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: 08a0789n.06 F iled: Dec em ber 31, 2008 No. 07-5914 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 SON TIM OTHYWEL LS, De fe nd an t- Ap pe lla nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P E AL F ROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C O U R T F O R

T H E M ID D LE DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE O P I N I O N

BEF OR E: KEN NE DY , C OLE, and G ILM AN , C ir c uitJudg e s. C OL E, C ir c ui t J udge. J as o nT i m o t h y W el l s p l ea d edgu i l t y

t o o n e c o u n to f p o s s es s i n g a firea rm as a convic ted fe lon, in violation of 18 U.S.C . §§ 922(g ) and 924. A t sentencing , the district court c alculate d an advisory rang e of 87 to 108 months of imprisonment, and imposed a withinGuidelines sentenc e of 100 months’ imprisonment with three y ear s of supervise d rele ase. Wells now a

ppeals that sente nce on the basis of proc edura l unrea sonablene ss. He ar g ues that t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt (1 ) f

ai l edt o co n s i d er

h i s ar gu m e n t f

o r a v ar i an ce an d

(2 ) e rr edi ni mp o s i n g a

“ r e a s o n a b l e a n d s u f f i c i e n t ” s e n t e n c e , r a t h e r

t h ana “ s u f f i c i e n t , b u tn o tg r e a t e r

t h ann e c e s s a r

y” sentenc e. F or the followingrea sons, we AF F IRM the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

. I. BACKG ROUND On Marc h 29, 2006, Metropolitan Nashville Police De partment (“ MNPD”) L ieutenant L e and e r D up ie pu lle d o ve r a wh ite Ho nd a

Civ ic fo r f

a ili ngto c ome to a

c omp le te sto p at a

re d li g ht.No. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 2 - (Tr. of Proceed i n g s J uly

20, 2007 (“H r’gTr.”) , J oint Appendix (“JA”) 60-61.) Wells, who was dr ivi ng the ve hic le , p ull e d o ve r at a ne arb y pa rk ing lot . ( JA 61 .) L ie ute na

nt D up ie e xite d h is

ve hic le , ma de c on ta c t wi th Wel ls, and pe rf or me d a ro uti ne tr a ff

ic sto p. (JA 60 -6 1. ) B e c a us e Wel ls did no t ha ve any ou tst and ingwa

rr ants , d id n ot app ear to be int oxic a te d, and po sse sse d a

va lid driver’ s license, L ieutenant Dupie was pre pare d to issue Wells a citation and le t him go. (JA 61.) Whil e L ieutenant Dupie conducte d the traff ic stop, MNPD Offic er Eliz abeth Har ris arr ived on the sce ne. (

Id .) She exited her vehic le and a pproac hed the pa ssenger s i d e of Wells’s vehicle. (JA 62.) Office r Ha

rris obser ved an ope n conta iner of a lcohol in the vehicle’ s back se at. ( Id .) There afte r, L ieutenant Dupie asked Wells t o exit the vehicle . ( Id .) Wells complied with the reque st—ex iting the ve hicle and f ollowing L ieutenant Dupie to the rea r rig ht side of the c ar. (

Id .) Offic er H arr is opened the pa sseng er door an d b egan to retrieve the open c ontainer. ( Id .) Howeve r, on finding a we apon in the vehicle, she immediately exit ed the c ar, infor

med L ieutenant Dupie of the wea

pon, and advise d Wells t hat he wa s under a rre st. ( Id .) As soon as Off

icer Har ris informed Wells t hat he wa s under a rre st, he pushed her

out of the way and ra n toward the still running vehicle. ( J A 62-63.) Thinking that Wells was g oing f or the g un, L ieutenant Dupie g rabbe d Wells around the upper body and instructed him to stop. (JA 63.) L ie ute na nt D up ie and

