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: 08a0456n.06 F iled: August 1, 2008 No. 04-4476 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. RO B ERT WI L L I AM KE EL ER, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE N O R T H E R

N D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

Be for e : D AU G HTREY , G ILM AN , a nd R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. Roger s, Circuit Judge. T h i s case is part of a consolidated a

ppeal involving thirteen defe ndants who we re me mbers o f t h e Outlaw Motorcy cle Club (“O MC”), an inter national motorcy cle c lub with chapter s acr oss the country and around the world. In 1997, the Fe dera l Bure au of Investig ation and state la w enf orce ment ag encie s beg an an inve stigation into the Gre en re g ion of t h e O M C , w h i c h c o n s i s t s o f c h a p t e r s i nD ayt o n , O h i o ; F o rt W ayn e , In d i an a ; L o u i s v i l l e , K e n tu c ky; I ndianapolis, I ndiana; and O klahoma C ity , Oklahoma. As a result of t he investi g ation, a gra nd jury in t he No rt he rn Di str ic t of

Oh io r e tur

ne d a 40 -c ount i nd ic tme nt in 2 00 3 c ha rg ingthe de fe nd ants wi th various off

enses, includingRacke teer I nfluenc ed and Corr

upt Org anizations A ct (“RI CO”), dr ug t r a f f i c k i n g , an d

f i r e ar m s o f f e n s e s . T h e d e f

e n d an t s w e r e t r i e d

b e f o r e anan o n ym o u s j u r

y.No. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

- 2 - Def endant Rober

t W. Kee ler was convicted on one count of substantive RI CO in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), one count of RI CO conspirac y in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) , one count of c on sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ithint e nt to dist ri bu te na rc oti c s in violatio n of 2 1 U .S. C. § 84 6, and six
c ounts of un lawf ul u se of a c omm un ic a tio n f

a c ili ty in v iol a tio n of

21 U. S.C. § 8 43 (b ) a

nd 18 U. S.C. § 2
. H e w a s a c qu itte d

o no n e c o u n t o f

f ir e ar ms c o n s p ir a c y . F o ll o w in g th e tr ia l, K e e le r w as sentenc ed to a total of 96 months in prison.
Ke e le r h e lpe d to e sta

bli shthe OM C c ha

pte r i n F or

t Way ne , Ind iana , in 2001 and the n b e c a me its fir s t p r e s id e n t. A s a

me mb e r o f th e O M C l e a d e r s h ip , h e a tt e n d e d “ b o s s e s me e ti n g s ” w here officia l OMC policy

was set. Amongother thing s, these mee tings we re he ld to discuss and make policies perta ining to O MC drug distribution. The drug trade was a centr al fe ature of OMC cha pters in t he Gr e e n r e g ion , a

nd the F or

t Way ne c ha pte r w a s n o e xce pti on . K e e le r p e rs on a lly e ng a g e d in dr ugtr ans a c tio ns wi th me mbe r Da nn y He dg e s and me mbe r Ga ry Watkin s, the la tte r h a vin g be c ome a conf idential informant for the Gover nment. Kee ler a cquire d coca ine from He dg es and sold 46.7 g rams of methamphetamine to Watkins. Kee ler also trave led to F lorida with othe r OMC members to meet with their methamphe tamine supplier. In addi ti o n , h e e xerc ised some re g ulatory control over the For t Way ne member s’ drugsales. F or example, in c hapter meeting s he discussed using the drug trade to financ e the purcha se of a new c hapter

clubhouse, a

nd he also discussed w ith other members the possibili ty of placing a “tax” on the profits of their drug sales in orde r to support the oper ations of the F or t Way ne c ha pte r. F ur the rm or e , h e se t lo c a l O MC d ru g po lic y

by re fu sin g to b an th e sa le or use of methamphetamine by members in the For t Way ne chapte r. I n response to the fac t that theNo. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

