Opinion ID: 2982342
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedurally Unreasonable

Text: A sentencing court will be found to have abused its discretion and imposed a procedurally unreasonable sentence if it miscalculated the applicable guidelines range, failed to -7- Case No. 13-1923 United States v. Henry consider the § 3553(a) factors, or based the sentence on clearly erroneous facts. United States v. Adkins, 729 F.3d 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2013). Here, the district court determined Henry’s offense level to be 32 because the offense involved an equivalent of more than 1,000 but less than 3,000 kilograms of marijuana. Criminal history category II was applied because Henry had two prior convictions: one for larceny in 2002 and one for operating a motor vehicle while impaired in 2012. The resulting advisory guidelines range was 135 to 168 months. During sentencing, Henry argued the amount of drugs attributed to her overstated her actual culpability because she was not involved in the first year of the conspiracy and Martel Collins controlled the amount of drugs she sold. She argued that she was entitled to an offenselevel reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 for her relatively minor role in the charged conspiracy. The court dismissed the argument, finding that the drug-quantity calculation, based on drug trafficking during a five-week period well within the time of Henry’s involvement, was adequately supported. The court refused to grant Henry’s request for a minor-role reduction because the trial proofs conclusively showed that Henry was “much more involved” than the defense acknowledged. A role reduction may be granted to a defendant who plays a minor or minimal role. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. We review a district court’s denial of a role reduction for clear error. United States v. Lanham, 617 F.3d 873, 888 (6th Cir. 2010). “The salient issue is the role the defendant played in relation to the activity for which the court held him or her accountable.” United States v. Salgado, 250 F.3d 438, 458 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. Roper, 135 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 1998)). The district court’s factual assessment of the extent of Henry’s involvement has not been shown to be clearly erroneous. The court stated that “the testimony in this particular matter at -8- Case No. 13-1923 United States v. Henry listening to it showed that she was much more involved than just his girlfriend or his person to hand somebody something.” R. 246, Sent. Tr. at 4, Page ID 1655. Henry’s participation was more than minor or minimal. Henry sold drugs, picked up drugs, referred clients to other houses, and profited from drug sales. There was considerable evidence justifying the court’s denial of the role reduction and the sentence has not been shown to be procedurally unreasonable on this ground.