Wel ls s tr ug g le d a s We lls tr ie d to g e t in his c ar an d L ie ute na

nt Du pie tr ie d to keep him out. (

Id .) Despite L ieutenant Dupie’s efforts, W ells pinned L ieutenant Dupie ’s rig ht arm betwee n the back of t he seat and Wells’s body . ( Id .) Wel ls the n pu t the ve hic le in g e ar, hit the g a s, and dra g g ed L ieutenant Dupie for ap proxi mately twenty y ards. ( Id .) Wells drag g ed L ieutenant Dupie alongthe pave ment on his knees and stomach until L ieutenant Dupie was a ble to pull his armNo. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 3 - fre e and f all awa y from the c ar. ( J A 63-64.) Wells does not contend that he stopped or slowe d the

car to relea se L ieutenant Dupie . (JA 64.) Wells continued to drive awa y from the sc ene, e x iting the parking lot and continuing on the

ne arb y ro a dw ay . ( JA 65 .) Wel ls l a te r a ba nd on e d th e ve hic le , w hic h w a s f ound by L ie ute na nt D up ie and Of fice r Harris about one mile away . ( Id .) Af te r r e c ov e ri ngWel ls’ s v e hic le , L ie ute na nt D up ie

and Of fi c e r H arr is c on du c te d a

n inve nto ry

se arc h, reco veri ng a

loa de d . 38 0- c a lib e r B e rs a se miautomatic pistol in the back sea t of the vehicle, a 9-millimeter-c aliber Ta urus semi-automatic pistol in t he tr un k, a mmunit ion , ap pr oximate ly 20 0 g ra ms of mari

jua na , an d the op e n co nta ine r o f a lc oh ol. (JA 65-66; Gov’t’s Statement of F acts 1-2, JA 14-15.) About an hour a fter the traff ic stop, MNPD Office r Eric Mumaw and another office r found Wel ls h idi ngin b us he s n e ar a n a pa rtme nt c omp le x. (Hr’ g T r., JA 70 .) Th ou g h We lls ini tia lly resisted a rre st, he was e ventually

appre hended a

nd arr ested. (JA 71-72.) On Dec ember

13, 2006, the g rand jury returned a one -count indictment ag ainst Wells for being a felon in posse ssion of a firea rm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g ) and 924, spe cifica lly the B e rs a and Ta ur us se mi- a uto ma tic pis tol s f

ound in We lls ’s ve hic le. (I nd ict me nt, JA 6. ) We lls pleade d g uilty

to the char g e. (Pet. To Ente r a Plea of Guilty 1-6, JA 7-12.) The United States Probation Office filed a Pre sentenc e Investig ation Report (“ PSR ”) in the dis tr ic t c ourt

. (P SR, JA 10 1. ) Th e PSR c a lc ulate d Wel ls’ s ba se of fe ns e le ve l at 20 , s in ce Wel ls committed this offense a fter sustaininga fe lony conviction fo r a controlled substanc e. (JA 105.) T h e P S R a d d e d f o u r l e v e l s b e c a

u s e W e l l s p o s s e s s e d t h e f i r e ar m i nc o n n e c t i o nw i t h an o t h e r f e l o n y, specific ally

the possession with intent to dis tribute marijuana

. (JA 106.) Six additional levels we reNo. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 4 - a dd e d, un de r U .S. S.G . § 3A 1. 2( c )( 1) , be c a us e Wel ls as sa

ult e d L ie ute na

nt Du pie “ duri ngthe c ours e of the off

ense or immediate flig ht theref

rom.” ( Id .) F inally , Wells’s base offe nse leve l was decr ease d b y t h re e l evels for ac ceptingresponsibility for the of

fense . ( Id .) With t he re sulting

o ff en s e l ev el o f 2 7 an d a cr i m i n al h i s t o ry ca t ego ry o f IV, W el l s ’s o ri gi n al ad v i s o ry gu i d el i n e r an ge was 100-to- 125 months’ imprisonment with a ten-y ear statutory maxi mum. (J A 119.) I n J uly 20 07 , We lls fi le d a Pos iti on State me nt r e g ard ingthe PSR. (We lls Pos iti on State me nt, JA 16 -1 7. ) I

n h is Pos iti on State me nt, Wel ls did no t ob je c t to the se nte nc ing fa c tor s in the PSR, wi th the exception of the two-point asse ssment of a Sumner County conviction for DUI in para g raph 34. (JA 1 6.) Wells also submit ted a Sentenc ing Me morandum in which he reque sted that the district court impose a “suffic ient but not gr eate r than ne cessa ry ” sente nce. ( SentencingMem., J A 18.) Specifica lly , Wells arg ued that his co nduct in flee ing f rom the police did not wa rra nt a six -point enhanc ement under