- 3 - L o u i s v i l l e c h ap t er

h adco n s i d er eds u ch a b an , Ke el er p ro cl ai m ed , “A s l o n g as Fo rt W ay n e’ s go i n g, and I ’m the bos s here [,] [t he OMC Ft. Way ne member s are ] allowed to do what the F they want.”
On April 8, 2003, Kee ler wa s named in a 40- count indictment issued in the Norther n District of Ohio. As the c ulmination of a wide-r ang ing, six -y ear investigation of the OMC Gree n reg ion, the indictment char g ed Ke eler and 37 other OMC members with various fe dera l crimes. In particula r, Ke e le r w a s c ha

rg e d w ithfi ve of

fe ns e s: ( 1) RI CO in vi ol ation o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 19 62 (c ); (2 ) R I CO
c on sp ir a c y

in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 19 62 (d ); (3 ) c on sp ir a c y to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o d istri bu te
narc otics in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; (4) unlaw ful use of a communication fa cility

in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 8 4 3 ( b ) an d 1 8 U
. S. C. § 2 ; an d ( 5 ) f ir e ar ms c o n s p ir a c y in v io lati o n o f 18 U.S.C. § 9 2 4 ( o )
. H e w a s c o n v i c t e d o f a l l b u tt h e f

i r e ar m s c o n s p i r a c y.
At the sentenc ing hear ing, the Gover nment soug ht a base offe nse level of 36 on the ba sis that Kee ler wa s responsible for possessing a

nd/or di s t ri b u t i n g at least 5 kilog rams, but less than 15 kil og ra ms, of me tha

mph e tamin e . Th e Go ve rnme nt a lso so ug ht a fo ur -l e ve l e nh anc e me nt b e c a us e of Ke eler ’s leade rship role in t he OMC. Kee ler naturally soug ht a lower

offe nse leve l. He ar g ued that his base off

ense le vel should ha

ve bee n 26 beca

use he w as re sponsible for at lea st 50 gr ams, but le ss t ha n 2 00 g ra

ms, of me tha mph e tamin e . H e a lso ob je c te d to the lea dersh ip e nh anc e me nt. Fur thermore , he re quested that his offense level be r educe d by two levels to ref

lect his ac cepta

nce of re sponsibili ty , and he a sked for depar tures base d on imperfe ct entra pment and his poor hea lth.No. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

- 4 - After hear ing e ach side ’s ar g uments, the district court dete rmined Keeler’ s base of fense level to be 30, which corresponds to a quantity of m ethamphetamine of at least 350 grams, but less than 50 0 g ra ms. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)( 5). The district c ourt then applied a four- level enha

nceme nt pursuant to U .S.S.G. § 3B1.1( a) for Kee ler’s leade rship role in the c riminal enterpr ise, finding that “the e vidence which I

hear d at t rial demonstrated bey ond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Keeler w as an org anizer and le ader
. . . .” Next, the district c ourt denied Kee ler’s reque st f or a two-leve l reduc tion for a cce ptance of re sponsibili ty as we l l as h is request for a downwa

rd depa rture f or imperf ect entra pment. The district cour

t did, howeve r, gra

nt him a downward departure beca use of his poor health. That depar

ture reduce d Kee ler’s offense level from 34 to 29, there by g iving him a Guidelines rang e of 87- 1 0 8 m o n t hs. The district cour t sentence d Kee ler within that rang e by imposing a 96- month sentence for his RI CO, RI CO conspirac y , and drug conspirac y

offe nses. As to the off

enses of unlawf ul use of a c ommunication fac ility , the district court imposed the statutory maxi mum
s e n t e n c e o f

f o u r ye ar s . A l l o f

t h e s e n t e n c e s w e r e o r d e r e d t o r u nc o n c u r r e n t l y.
On a pp e a l, K e e le r a

rgue s th a t hi s n arc oti c s c on sp ir a c y c on vic tio n s ho uld

be re ve rs e d b e c a

us e it is not supported by sufficie nt e vidence
. He also contends that his se ntence should be vacated for three rea sons: (1) that his base of fense level should have been set at 19 instead of 30; (2) that he w as improperly

assessed a

four- level enhance ment based on an erroneous finding that he had occupied
a mana g eria l role within the OMC; and (3) that he was err oneously denied a n imperfe ct-e ntrapment de pa rt ur e . T he se argume nts are wi tho ut m e ri t.
I.No. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

