Opinion ID: 2974955
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of review and summary of issues

Text: Sullivan raises three issues in this appeal. The first two are challenges to the district court’s determination as to which of Sullivan’s prior offenses qualify as predicate offenses under the ACCA. He first argues that the district court erred by using two of his prior burglary convictions as predicate offenses to classify him as an armed career criminal. Second, Sullivan claims that the use of his prior drug conviction as a ACCA predicate offense was erroneous. We review both of these issues de novo. See United States v. Hargrove, 416 F.3d 486, 494 (6th Cir. 2006) (“This Court reviews a district court’s conclusion that a crime constitutes a violent felony under the ACCA or a crime of violence under the ACCA’s parallel provision in the Guidelines de novo.”). The third and final issue raised by Sullivan is whether the sentence imposed by the district court is unreasonable under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Reasonableness review in this circuit has “both substantive and procedural components.” United States v. Jones, 445 F.3d 865, 869 (6th Cir. 2006). Procedural unreasonableness arises where “the district judge fails to ‘consider’ the applicable Guidelines range or neglects to ‘consider’ the other factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and instead simply selects what the judge deems an appropriate sentence without such required consideration.” United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005) (footnote omitted). “A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 248 (6th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and brackets omitted). -3- No. 06-5110 United States v. Sullivan