U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)( 1). (JA 22-24.) Wells also reque sted leniency beca use he had made signific ant strides towar d reha bilitation. (J A 24-26.) I n response to Wells ’s SentencingMemorandum, the G overnme nt argued that the six -leve l

e nh anc e me nt u

nd e r U .S. S.G

. § 3A 1. 2( c )( 1) fo r a ssa ult inga law e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r w a s c or

re c tly applied. (Resp. to Sentenc ing Mem., J A 34-37.) The Government also argued that the district court sh ou ld n ot s e nte nc e Wel ls b e low the a pp lic a ble Gu idel in es range b a se d o n th e fa c tor s se t out in § 355 3( a ). (JA 38 -4 1. ) I n it s c on c lus ion , th e Go ve rnme nt r e c omm e nd e d a se nte nc e a t th e hig he st po ssi ble e nd

of Wel ls’ s G uid e lin e ra

ng e , s pe c if

ic a lly re c omm e nd ingthat th e dis tr ic t court imp os e a sente nce of

120 months. (J A 41-42.) A fter submitting its re sponse to Wells’s S entenc ing Me mor and

um, the Go ve rnme nt s ub mit te d a n a dd e nd um t o th e PSR. (S e c on d A dd e nd um t o PSR ,No. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 5 - J A 125-26.) B ased on Wells’s objection to par agra p h 3 4 of the PSR, the Government a djusted Wel ls’ s c ri min a l hi sto ry

c a te g or y to I I I

. (JA 12 5. ) T his ne w c ri min a l hi sto ry c a te g or y re su lte d in an advisory

Guideline ra

ng e of 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment. ( Id .) At sentenc ing, the district court addressed objections, in which the following colloquy took place betwee n the Court and Wells’s attorney , Mr. L enaha n: The Court: All rig ht. Mr. L enaha n, we’ ll take up the obje ctions, any other re maining objections that y ou have. Mr. L enaha

n: I f Your H onor plea se, I don’t have any

other objec tions, although -- T h e C o u rt : I t h i n k t h e r e w a s t h e o b j e c t i o n f o r t h e e n h an c e m e n tf

o r t h e b o d i l y i n

j u r y, se ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y . d o [si c ] y ou

sti ll m a int a in t

hat? Mr. L enaha

n: Well actually , if Your Honor please , it’s not an objection t o the use of that e nh anc e me nt. Ag a in, it’ s a B oo ke r[- ]ty

pe arg ume nt t o le sse n th e imp a c t of that. The Court: Okay

. Well, with those positions, I take it that there is no issue that the tot a l of fe ns e le ve l is 27 , th e Cr imi na l Hist or y Ca te g or y is I I I , th e g uid e lin e ra

ng e is 87 to 108 months, t h e period of supe rvised re lease is two to three y ear s, the fine ra ng e is $12 ,5 00 to $12 5, 00 0, and the re is a on e hund re d d oll ar s pe c ia l a sse ssm e nt. Mr. L enaha

n: That’s cor

rec t, Your Honor. (Hr’ g Tr., JA 57.) The Gove rnment then presented two witnesses who testified reg ardingthe circ umstances of Wells’s offense, his e ffor

ts to flee the police , and his subsequent arrest. (JA 59-74.) W ells prese nted one witness who testified reg arding Wells’s remorse for the inc ident and his apolog y to L ieutenant Dupie. (JA 75-77.) Wells also rea d a letter to the district court, in which he e x presse d remorse for his actions. (JA 83-85.) Th e Go ve rn

me nt t he n r e qu e ste d th e hig

hestpo ss ib le Guid e lin e -r a ng e se nte nc e —1 08 -m on

ths ’No. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 6 - i mp r i s o n m e n t

. ( J A 8 9

. ) T h e G o v e r n m e n tc o n t e n d e d

t h a tW e l l s h a d

a s e r i o u s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r

y, (JA 88) , and that the dist rict cour t neede d to send a messa g e to Wells and other def endants that jeopar dizi ng the life of a

n office r is a ser ious offense . (JA 88-89.) The Gover nment also argued that Wells had not done any

thing e x ceptional to justify rec eiving a lower

sentenc e. (JA 89-90.) I n r e sp on se , We lls ’s c ouns e l g a ve the fo llo wi ngargume nt: Mr. L enaha

n: I f Your H onor plea se, t h i s wa s a dang erous incide nt. My client acknow ledg ed that. I

think it’s si g nificant what he did not do. He did not use that fi re arm . H e did

no t ta ke tha t f ir e arm wi th h im. He did no t c on fr on t the po lic e wi th that firea rm later. H e did not set up some kind of hostag e situation. The re a re ma ny things that c ould have made this incident much worse. He is i n a c le ar pe ri od of re c ov e ry . Ithi nk he ha s d on e a

