The Honor able Ka rl S. Fore ster, United States Distr i ct J udg e for the Easter

n District of * Kentucky , 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 File Na me: 07a0512n.06 Filed: Jul y

19, 2007 No. 06-2159 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, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. DO NN I E D . Y OU

NG ER, Defendan t-Appellant.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM 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: M OORE an d GILMAN, C ircuit Judges, and F OREST ER, District Judge. * KA REN NELSO N M O O RE, Circuit Judge. Def endant- Appellant Donnie D . Young er (“Y oung er” ) appe als the sentenc e imposed upon the revoc ation of his probation, on the g round that it is subs tantively

unrea sonable. F or the re asons set for th below, we AF F IRM the sentenc e. I. BACKG ROUND Young er w as c o n v i ct ed of mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1709 and sentenc ed on September 28, 2005 to a two-y ear term of probation, including six ty day s’ home conf

inement, and

or de re d to pa

y a sp e c ia l a sse ssm e nt of $1 00
. Th e c on dit ion s of his pr ob a tio n r e qu ir e d Y oung e r t o ref rain fr om using c ontro l led substance s, submit t o periodic dr ug testing, a

nd, if requir ed by

the probation depa

rtment, participate in a substance -abuse prog ram. Young er subse quently tested2

positive for coc aine on se vera l urine tests, and accor dingly , on Dec ember 22, 2005, in acc ordanc e with the parties’ joint motion, the di strict court im posed an additional condition requiring Young er to r e sid e a t a

c omm un ity c or re c tio ns cent er fo r 1 20 da y s a nd pa rt ic ipate in s ub sta

nc e -a bu se counselingthere

. On J une 22, 2006, af

ter c ompleting the c ounseling prog ra m , Young er onc e ag ain tested p o s i t ive for c ocaine . The district cour t issued a war

rant for his arre st on J uly

19, 2006, and, on Aug ust 9, 2006, ordere d him held without bond pending r evocation of his probation. On Aug ust 22, 2006, the district court he ld a re vocation hear ing, at which def ense c ounsel reque sted that Young er be sente nced to a

term of imprisonment of fif teen da y s, which was the amount of time he ha d alre ady

serve d while awa iting the hear ing, despite the fac t that the advisory Guidelines ra

ng e for Young er’ s vio la tio n w a s si x to twe lve mon ths . Coun se l f or the Un ite d St a te s r e qu e ste d a n u pw ard va ri anc e to a sente nce of twenty -one months’ imprisonment, which would re nder Y oung er e ligible f or custodial

su bs tanc e -a bu se tr e a tme nt. At the conc lu s i on of the he aring , the district court found Y oung er to have violated the

c on dit ion s o f h is r e le a se , r e vo ke d h is p ro batio n, and se nte nced himto t

we nty -o ne mon ths ’ i mp r i s o n m e n t , t w o y e ar s o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e s u

b j e c tt o v ar i o u s c o n d i t i o n s , an d c o s t s . In pr on ounc ingthe se nte nc e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt state d it s r e a so nin g , a s f

oll ow s: [I ]t seems to me that y ou could benef it f rom a long[-]term inpatient substance abuse tre atment prog ram. Now in order to g et t hat for y ou, it’s require d that there be a min imum c us tod

y te rm of 21 mon ths . A nd

—s o th a t y ou ’d

be e lig ibl e to p art ic ipate in t he pr iso n s y ste m’ s 5 00 [-]h our c om preh ensive dr ugtr e a tme nt p ro g ra

m. A nd it seems to me that that’s appropriate in y our situation give n y our . . . drugproblem here

. Acc ording ly , . . . t h e s entenc e imposed by the Court on this matter on y our conviction of violating y our condi tion of probation, and I do find that y ou haveThe relevant Sentenc ing Guidelines policy statement treats probation revoc ation and 1 revoc ation of supervised rele ase identically

