The Honor able James G. Carr , Unit ed S t ates District Judge f or the Nor

thern 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: 11a0104n.06 No. 09-6012 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. MARCUS D. J ARNI GAN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appea l from th e Uni ted States Dis trict Court for the Ea stern District of Tenne ssee

Be fore : BO GGS and COOK, Circ uit J udg es; and CARR, District J udg e. *

B OG GS , C i r c u i t Ju d g e . M ar c u s Ja r n i g an p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o b e i n g a f e lon in possession of a fir ear

m, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). The se ntencingjudge deter mined that J arnig an qualified as an arme d car eer criminal under the Armed Caree r Criminal Act (“ ACCA”) a nd, on Aug ust 13, 2009, sentence d J arnig an to 198 months in prison. W e af firm that sentenc e. I On J an u ary

1 5 , 2 0 0 8 , J arn i g a n w a s i n d i c t e d fo r av i o l at i o no f 1 8 U. S
. C
. § 9 2 2 (g) , b ei n g a felon in possession of a f irea rm. The indictment alleg ed that, on D ec em b er 31, 2007, Jarnig an knowing ly

possessed a loa ded 9-mm pistol and, at that time, had bee n previously convicted of

a felony . And bec ause Jarnig an possessed a mmuniti on for the pistol, he was also indicted for a sec ond violation of the same statute.No. 09-6012

United States v. J

arnigan

- 2 - Af te r v ari ou s pre -t

ri a l pro c e e din g s and the se le c tio n o f a jur y , Jar nig an p le a de d guil ty

to b oth counts on Dec ember 18, 2008. At the plea c olloquy , J arnig an stipulated to the g overnme nt’s fac tual summary of his crime, a

nd the district court a cce pted J arnig an’s plea
. A probation officer

prepa red a Presentenc e I n v estig ation Report (“ PSR ”). The office r deter mined that J arnig an had 11 c riminal history points, which p lace d him in criminal history
c a te g or y V. Th e of

fi c e r g ro up e d th e tw o c ounts un de r § 92 2( g ), the re by e sta bli sh ing a ba se of

fe ns e level of 20. H oweve r, the off icer determ i n ed t hat J arnig an qualifie d as an a rmed c are er c riminal under ACCA a

nd, as a r esult, increa sed his offe nse leve l to 33. See USS G § 4B 1. 4. B a se d o n th e se
c a lc ulatio ns , th e Gu ide lin e s p ro vid e d a re c omm e nd e d sen te nc e of be tw e e n 2 10 and 26 2 mo nth s in prison. See id . at §5A. J arnig an filed two obje ctions to the PS R on Aug ust 6, 2009. First, J arnig an argued that he should not be considere d an ar med ca ree r cr imin al beca

use two of the pr edicate convictions, for dealingdrug s i n 1 9 9 1 , occur red w hen he w as 17. And, in the a lternative, be cause the two
c on vic tio ns we re bo th p art of the same ind ic tme nt, Jar

nig an a rgue d th a t th e y

sh ou ld c ount a s o nly one pre dicate of

fense , not two. Second, J arnig an argued that he should ha ve bee n g iven a two- level d o w n w ar d

a d j u s t m e n tf

o r h i s a c c e p t an c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y. At Jar nig an’ s Au g us t 13 , 20 09 , se nte nc ing he ari ng , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ult imate ly

de c ide d to g rant Jarnig an a t wo-level downwar d adjustment for his ac cepta nce of responsibility , but rejec ted J arnig an’s a

rg uments reg ardinghis status as an armed car eer criminal. The court held that J arnig an’s 1991 drugconvictions wer e “se rious drugoffe nses” a nd wer e ther efor e prope rly counted f

or purp os e s o f t

he e nh anc e me nt a

nd , ev e n if the c on vic tio ns we re juv e nil e a dju dic a tio ns , Si xth Cir c uitNo. 09-6012

United States v. J

arnigan

- 3 - pr e c e de nt i nd ic a te d th a t pr oc e dura lly -s ound juv e nil e a dju dic a tio ns c an b e us e d f or AC CA enhanc ements. Se e Un ite d S tates v . Cr owe ll , 493 F.3d 744, 750 (6th Cir. 2007). The district c ourt fu rt he r h e ld t hat b e c a

us e Jar nig an’ s tw o c on vic tio ns aro se ou t of c on du c t c omm itt e d o n s e pa rate da y s, the y we re pr op e rl y

c ounte d a s sep arat e convic tio ns fo r A CCApurp os e s, and that th is r e su lt
was a lso dictated by