re mark a ble job in the time he has ha d. The Court: You have argued in y our pape rs that the Court should impose no sentence g r e a t e r t h ann e c e s s ar

y. Mr . L e na ha n: T hat’ s r ig ht. The Court: And he ha s g ot severa l convictions for e vad i n g police in ‘96. He ’s g ot dr ivi nge rr a tic a lly

on I -6 5 in 2000

. A fe w mon ths la te r, he wa s eva din g arr e st a g a in fr om th e offic e rs . H e wa s p la c e d o n - - h e wa s g ive n p ro batio n, bu t he fa ile d to complete the sc hool. Now, another occa sion when he w as stopped, he ha d marijuana blunts, was under the influence . The ther e wa s another oc casion whe re he was convicted of

an open c ontainer. O h, I ’m sorry , marijuana possession. An d all of th ese in c ide nts inv olv e d th e sa fe ty of -- ano the r o ne of

the se incidents involved the saf ety of an of fice r. Imean, a nd at a much y oung er a g e, he is involved in an inc ident when a firea rm was pointed at an i ndividual. So it ’s not just alcohol. I t’s drug s and we a po ns . Mr. L enaha

n: I f Your Honor

please , he does ha

ve all of those thing s on his recor d, and they are signific ant. And y et, when w e talk about a sentenc e nec essar

y but not g reater than, the g overnme nt wants to g ive him nine y ear s, previously they wantedNo. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 7 - to give him ten y ear s, which is the maxim um the statute ca rries f or this offense

. Whate ve r s e nte nc e the Judg e imp os e s in any of the se c a se s, y ou

are g oin g to have your hands on this defe ndant for t h re e more y ear s after that on supervised rele ase. And the man ha s not been in prison. He has bee n i n jail. He has be en on probation. Almost ever

y one of the se thing s is alcohol-re lated. An d like he said, that’s not an excu s e. Bu t s urely the Court doesn’t believe that a sente nce of more than something like four y ear s would be nec essar y in this case for him to go to prison fo r t he fi rs t ti me , a

nd y ou have y our h and s o n h is l if e fo r t hr e e mor e y e ars a ft e r t

hat, and can s e n te n c e h im

f o r u p to thr e e mo r e y e ar s a f

te r th a t i f , in f a c t, h e d oesn’t c o n t i n u e h i s r e c o v e r

y. Sometimes people have to hit bottom befor e they can do what’s r ight. And Ithink that has come for

this y oung man. He is still goingto have to prove that whe n he g ets out o f wh ateve r sentenc e that y ou g ive him and g ets on supervised r elea se. And re ally

for the r est of his life, bec ause his proble m is never g oing to g o awa y . He just can’t eve r drink ag ain. B ut a se nte nc e in thi s c a se that’ s a ny lon g e r t ha n s ome thi nglik e that se e ms to me to be way bey ond what’s necessa ry , if y our Honor ple ase. Seve n, eig ht, nine y ear s, Your Honor ? Every case is differe nt, but this individual, it s eems to me, ha s somewhat diff

ere ntiated himself from the othe rs who come befor e y ou. Iknow that’s alwa

y s a problem with the Court that y ou have to justify the sentenc e in eve ry

case with the g ener al sentenc ing principles. But e ven a se ntence of, say , four y ear s -- that’s a long sentenc e. Followed be three y ear s on supervised rele ase, that’s an enor

mous amount of time, Your Honor. (JA 90-92.) After the Gover

nment’s response reque sting a sente nce at the highe st end of the Guide lines rang e, the Court announc ed the f ollowing se ntence : Mr. Wells, the Court will commit y ou to the custody of the Bure au of Prisons for 100 mon ths . T he Court

wi ll p la c e y ou on su

pe rv ise d re le a se fo r a pe ri od of thr e e y e ars . The Court will not impose a fine beca use y ou lack the r esourc es to pay a fine . The Court must i mpose a spec ial assessment of $100.No. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 8 - Spe c ia l c on dit ion s o f y our sup e rv ise d r e le a se wi ll b e that y ou pa rt ic ipate in alcohol and drug testing and substance abuse treatment progra m as recommended by the of fi c ia ls i n the B ur e a

u of Pr iso ns . Yo u mus t a

bs ta in f ro m th e us e of

a ll a lc oh ol, a lc oh oli c be ve ra g e s, and

any dr ug s. On c e y ou are re le a se d fr om cu sto dy , y ou mus t obtain empl o y