- 5 - Kee ler’s na

rcotics conspiracy

conviction is supported by sufficie nt evidence . Conviction of
na rc oti c s c on sp ir a c y

un de r 2 1 U .S. C. § 84 6 r e qu ir e s th e Go ve rnme nt t o p ro ve that an a g re e me nt t o vio la te the dr

ug laws e xiste d, and that th e de fe nd ant “ ‘k ne w o f, int e nd e d to joi n, and pa rt ic ipate d in the conspira cy .’” United States v. Conrad , 5 0 7 F. 3 d 4 2 4 , 4 3 2 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( qu o t i n g United States

v . W all s , 293 F.3d 959, 967 ( 6th Cir. 2002)). Proof of a n expli cit, formal a g ree ment among the coc o n s p ir a to r s is n o t n e c e s s ary . See U nited States v. Martinez , 430 F.3d 317, 330 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (q u o t i n g Un ite d S

tat es v . A v e ry , 128 F.3d 966, 970-71 (6th Cir. 1997)). I nstead, “ [t ]he ex istence of a conspira cy

‘may b e i n fe rr ed from cir cumstantial evidenc e that ca n rea sonably

be interpr eted a s participation in the common plan.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Av e ry , 128 F. 3 d at 9 7 1 ). Addit ionally , “a defe ndant’s knowledg e of a nd participation in a con spiracy may be infe rre d from his conduc t and established by

circ umstantial evidence .” Id. (q u o t i n g United States v. Salgado , 250 F.3d 438, 447 (6th Cir. 2001)).
The e x istence of

a drug -distribution ag ree ment among OMC members is evidenc ed by the fa c t th a t th e y

bo ug ht a nd so ld d ru g s f ro m ea c h othe r, a s w e ll a s b y the fa c t th at th e OM C le a de rs hip regulated it s members’ drug -dea ling activities and considered “taxi ng ” their profits to support the org anization. Keeler ’s ac t i o n s as president of the For t Way ne OMC cha

pter de monstrate that he kn ow ing ly

and int e nti on a lly

joi ne d th is c on sp ir a c y

and pa rt ic ipate d in

it. He pe rs on a lly

e ng a g e d in dr ugtr ans a c tio ns wi th at le a st two OM C memb e rs — He dg e s and Watkin s — and pla y e d a ro le in setting dr ug -dea ling policies f

or his chapte r an d t h e entire O MC org anization. Moreover , the
e vid e nc e ind ic a te s th a t K e e ler and ot her me mbe rs dis c us se d u sin g pr oc e e ds fr om d ru g de a lin g toNo. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

Although Watkins’s status as a Gove rnment ag ent pre vents his drug -re lated conve rsations 1 wi th K e e le r a

nd his dr ugtr ans act io n wi th Ke e le r f ro m be ingus e d to pr ov e that th e re wa s a conspir a c y s o le ly b e tw e e n K e e le r an d Watk in s , b o th th e tr an s a c ti o n an d th e c o n v e r s a ti o n s can be - 6 - fi na nc e the a c tiv iti e s o f t

he F or t Way ne c ha pte r. He als o tr a ve le d to F lor ida wi th o the r O MC members to mee t with their supplier of methamphetamine. I n light of a ll of this evidence, K eele r’s
su ff ic ie nc y -o f- the -e vid e nc e arg ume nt mus t fa il be c a

us e the re is en ou g h pro of fo r a ratio na l jury

to be convinced of Keele r’s guilt bey ond a re asonable doubt. Se e J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Kee ler disputes this c onclusion. He corr ectly points out t hat a c onspiracy char g e ca nnot be proven solely

on the basis of a

n ag ree ment betwee n a def endant a nd a Gov ernment ag ent since Gover nment ag ents ca