Six th Circuit prece dent. See U nited States v. Mc Cauley , 54 8 F .3 d 4 40 , 4 48 (6 th Cir . 2 00 8) ; United States v. Roac h , 958 F.2d 679, at 683 (6th Cir. 1992). Acc ording ly , the district court c oncluded that Jarnig an’s a djusted offe nse leve l was 31, not 33, and the Guidelines rang e wa s theref ore 168 to 210 months in prison. Be cause the convictions
car ried a 180-month minim um sentence , the cour t determined that J arnig an’s r estricted Guidelines
ra ng e wa s 1 80 to 2 10 mon ths . T he c ourt se nte nc e d Jar

nig an to a

pri so n ter m of 198 mo nth s. Jar nig an fil e d this tim e ly a

pp e a l, in whi c h he c la ims that his sen te nc e is bot h p ro c e dura lly and substantively unrea sonable. This c ourt has jurisdiction to re view Jarniga n’s sentenc e under

28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). II A Gene rally , this court revie ws a district cour t’s sentence fo r an abuse of discre tion. United States v. Barahona-M

ontenegre o , 5 6 5 F. 3 d 9 8 0 , 9 8 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007)). H oweve r, a district c ourt’s leg al conc lusion that a defe ndant’s prior convictions qualify as predic ate convictions for purposes of ACCA is revie wed de novo. See U nited Sta te s v . H ill , 440 F.3d 292, 295 ( 6th Cir. 2006).No. 09-6012

United States v. J

arnigan

- 4 - The g oal of proc edura l reviewis to ensure that t h e sentencing judge “has c onsidered the parties’ arguments and has a rea soned basis for exercising his ow n leg al dec isionmaking a uthority .” Rita v. United States , 5 51 U. S. 3 38 , 3 56 (2 00 7) . Pr oc e dura l r e vie w i nv olv e s a thr e e -f a c tor ana ly sis : (1) whether the court proper ly calc ulated the Guide lines rang e; (2) whether the cour t considere d the § 3553(a) fac tors and the pa rties’ a rg uments; and (3) w hether the cour t adequat ely

explained why it impos ed the c hosen sentenc e. United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 581 ( 6th Cir. 2007). The only pr oc e dura l argume nts ra ise d h e re re late to whe the r t he dis tr ic t c ourt

pr op e rl y
c a lc ulate d th e Gui deline s r a ng e . Sp e c if

ic a lly , Jar nig an a rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr on e ou sly considere d his prior drugconvictions to be pre dicate of fense s for purpose s of ACCA. Appellant’s Br . at 6. ACCA provides that a de fe n d an t co n v i cted of a violation of § 922(g ) must rec eive a mandatory

minimum sentenc e of 15 y ear s in prison if he has “ three previous convictions
. . . for a violent f elony or a serious drug offe nse, or both, c ommitt ed on occa sions diff ere nt f rom one another .” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1). A “serious drug offe nse” is define d as “an offe nse under State law, invo lv in g ma

nu f a c tu r in g , d is tr ib u ti n g , o r p o s s e s s in g w it h in te n t to ma

nu f a c tu r e o r d is tr ib ute, a
c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e . . . fo r w hic h a

ma ximumte rm

of imp ri so nme nt o f t e n y e ars or mor e is p re s cribe d by

law.” Id . at § 924(e )(2) (A)( ii). The Sentenc ing Guidelines include e nhance ment provisions that refle ct ACCA. See USS G § 4B 1. 4; id . at §4B 1.4, comment. (n. 1) ( “This g uideline applies in the ca se of a

defe ndant subject to an e nhance d sentenc e under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).” ). I f a se ntence passes proc edura l rea sonablene ss review , this court next reviews the sente nce for subst anti ve re a so na

ble ne ss. Ba ra ho na -M

on te ne gr o , 5 6 5 F
. 3 d

a t 9 8 3
. Su

b s ta n ti v e revie w require s that the court “ take into ac count the totality of the circumstance s, including the extent of anyNo. 09-6012

United States v. J

arnigan

- 5 - v ar i ance from the Guide lines rang e.” Ga ll , 5 5 2 U
. S. a t 5 1
. I f th e s e n te n c in g ju d g e s e le c te d an above- Guidelines sentenc e, the justification must be “suf ficiently compelling to support the deg ree of the va rianc e.” Id . at 50. Howe ver, due defe renc e mus t b e g iven to the sentenc ing judg e’s decision, and the fac t that this court “might r easona bly have c oncluded that a differe nt sentence was appropr iate is insufficient to justify reve rsal.” Id . at 51.