m ent and pr ovide evidenc e of your employ ment, particula

rly y our pay roll slips, t o the probation officer

. Yo u a re pr oh ibited fr om c arr y ing , o wn ing , o r p os se ssi nga fi re arm , destructive de vice or

any other da ng erous we apon. You must submi t to the co ll e c ti o n o f D N A a s d ir e c te d b y th e B u r e a u o f Pr is o n s . Y o u ma

y n o t o pera te a motor vehicle w ithout a valid driver’ s license. The Court has imposed this sentenc e, Mr. Wells, beca use of the prior history that y ou have wi th d

ru g s, wi th w e a

po ns , a nd wi th t ra ff ic of fe ns e s. Th e Co urt a lso took into account the ve ry dang erous c i rc u m s tance s of this particular offe nse, pa rt ic ula rl y the se ri ou s d ang e r t o th e lif e of a po lice off

ice r. Th e Court

wa s a lso conce rned that the other sente nces that had been previously imposed in this case had g ive n y ou pe ri od s of pr ob a tio n, and a pp are ntl y tho se se nte nc e s w e re no t su ff ic ie nt. The Court tried to g ive some re cog nition for y our ef forts at re habilitation. As I told yo u a t th e ti me o f s e n te n c in g , if y o u c o n ti n u e to d o w e ll , y o u w ill re ceive sentenc e cr edits of appr ox imately two mon t hs, 54 day s a y ear of g ood time[ .] [T]ow ard the e nd of the la st t e n p e rc e nt of y our s e nte nc e [,] [y ]ou w ill be pla c e d in a community

house as a

transition to resuming nor mal life. And when one considers a ll of those circ umstances, and the net ef fec t of the sentenc e, I

believe that that will be a sentenc e that is rea sonable and sufficient. The Court considere d all of the persona l c ircumstance s in the prese ntence repor t and was very sy mpathetic to the letter s from y ou r fa m i l y , but, give n all of the prior c on vic tio ns , p art ic ula

rl y tho se inv olv ing da

ng e r to o the rs , th e Cou

rt be lie ve s th a t th is will be a par

ticular sente nce that is reasona ble for this ca se. (JA 93-95.) The district court fur ther stated that Wells was re commended f or a f acility that g ives

acc ess to drug and alc ohol treatment prog rams. (JA 95.) After imposing sentenc e, the district cour t a llowed Wells’s attorney to addre ss the Court, but the court did not ask t he parties for objections to Wells ’s sentenc e. ( Id .) Wells’s c ounsel reque sted and the district c o u rt rec ommended that Wells be place d in a fa cility as close to Na shville asNo. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 9 - possible. (

Id .) Wells did not raise any further objections to his sentence . This appea l followed. II. AN AL YSI S Wells arg ues that his sentenc e wa s proce dura l l y u nrea sonable for two rea sons. First, he argues that the district cour t failed to explain its reasons for r ejec ting Wells’s argument for mit ig a tin g the U. S.S. G. § 3A 1. 2( c )( 1) e nh anc e me nt fo r a ssa ult ing a po lic e of

fi c e r. Se c on d, Wel ls argues that the district cour t erre d in imposi ng a “r easona ble and suff

icient” se ntence rathe r t han a sentenc e “suf

ficient, but not g reater than ne cessa ry to comply

wit h t h e s en t encing pur poses of” § 3 5 5 3 (a )( 2 ). T h i s C o u rt fi n d s n ei t h er ar gu m en tco m

p el l i n g. A. Stand ard of Review This Court reviews a

district court’s sente ncing deter mination for re asonable ness under a defe rential a

buse-of -discre tion standard. Rita v. United States , 1 27 S. Ct. 2 45 6 ( 20 07 ); Gall v. United States , 1 28 S. Ct . 5 86 (2 00 7)

. Th e re a so na ble ne ss i nq

uir y g e ne ra lly e nta ils re vie w o f b oth the sentenc e’s pr ocedur al and substantive c omponents. Ga ll , 128 S. Ct . at 597. Wells challeng es only the proc edura l rea sonablene ss of his sentence . Acc ording ly , we limit our review to that issue. I n revie wing sentenc es for proce dural re asonable ness, t h is Co u r t “ mu s t e n s u

r e th a t t h e d istrict court: ( 1 ) p r o p e r ly c a lc u late d th e a p p li c a b le a d v is o r

y G u id e li n e s r an g e ; ( 2 ) c o n s id e r e d th e other § 3553(a) fac tors as we ll as the parties’ arguments for a sentenc e outside the Guide lines rang e; and (3) a dequate ly

article d its reasoning fo r i m p o s i n g the par ticular sente nce c hosen, including any

re je c tio n o f t

he pa rt ie s’ argume nts fo r a

n o uts ide -G uid e lin e s se nte nc e and any de c isi on to d e viate from the a dvisory

