Opinion ID: 2977320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: stratman

Text: Stratman argues that he should have received a downward departure from the guideline range or a sentencing variance based on sentencing entrapment or outrageous government conduct. He claims that a government cooperating witness (“CW”), who posed as a former lawyer who could provide assistance to Stratman’s incarcerated partner, induced Stratman to sell larger amounts of drugs than he normally would. Stratman’s argument fails. A district court’s sentencing determinations are reviewed for reasonableness under the abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, __ U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007). We cannot review a district court’s denial of a downward departure unless the court “(1) improperly computed the guideline range; (2) was unaware of its discretion to depart downward from the guideline range; or (3) imposed the sentence in violation of law or as a result of the incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. May, 399 F.3d 817, 827 (6th Cir. 2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Stratman does not allege that any of these exceptions are present. Even if we could review the denial of the downward departure, we have never recognized the theory of sentencing entrapment. See United States v. Gardner, 488 F.3d 700, 716–17 (6th Cir. -4- Nos. 06-4448, 06-4615, 07-3271, 07-3272 United States v. Lebreux, et al. 2007); Sosa v. Jones, 389 F.3d 644, 648–49 (6th Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, the district court explicitly considered Stratman’s theory of sentencing entrapment,5 but found it inapplicable to Stratman’s case because Stratman admitted he was part of the drug conspiracy long before he met the CW, had a central role in the drug enterprise, and sold large amounts of drugs for profit to many people, not just the CW. There is also no indication in the record that Stratman demonstrated any hesitation in supplying the large amounts of crystal methamphetamine to the CW. Further, a review of the district court’s decision to not impose a lower sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) reveals that Stratman’s sentence was reasonable. The district court found sufficient evidence to support its guideline determination and addressed the section 3553(a) factors, but did not sentence Stratman at the bottom of the guideline range because of his serious role in the drug conspiracy, which included the large quantity of drugs he made available to a large number of people in a wide geographic area. Accordingly, the district court imposed a reasonable sentence and did not abuse its discretion in refusing to impose a reduced sentence based on sentencing entrapment, outrageous government conduct, or other similar theories.