B J arnig an ar g ues that, bec ause his 1991 drugconvictions occ urre d when he was a minor, they can not be counted a s ACCA predicate offe nses. That Jarnig an wa s a m i n o r at the tim e of the offe nses and c onvictions at issue is not in dispute. Howeve r, we hold that, beca use the a g e of the offe nder ha s no impact on whethe r a serious drug crime counts as a predic ate of fense under A CCA, J arnig an’s minor c onvictions were proper ly counted a s ACCA predicate offe nses. To support his arg ument, J arnig an re lies only on USSG § 4A1.2(c)( 2), which pr ovides that “[j] uvenile status offe nses and trua ncy ,” along w i t h v ar ious other ty pes of of fense s, “ar e neve r counted” when c omputing a de fenda nt’s crimin al h i s t o ry . By its own terms, the provision is not rele vant to the question of whe ther Jarnig an’s of

fense s are predic ate of

fense s under ACCA. Jarniga n was not convic ted of a juvenile status of fense or truanc y , and whe ther a n offe nse merits a c riminal history point under the Guide lines is a sepa rate question from whe ther it is rec og nized under ACCA. Se e Un ite d S

tates v . Co le , 418 F.3d 592, 599 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (“[A] juvenile status offense is an offe nse which is illeg al only beca use of the of

fende r’s a g e.”)
. Jar nig an w a s c ha

rg e d a nd c on vic te d a s an a du lt i n G e or g ia Sup e ri or Court of a dr ugof fe ns e pun i s h ab l e b y

more than te n y ear s in prison, see G A . C ODE ANN . § 16-13-30, a nd that ends theNo. 09-6012

United States v. J

arnigan

The a rg ument is a lso f

orec losed by clea

r circ uit pr ece dent. United States v. Roac h , 958 F.2d 1 679, 684 (6th Cir. 1992) (“ Be cause appellant c ommitt ed drugoffe nses on three differ ent day s . . . , these off enses do not constitute a single c riminal episode, and the district court prope rly enhanc ed a pp e lla nt’ s se nte nc e purs uant to [ACCA ] . . . .” ); Un ite d S tates v . M ar tin , 5 26 F .3 d 9 26 , 9 39 (6 th Cir . 2 00 8) (“ [P]rio r c ri me s are pr e dic a te of fe ns e s un de r the AC CA if
. . . it w ou ld h a ve be e n p os sib le to cea se t he criminal conduct after the first offe nse wit hout committing t he second offe nse . . . . That the offe nses wer e ultimately char g ed in one indictment . . . is irre levant.”)
.

- 6 - ACCA inquiry
. United States v. Taylor , 301 F. App’ x 508, 522 (6th Cir. 2008) (“ Reg ardle ss of whether defe ndant could have been prosec uted as a juvenile, he was . . . convicted a nd sentenc ed
as an a dult f

or a crime
. . . [t hat meets ACCA’s definition of ‘violent felony ,’ and] this conviction qu al i fi es as a co n v i ct i o n fo r pu rp o s es o f t h e A C C A e n h an ce m en t
. ”) (c i t i n g Un ite d S tates v . S pe ar s , 443 F.3d 1358, 1360- 61 (11th Cir. 2006), United States v. Lende r , 9 8 5 F.2d 151, 156 ( 4th Cir. 19 93 )) . A nd

in a n a na log ou s si tuatio n r e g ard ingthe Gu ide lin e s’ c are e r- of fe nd e r p ro vis ion s, this
c ourt he ld t hat a pr ior c on vic tio n o f a

n “ a du lt” c ri me in “ a du lt” c ourt c ounts a s a

“ pr ior a du lt” conviction, notwithstanding the fac t that the defe n d an t was a minor at the time of the convic tion. United States v. Muham mad , 9 48 F .2 d 1 44 9, 14 59 (6t h Ci r. 19 91 ). I n a c c or da nc e wi th t

he se decisions, we hold that Jarnig an’s dr ug convictions constitute predic ate of fense s under ACCA even though the y

occur red w hile he wa s still a minor. Jar nig an a lso argue s th a t th e tw o d ru g c on vic tio ns we re “ sim ply tw o c ounts of

the same indi ct m en t ” an d there fore “ar ise from the same cour se of c onduct and must be c ounted as one
c on vic ti o n ” f

o r p u r p o s e s o f A C C A
. A p p e l l an t ’ s B r . a t7
. Ja r n i g anc i t e s n o a

u t h o r i t y f o r t h is proposition, and we there fore consider the argument waived. United States v. W illiams , 544 F.3d 1No. 09-6012

United States v. J

arnigan

J arnig an’s a

borted a rg ument is also plai n l y

insufficient to over come the pr esumption of 2 rea sonablene ss of hi s within-Guidelines s entenc e. United States v. W ilms , 49 5 F .3 d 2 77 , 2 80 (6 th Cir. 2007).
- 7 - 683, 690 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that arguments are waived when an a ppellant “f

ail[s] to develop or support his argument with any leg al authority ”). Finally , J arnig an argues—ag ain without c iting any leg al authority —that an offe nse level of 20 “ is a mor e a pp ro pr iate re fl e c tio n of the un de rl ying c ri me , whi le le ve l 33 ove rs tate s th e se ve ri ty of the c rime for

which he is c harg ed.” T his claim, too, is waived. W illiams , 544 F.3d at 690. 2 III F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e AF F I RM the se nte nc e imp os e d b y the dis tr ic t c ourt
.