 383 ( 6th Cir. 2005)). A r ev i ewingcourt must “assess the substantive re asonable ness of the se ntence in ligh t o f the totality of the circ umstances, g iving ‘ due def ere nce’ to the sentenc ing judg e, i n recog nition of his gre ater familiarity

with the case , his superior position to find facts and a ssess cre dibilit y , and the institutional advanta g e that come s with freque nt sentencingof off ender s.” United States v. Houston , 529 F.3d 743, 755 (6th Cir. 2008) (c iting Ga ll , 12 8 S. Ct. a t 59 7- 98 ). A se nte nc e is su bs tan tiv e ly
unrea sonable whe n it is arbitra ry , based on “impermissible fac tors,” relevant § 3553(a) fa ctors ar eW h ile D e fe n d a n t also a d v a n c e s the a rg u m e n t t h a t t h e se n te n c e w a s a rb itra ry b e c a u se the d istric t co u rt d id 2
n ot a r t i cu l at e i t s j u s t i f

i ca t i on , O p. B r . a t 13, t hi s ar gu ment i s s i mi l ar t o t he procedur al ch al l eng e and can al s o be v i ewed a s fo c u sin g o n the len g th o f t h e se n te n c e . See Li ou , 49 1 F.3d at 3 4 0 (D ef end ant ’ s argum ent , i nt erpret ed t o b e t hat t he d istric t c o u rt d id no t ad e q u a te ly ad d re ss m iti g a ting fac to rs , as a c h a llen g e to “the len g th . . . a n d typ e o f sen te n c e . . . i n ligh t o f his m iti g a ting c irc u m sta n c e s” ). - 10 - not considere d, or the sente ncingjudge unrea sonably relies o n a fa ct o r. Liou , 491 F.3d at 337 (citations omitted). Def endant’ s primary

argument is that the district c ourt imposed an unduly harsh se ntence
. 2 Up on re vie w, ne ith e r t

he te rm of inc arc e ratio n no r the te rm of su pe rv ise d r e le a se we re unre a so na bly leng thy . First, the district cour t gr anted the G overnme nt’s U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 moti o n , despite the Go ve rnme nt’ s r e pr e se ntatio n that De fe nd ant ha d not pr ov ide d truthf ul inf or matio n with re sp e c t to her c hildren’s involvement. Conseque ntly , the district court reduc ed her of fense level fr om twelve to nine, which lower ed the Guide lines rang e by six months. The district court sentenc ed De fenda nt at the low end of

the applica

ble G u i d el i n es rang e sente ncingDef endant to ser

ve two months imprisonment and two months of home detention. While Defe ndant emphasizes that mitigating fac tors war

rante d a lighter sentenc e, she has alre ady benef itted sig nificantly from the district court’s application of U .S.S.G. § 5C1.1(c)( 2), which cut in ha lf the imprisonment otherwise re commended at th e lo w e n d

o f th e G u id e li n e s . T h e r e c o r d d e mo n s tr a te s , an d

D e f e n d an t a g r e e s , th a t t

h e Co u rt considere d the mitigatingfac tors that provide a rea sonable basis for a sentenc e at the low e nd of the G u id e li n e s . I nim

p o s in g th e te r

m o f in c ar c e r a ti o n , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a ls o c o n s id e r e d D e f endant’ s involvement in the conspirac y and the serious nature of the off enses a s additional justifications for the sentenc e. Def endant a lso asserts that the senten ce wa s b ased on the “unfounde d assumption” that incar cer ation would deter others fr om eng ag ing in similar conduct. Op. Br
. at 15-16 (c iting United- 11 -

Sta te s v . R om e ro , 269 F.App’ x 689, 690 (9th Cir. 2008) (unre ported))
. Whil e the rec ord does not demonstrate that the district court’s conclusion relied on empirica l evidence or other data in support of the statement, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2)( B) require s the di strict court to consider the dete rre nt effe ct of imp os inga

se nte nc e . The c ourt ’s c on sid e ratio n o f t he de te rr e nt e ff

e c t of the se nte nc e su

pp or ts the impositi on of the sente nce a nd is incorre ctly

char acte rized as an “ unfound ed assumption.” R o m e ro , 2 6 9 F. App’x at 690 (district court’s finding , that the def endant ha d a hig h statistical lik e lih oo d o f r e c idi vis m, w a s an unf ound e d a ssumpt ion ). I n thi s in sta nc e , p ote nti a l de te rr e nc e is a require d consi deration for the district cour t during sentenc ing. T hus, Defe ndant has not demonstrated that the district court abuse d its discretion. AFF I RMED.