Guidelines ra

ng e.” United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 581 ( 6th Cir. 2007). The d i s t ri ct co u rt al s o co m m i t s p ro ce d u ra l erro r i f t h e s e n t en ci n g j u d ge f ai l s t o “s et fo rt h en o u ghNo. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 10 - [re a so nin g ] to s a tis fy

the app ellate c ourt

that he ha s c on sid e re d th e pa rt ie s’ argume nts and

ha s a

rea soned b as i s fo r ex erc ising his own leg al dec isionmaking a uthority .” Ri ta , 127 S. Ct . at 2468 (c i t i n g United St ates v. Taylor , 487 U.S. 326, 336-37 (1988))

. After the def endant r aises a pa

rticular argument in seeking a lower sentenc e, “the rec ord must re flec t both that the district judge c onsidered the def endant’ s argument and that the ju d ge explained the basis for reje cting it.” United States v. Lalonde , 509 F.3d 750, 770 ( 6th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Gene rally , this Court i s require d to reviewfor plain e rror when a d efendant fa ils to obj ect afte r his sentenc e is imposed. See U nited States v. Vonner , 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2008) (e n banc) . Howeve r, in U

n i t e d S t a t es v . B o s t ic , 3 7 1 F. 3 d 865 (6th Cir. 2004), we a nnounced a

new proce dural rule requiringdistrict courts to “ask the parties whe ther they have a ny objections to the sentenc e just pronounce d that have not pr eviously been r aised.” Id . at 87 2. “ I f the dis tr ic t c ourt fa ils to p ro vid e the pa

rt ie s w iththi s o pp or

tun ity , th e y

wi ll n ot h a ve fo rf

e ite d th e ir ob je c tio ns and

thu s w ill not be re quired to demonstrate plain er ror on a ppeal.” Id . at 872-73. He re the district court gave the parties a n opportunity

to speak, but it did not specifica lly reque st objections to the imposed sentence

. Thus, the standar d of re view on appe al is rea sonablene ss, not plain error

. B. The U. S.S. G . § 3A 1. 2( c )( 1) e nhanc e m e nt We lls arg ues that the district cour t erre d by failing to addre ss or explain it s rea sons for reje cting Wells’s contention that a downwa rd var iance was wa rr anted because his conduct wa s signific antly

less serious than other

case s warran t i n g a si x -point enhanc ement under U.S.S.G. § 3A1. 2 (c )( 1 ) fo r cr eatinga substantial risk of ser ious bodily injury to a law e nforc ement off icer

. Wells claims that he pointed the district court to a number of ca ses wher e thi s Circuit has appliedNo. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 11 - the § 3A1.2(c )(1) enhanc ement but the re levant co n d u ct i n those ca ses was more serious than Wells’s conduct. To be sure , Wells does not a rg ue that his c onduct falls outside of the ambit of the U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(c)( 1) six -leve l enhanc ement; rather, his position is that the di strict court imposed a pr o ce durally

unrea sonable sente nce be cause it failed to addre ss his request for a downwa

rd varia nce. We f ind that the district c ourt did not abuse its discr etion with r eg ard to Wel l s ’s s ix -leve l

e nh anc e me nt u

nd e r U .S. S.G . § 3A 1. 2(c)(1) . Well s d oe s n ot d isp ute , a nd we lik e wi se fi nd

that, Wells’s conduct falls within the plain lang uag e of that section. Moreove r, we are satisfied that “the sentenc ing judg e listened . . . , c onsidered the supporting

e vid e nc e , w a s f

ull y aware o f t

he de fe nd ant’ s c ir c ums tanc e s and too k th e m in to a c c ount i n sentenc ing . . . .” See V

onner , 5 1 6 F. 3 d

at 3 8 7 (c i t i n g Ri ta , 127 S. Ct. at 2469) ( internal quotations omitted). Be fore announcingWells’s sentence, the dist ri ct court heard Wells’s ar g ument for a do wnwa rd va ri anc e . We lls ’s c ouns e l st a te s th a t he wa s advan cing a “ B oo ke r[- ]ty