nnot count as co- conspirator s. See United States v. W illiams , 274 F.3d 1079, 1 0 8 4 (6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) (c i t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . P e nn e ll , 737 F.2d 521, 536 ( 6th Cir. 1984)). On the basis of this rule , he argues that his c onviction must be overturne d beca use the Gover

nment did not prove that he made dr

ug sales to any one other than Gary Watkins, who was actingas a G overnme nt ag ent at the time. The re a re two problems wit h this argument. First, it define s the conspira cy too
narr owly . The e vidence s h o ws t h at the ag ree ment to distribute drug s exi sted among Kee ler a nd many other OMC me mbers, not me rely betwee n Kee ler and Watkins. The f act that Ke eler

was pa rt of a larg e r OMC dru g co ns pira c y that w e nt b e y on d h im a nd Watkin s is e vid e nc e d b y his participati o n i n t h e makingof OMC drugpolicies, his trip to Florida to meet with OMC drug suppliers, his acquisition of drugs fr om Danny Hedg es, his conver sations with W atkins pertaining to p la c inga

“ ta x” on the dr

ugpr of its of OM C me mbe rs , a

nd e ve n b y his sa le of

dr ug s to Watkin s. 1No. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

considere d as evidenc e of a conspirac y among Kee ler and other individuals. S ee Un i t ed States v. Hayde n , 6 8 F. Ap p ’x 5 3 0 , 5 3 2 (6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Esparsen , 930 F.2d 1461, 14 72 n. 11 (1 0th

Cir . 1 99 1) ; United States v. Elledge , 723 F.2d 864, 866 ( 11th Cir. 1984)). - 7 - I n short, this evidence shows that an ag ree ment to distribute drug s exis ted among Kee ler a nd many other OMC members. Be cause there is no evidence that these other members we re a lso Government
a g e nts , it is i mmate ri a l th a t K e e le r’ s o nly sa le of dr ug s w a s ma de to Watki ns . The sec ond fault in Kee ler’s a rg ument is that it assumes that proof of a drug sale is nec essar

y to prove a

n ag ree ment to distribu t e d ru gs . P roof of an ag ree ment to commit an offense does not require proof that the of fense was a ctually

com m i t t ed
. I n order

to prove the e x istence of an
a g re e me nt t o d istri bu te dr ug s, the Go ve rnme nt n e e d n ot p ro ve tha t K e e le r d istri bu te d a

ny dr ug s,
muc h les s th at he d istri bu te d d ru g s to ind ivi du a ls o the r t ha n Watki ns . Pr oo f o f t

he a g re e me nt t o distribute drug s does not require evidenc e of more than a tac it understanding among the par ties. See Martinez , 4 3 0 F. 3 d at 3 3 0 (q u o t i n g Av e ry , 128 F.3d at 970-71). This threshold was r eac hed — and surpassed — he re.
II.
Ke e le r’ s b a se of

fe ns e le ve l w a s c or

re c tly de te rm ine d to be 30
. W he n a n in div idu a l is convicted of

a RI CO offe nse, hi s base offense level is the gre ater of 19 or the hig hest offe nse leve l applicable to the underlying r acke teer ing a ctivities. See U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1( a). I n this case, ther e we re three separ ate r acke teer ing a ctivities underlying Kee ler’s substantive RI CO offe nse — conspira cy to dis tr ibute dr

ug s, us e of a c omm

un ic a tio n fa c ili ty in the dis tr ibutio n of dr ug s, and tampe ri ngwi thNo. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