. See U. S. S EN TENC I NG G U I D ELI N ES M ANUAL §§ 7B1.3, 7B 1. 4 ( 20 04 ); se e als o United States v. Y opp , 453 F.3d 770, 773 n.3 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (“The Chapter Seven policy

statements ar e used during a s upervised relea se revocation hearingin a manner simil ar to the advisory

Guidelines at sente ncing .”). 3 violated. You ar e guilty by y our ow n admission of violating your condition of probation. Under those circ umstances it’s the judgme nt of this Court that y our probation status is revoked a

nd pursuant to the Sentenc ing Re form Ac t of 1984, it’s the judgme nt of this Court that y ou’ll be committed to the custody of the United States B ur e a u o f P ri so ns fo r a

te rm of 21 mon ths

. A se nte nc e in thi s c a se a

bo ve the su g g e ste d guid e lin e imp ri so nme nt r ang e is being imposed beca

use it would make you elig ible to participate in the 500[-] hour compre hensive drugtreatment prog ram. I f I sentenc e y ou within the guide line rang e, then y ou wouldn’t be elig ible for that pr og ram a nd Ithink y ou need that prog ram quite fra nkly . Ialso strong ly

rec ommend that y o u b e d esig nated to ser ve y our sentenc e in a fac ility in w hich y ou can participate in the 500[-] hour compre hensive dr ugtr e a tme nt p ro g ra

m. Joint Ap pe nd ix (“ J.A. ” ) at 50 -5 1 ( Re vo c a tio n H r’ g Tr . at 28 -2 9) . Y oung e r n owa pp e a ls. II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review Prior to the United States Supreme Court’s de cision in United States v. Book er , 543 U.S. 220 (2 00 5) , w e re vie we d s e nte nc e s im po se d d ur ingre vo c a tio ns of

su pervi se d r e le a se fo r “ pla in

unrea sonablene ss.” United States v. Mc Clellan , 164 F.3d 308, 309 ( 6th Cir. 1999) (“We will aff irm a district cour

t’s sentenc e of imprisonm en t u p on revoc ation of super vised rele ase if it shows

1

c on sid e ratio n o f t

he re le va nt s tatut or

y fa c tor s and is not

pla inl y unre a so na

ble .” ). As we no te d la st y ear in Un ite d S

tates v . S oto , h ow e ve r, many

of our s ist e r c ir c uit s h a ve sin c e c on c lud e d th a t Booke r repla ced that standard with one of “r ea s o n ab l en ess.” 189 F . App’x 470, 471 n.2 (6th Ci r. 2006) (collec ting cases)

. I n this case, a s in So to , we decline to de termine whe ther Booke r dictates a new4

standard, be cause we c onclude that t h e sentenc e imposed by the district court is re asonable under either f ormulation. Id. The Supreme Court rec ently cl ar i fi ed the manne r in which we are to reviewsentenc es for

s u b s ta n ti v e r e a s o n a

b le n e s s u nder B o oker . I n Rita v. United States , the Court held that we ma y choose to a

pply a presumption of re asonable ness to a within-Guidelines se ntence . 127 S. Ct . 2456, 2462 (2007). The Ri ta Court rea soned that such a sentence re fl ec t s t he ag ree ment of both the SentencingCommi ssion a n d the district judge as to the appr opriate le ng th of incar cer ation for a defe ndant convicte d of a pa rticular c rime. Id. a t 24 64 -6 5. Gi ve n t hat agree me nt, the a pp e llate