pe argume nt t o le sse n th e imp a c t” of

the § 3 A1 .2 (c )( 1) six- le ve l e nh anc e me nt, c on te nd ingthat: Ithink it’s si g nificant what he did no t d o . He did not use that fir ear m. He did not take that firear

m with him. He did not confr ont the pol ice with that firear m later. He did not set up some kind of host ag e si tuation. There are many things that c ould have made this incident much wor se. (Hr’ g Tr., JA 90.) There is no indication that the district court fa iled to list en to this arg ument, cons i d er the evidenc e supporting it, or otherwise f ailed to be f

ully awa re of Wells’s circumst ance s. The cour t adequately responde d to Wells ’s claim—i.e., that his conduc t was not as bad a s other conduc t thatNo. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 12 - ty pically trig g ers the six-level enha nceme nt—by

observingthat Wells’s cond u ct p o s ed a “ serious dang er to the life of a police office r.” ( J A 94.) A longe r monolog ue is not nece ssary . The district

c ourt fu lf ill e d it s o bli g a tio n in

c on sid e ring W ell s’s a

rgume nts in d e te rm ini nghis 10 0- mon th sentenc e. Al tho ug h th e dis tr ic t c ourt is n ot r e qu ir e d to giv e the re a so ns fo r r e je c tin g any

and a ll arguments for a lternative se ntencing , see Vonne r , 516 F .3 d at 38 7, the c ourt pr ov ide d mu lti ple

rea sons for its imposed sentenc e. The district c ourt cited Wells’s prior history of drug s and we apons offe nses as we ll as the fac t that Wells ’s ea rlier pr obations had not bee n sufficie nt to stem his i lleg al b e h a v i o r . T h e c o u r

ta l s o g a v e W e l l s c r e d i tf

o r h i s r e c e n t e f

f o rt s a tr e h a

b i l i t a t i o n . M o r e i mp o rt a n t l y, the re cord refle cts the court’s considera tion of W ells’s § 3A1.2(c )(1) enhanc ement ar g ument, stating “[t] he Court also t o o k i nto acc ount the very dang erous c ircumstance s of this particular offe nse, pa rt ic ula rl y the se ri ou s d ang e r t o th e lif e of a po lic e of

fi c e r. ” (H r’ g Tr ., JA 94 .) I n s um, be c a us e thi s

rec ord demonstrates that the di strict court considered Wells’s ar g uments that his sentence should be decr ease d beca

use of the nature of his e nhance ment conduct, we find that the district court’ s sentence

satis fi e d th e re qu ir e me nts of pr oc e dura l r e a so na

ble ne ss. C. Re as ona ble and s uffic ie nt Wells also argues t hat t he dis trict court commit ted procedura l error beca use it stated it was imposing a “ rea sonable a

nd sufficie nt” sentenc e, (

Id ., J A 95), ra

ther than “ a sente nce suf

ficient, but not gr eate r than ne cessa ry , t o compl y with the purposes of se ction 3553(a) (2).” United States v. W ilms , 495 F.3d 277, 281 (6th Cir 2007) (citations omitted). Wells i s corr ect that the district c ourt stated t he wrong standard in announcing his sentenc e. Howeve r, as this Court has previously stated,No. 07-5914

US A v . W e lls

- 13 - “ t h e m e r e f

a c tt h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt u t t e r s t h e w o r d ‘ r e a s o n a b l e n e s s ’ o r r e c o g n i z e s t h a t w e a p p l y a pr e su mpt ion

of re a so na ble ne ss o n a

pp e a ls d oe s n ot re nd e r its s e nte nc ingde te rm inatio n p ro c e dura lly

unrea sonable.” Id

. (c i t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . D av is , 458 F.3d 505, 511 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). Considering

our re peate d co n clus ion that “the foc us on sentencing‘is on substance r ather than form’ and that sentenc ing doe s not require any particula r ‘mag ic words,’ ” Da v is , 4 5 8 F. 3 d at 5 1 1 (q u o t i n g Vonner , 452 F.3d at 568 & n.4) , we find that the district court’s re fer ence to “re asonable and suff icient” doe s not rende r Wells’s sentence proce durally unrea sonable. III . C ON CL USI ON For the re asons set for

th above, we AF F IRM the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt

.