Kee ler a lso claims that the district court should not have c onsidered a ny offen s e level 2 attributable to the drugcon s p i ra cy b ecause ther e wa s not sufficient evide nce to pr ove that he w as g uilty of the drug conspirac y char g e. This issue need not be addre ssed beca use, as discussed in the previous section, there is ple nty of evidenc e to suppor t a finding of g uilt on Kee ler’s dr ug conspirac y char g e. - 8 - a wi tne ss, vic tim , o r a

n in fo rm ant. I n s uc h s itu a tio ns , th e dis tr ic t court mus t use the hig he st o ff e ns e level among the multipl e rac ketee ring acts. See U. S.S. G. § 1 B 1. 1, Com me nta ry , App lic a tio n N ote 5. There fore, b ec au s e the highest off ense le vel amongthe three was the 30 that the Guidelines provided for

the drugconspirac y , the di s t ri ct co urt corr ectly set Kee ler’s ba se off

ense le vel at 30 instead of 19.
Ke e le r c la ims that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in de te rm ini ngthat th e Gu ide lin e s p ro vid e d a ba se offe nse leve l of 30 for the drug conspirac y , but he is wrong. I n ca s es l ike Kee ler’s, w here the 2 offe nse of c onviction does not establish that death or serious bodily injury resulted f rom the use of the controlled substanc e at i s s u e, t he off ense le vel applica

ble to a drugoffe nse is deter mined
acc ording to the quantity

of drug s involved. See U.S .S.G. § 2D1.1(a) (3). A ba se off ense le vel of 30 corr esponds to a quantity of methamphetamine of at least 350 g rams but le ss tha n 500 g rams. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)( 5). The district court applied thi s offe nse leve l based on its finding that Kee ler
wa s r e sp on sib le fo r u

p to 50 0 g ra

ms o f m e tha

mph e tamin e . T his fi nd ingc ann ot b e re ve rs e d unle ss it is shown to be clear ly

err oneous, see United States v. W ittingen , 519 F.3d 633, 637 (6th Cir. 2008) (q u o t i n g Un ite d Stat es v. Gale , 4 68 F .3 d 9 29 , 9 34 (6 th C ir . 2 00 6) ), and Ke e le r h a s n ot m e t th is standard. He contends that the district c ourt could not ha ve found him re sponsible for more than the 46.7 g rams of methamphetamine that he sold to Gary Watkins because that was the only amount thatNo. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

- 9 - he wa s proven to have sold. This ar gu m en t , howeve r, ig nores the r ule that “a

defe ndant may

be sentenc ed base d upon quantities of drug s at t ri b u t ab le to other membe rs of a conspirac y , provided the dis tr ic t c ourt

fi nd s th a t th os e qu anti tie s w e re kn ow n to th e de fe nd ant o r w e re re a so na bly fore seea ble t o h im.” United States v. J ennings , 8 3 F. 3 d

1 4 5 , 1 5 0 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g United Sta te s v . M os s , 9 F .3 d 5 43 , 5 52 (6 th C ir . 1 99 3) ). Gi ve n h is l e ve l of inv olv e me nt i n th e OM C
na rc oti c s c on sp ir a c y , it is e a sy to c on c lud e that th e qu anti ty of dr ug s in vo lve d in

oth e r O MC members’ transac tions was known to K eele r or at least re asonably fore seea ble to him. Theref

ore, the district court a

ppropriate ly

sentenc ed Ke eler

based on the quantities of drug s distributed by other
m e mb e r s o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y.
After setting K eele r’s base offe nse leve l at 30, the district court prope rly enhanc ed it to 34 beca use there was suff

icient evidenc e to find by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that he had be en “an or g anizer or lea der of a cr iminal activity

that involved five or mor e participa nts .
. . .” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1( a). K eele r admit s that he was president of the Ft. Way

ne OMC cha

pter, but he c ontends that he wa s merely

a figurehe ad who ha d no rea l authority or lea dership role . The e vidence indicates otherwise. I

n dete rm i n i ng whether

the § 3B 1.1(a) enhanc ement applies, this cour t considers the fo llo wi ngfa c tor s:
the exercise of

decision makingauthority , the nature of par ticipation in the commission of the offe nse, the re cruitment of a ccomplice s, the claim ed rig ht to a larg er sha re of the fruits of the c ri m e, t h e d egree of pa rticipation in planning or org anizing the offense , the nature and scope of t he il leg al activity , and the de g ree of c on tr ol a nd a uth or ity e xer c ise d o ve r o the rs .No. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