“ pr e su mpt ion ” of

re a so na ble ne ss i s akin

to a pr e dic tio n th a t, whe re tw o e xpe rt aut ho ri tie s are in

a g re e me nt, the y

are lik e ly to b e c or re c t. Put another wa

y , “the se ntencingstatutes en v i s i o n both the sentenc ing judg e and the Commi ssion as car

rying out the sa

me basic § 3553( a) o b

j ec t i v es , the one, at retail, the other at wh o l es al e.” Id. a t 2 4 6 3
. T h e Co mm is s io n , in e s ta b li s h in g th e g e n e r a ll y

a p p li c a b le , “ w h o le s a le ” Guidelines, is presc ribing what it believes to be the appropr iate sentenc e for what mig ht be ca lled a ty pical off ender , with a par

ticular set of ch ara cter istics, convicted of a particula r cr ime. The

se nte nc ingjud g e the n ma ke s th e “ re ta il” de te rm inatio n whe the r an ind ivi du a l def e nd ant i s ty

pic a l. Viewe d in this l ight, the a ppellate “ presumption” o f s u b stantive rea sonablene ss is sim ply our acknow ledg ment of this cong ruenc e. I n this case, the se ntence imposed by the district court is g reater than the Guidelines maxi mum and is not, ther efor e, entitled to a ny appellate presumption of rea sonablene ss. As the Ri ta Court took car e to note, howe ver, no f eder al appe llate cour

t has eve r held, nor did e ither par ty in Ri ta
ar g u e , th a tn o n - G u i d e l i n e s s e n t e n c e s ar e p r e s u mp t i v e l y un rea sonable. Id. at 2467. Indeed, w e have5

held that no pre sumption of any kind attache s to non-Guidelines sentenc es. United States v. Foreman , 436 F.3d 638, 644 ( 6th Cir. 2006). B. Youn ger’ s Sentence I n arguing that the district court’s upw ard va rianc e wa s substantively

unrea sonable, Young er relies he avily

upon our opinion in United States v. Y opp , 453 F.3d 770 ( 6th Cir. 2006). The district court in Y opp pr e mis e d its sen te nc ing de c isi on up on the de fe nd ant’ s nee d to par tic ipate in the same 500-hour dr

ug treatment prog ram at issue here

. Id. at 7 7 2
. T h at cour t had bee n advised by

the probation off

ice that the pr og ram itself was nine months long a nd that three additional months mi g ht be require d for pr epar atory scre ening

. Id. The probation office went on, howe ver, to re commend a twenty -four -month sentence , which the district cour t subsequently

imposed: Mr. Yopp . . . wa s on a downwa rd spiral. He has bot h mental health and substance a bu se pr ob le ms, and

the on ly thi ng that will re sc ue him , in the Cou rt ’s vie w, fr om a dis a ste r i s if he ge ts i n- ho us e tr e a tme nt a nd that c an b e st b e a c c omp lis he d b y him [sic ] g oin g int o th e B ur e a u of Pri so ns ’ 500 -h our pr og ra m. To do that, i t r e qu ir e s a sentenc e of 24 months, ac cording to the probation off icer ’s re commendation. That would g ive him enoug h time to ge t in, have t h e Bu re au assess his condition, and allow for his pa

rticipation in a prog ram. Any t h i n g s h ort of that is a re cipe f or persona l disaster, so the Court will give y ou custody with the Bur eau of Prisons for a te rm of 24 mon ths

. Id. at 772 & n.2 (alter ation in or igina l) (interna l quotation mar ks omitted). Yopp’s counse l objected on the g round that a twelve-month s entenc e would be sufficient to allow Yopp to participate in the prog ram, but the district cour t refuse d to rec onsider its sentence , stating that “there ’s no way it can be done in 12 months.” Id. at 772 (interna l quotation marks omitted).We held the s entenc e procedura lly unrea sonable because the di strict judge failed to c onsider 2 the policy statements set for

th in Chapter Seven of the SentencingGuidelines. 453 F .3d at 772-73. We n ote that Y

opp ’s discussion of substantive rea sonablene ss was linked direc tly to the 3 proce dural proble ms with the district judge ’s s entenc ing. 453 F.3d at 774 (“As we conclude that the district court er

red by not cons i d er ing the policy statements, we ne ed not re ach the question of whether the sentenc e was unrea sonable in lig ht of the statutory fac tors. Neve rtheless, be cause we believe that the sentenc e is a lso substantively unrea sonable, we ther efor e addr ess the ar g ument.”). After discussing the leng th of the sentenc e in Y opp , we c oncluded that the se ntence was g reater than nece ssary in light of the f

actor s discussed by

the district judge

. Id. 6 On appe al, we vac at ed Yopp’ s sentence , which we noted was both proc edura lly and 2 substantively unrea sonable:

3 [T]hat so me dis tr ic t c ourt s mi g ht h a ve sim ply se nte nc e d Yo pp wi th f ar l e ss thought and consideration than the dedicated district judg e below does not rende r the sentenc e re asonable

. The sole purpose of the sentenc e imposed, as ar ticulated by

the dis tr ic t c ourt , w a s for Yo pp to obt a in me nta l hea lthand su bs tanc e a bu se tr e a tme nt. As discussed ea

rlier, the district c ourt stated em p h atically that it was sentenc ing Yopp t o twenty -four

months of imprisonment so t hat he c ould participate in the 500[-] hour drugtreatment prog ram. The period o f twenty -four months, however, was calc ulated by adding the following : thr ee months to desig nate a nd scre en Yopp’ s ne e ds and ni ne mon ths fo r t he a c tua l pr og ra

m. T his , o f c ours e , o nly a dd s u p to tw e lve mon ths . T he pr ob a tio n o ff ic e r a lso re c omm e nd e d th a t Y op p s pe nd six months i n a C ommunity

Correc tions Center, i.e. , a half way house, but the district c ourt rej ecte d th is r e c omm e nd a tio n b y statin g tha

t it did no t be lie ve Yo pp wo uld be ne fi t f ro m su c h a

n e nv ir on me nt. Ev en a dd ingthe se six mo nth s to the c a lc ulatio n, tha t st ill on ly

a dd s u p to eig hteen months. I t is possi ble, of c ourse, that the district c ourt also believe d that additional punishment was nec essar y based on one or more of the sec tion 3553(a) fac tors. Evidence of such r easoning , howeve r, does not appe ar in the r ecor d for our revie w. Id. Ou r conclusion i n Y opp , th e n, wa s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s se nte nc e wa s su bs tanti ve ly

unrea sonable because it did not comport with t he district cour t’s own statement of r easons f or
s el ec t i n g t h e s e n t e n c e an d

w a s t h e r e f

o r e g r e a t e r

t h ann e c e s s ar

y t o a c h i e v e t h e p u r

p o s e s o f s e n t en ci n g. I n this case, howe ver, the rec ord is devoid of any evidenc e or sug g estion that any one disputed the fa ct that—as the district court expressly found—twenty -one months was the minim um sentence7

nece ssary to rende r Yo u n ger eli g ible to participate in the 500-hour tre atment prog ram. J.A. at 50 (Revocation Hr ’g Tr. at 28). We de cline to ove rturn that finding , particula rly on the basis of a r eport made by a probation office r in a diffe rent c ase one y ear ear lier. Even a ssuming that that re port was
acc urate when made , bot h t h e structur e of the drug -treatment prog ram a nd the scre ening and d i a g n o s t i c p r o c e d

u r e s t h a tm u s tp r e c e d e i tm ay h a v e c h an g e d s i g n i f i c an t l y i nt h a tt i m e . A c c o r d i n g l y, beca use the district cour

t’s sentenc e is consistent with its st atement of the fa cts and re asoning underlying its dec ision , we h o l d that the sentenc e does not suff er f rom the flaw s found in Y opp . Un de r t he se c ir c ums tanc e s, we c ann ot s ay that th e tw e nty -o ne -m on th se nte nc e fa ils to c omp ly wi th the re quirement that a

sentenc e be “ sufficie nt, b u t n o t greater than ne cessa ry , to comply

with the purposes” of sentenc ing. 18 U .S.C. § 3553(a). III . C ON CL USI ON F or the re a so ns se t fo rt

h a bo ve , the se nte nc e imp os e d by the dis tr ic t c ourt is AF F IRM ED
.