- 10 - United States v. He rnandez , 227 F.3d 686, 699-700 (6th Cir. 2000) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a ), Commentary , Applicat ion Note 4). Taking the se fa ctors into acc ount, the enhanc ement wa s
w ar r an t e d i nt h i s c a s e b e c a

u s e t h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a tK e e l e r e x e r c i s e d d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a

u t h o r i t y, pa rt ic ipate d in plann ing the OM C’ s cr imi na l ac tiv iti e s, and e xer c ise d sig nif ic ant co ntr ol o ve r o the rs . For instance, his lea dership role is demonstrated by his statement that “As long as Fo rt Way ne’s g oing, a nd I ’m the bos s here [,] [t he OMC Ft. Way ne member s are ] allowed to do what the F they want.” T he fa ct that he attended OMC bosses mee tings a nd helped se t OMC drug -distribution po lic ie s a lso ind icates th at he wa s a le a de r i n th e or g anizatio n. F ina lly , h is l e a de rs hip po sit ion is
e videnced by the f

a c t th a t he or de re d G ary

Watkin s a

nd Da n H e dg e s to take vo ic e str e ss t e sts to prove that they wer e not cooper ating with the Government. Kee ler would not have had such c ontrol over othe rs had he not been a leade r or or g anizer of the O MC criminal enterpr ise.
Aside fr om the question of whether t h er e wa s sufficient e vidence to apply the manag eria l enhanc ement, Ke eler

also argues that the e nhance ment was improper ly applied beca use the district
c ourt ’s ru lin g on

his ob je c tio n to the e nh anc e me nt d id n ot c omp ly wi th the re qu ir e me nts of Rul e 32 (i )( 3) (B ) of the F e de ra l Rule s of Cri min a l Proc e dure . Rul e 32 (i )( 3) (B ) say s tha t a dis tr ic t c ourt , at sentenc ing, “ must — for any disputed portion of the pre sentenc e re port or other controve rted
ma tte r — rul e on the dis pu te or de te rm ine that a ruli ng is unn e c e ssa ry e ith e r be c a

us e the ma tte r w ill
no t a ff e c t se nte nc ing , or be c a

us e the c ourt wi ll not c on sid e r the ma tte r in se nte nc ing .” F e d. R. C ri m. P. 3 2( i) (3 )( B ). Ke e le r c la ims tha t th e dis tr ic t c ourt

fe ll s ho rt of its du ty to com pl y wi th t

his ru le beca use it failed to make fac tual finding s on the question of leade rship. This c ontention, however ,No. 04-4476

United States v. Kee ler

- 11 - ignor es the fa ct t hat t he dis trict court did make factua l finding s on that issue when it stated that “the evidence wh i ch I h ea rd at trial de monstrated beyond a re asonable doubt that Mr. Kee ler wa s an org anizer and le ader

. . . .” Although brief, this statement i s a sufficient ruling on Kee ler’s obje ction. I t satisfies this court’s require ment of “lit era l compliance ” with Rule 32(i)(3) (B ) because it shows that the district court a ctually found fa cts by

at least a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e rather than blindly embra cing the pre sentenc e re port. Se e Un ite d S tat es v . W hit e , 492 F.3d 380, 415-16 (6th Cir. 2007). Finally , this court cannot a ddress Ke eler ’s ar g ument that he was entitled to a depa rture ba sed on imperfe ct entra

pment. This c ourt lacks the authority to r eview a district c ourt’s re fusal to g rant a depa rture unle ss the district cour t m i s t ak en l y b elieved that it lacked the a uthority to do so. See Un ite d S tat es v . P uc k

e tt , 4 2 2 F. 3 d 3 4 0 , 3 4 5 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . S te war t , 306 F.3d 295, 329 (6th Cir. 2002)). In this c ase, the district c ourt denied the depa rture be cause it found that the e vid e nc e “ be lie s e ntr a pme nt, ” no t be c a

us e it w a s und e r t

he imp re ssi on

that it la c ke d a uth or ity to gr ant the depa

rture.
III . For the fore g oing r easons, Ke eler ’s convictions and se ntence are AFF I RMED.