Opinion ID: 181203
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the District Court Was Aware of Its Ability to Vary from the Guidelines.

Text: At the sentencing hearing, the district court gave both parties an opportunity to object to any part of the sentence. Johnson objected to everything. Because Johnson objected broadly to all aspects of his sentence without making any particular objections, his claims on appeal regarding procedural sentencing errors are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348, 358 (6th Cir.2009) (holding that plain error review is required where a party answers the [ United States v. ] Bostic [, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir.2004)] question in the affirmative, but at such a high degree of generality that the district court has no opportunity to correct its purported error and the court of appeals has been deprived of a more detailed record to review). A finding of plain error requires a defendant to show (1) error (2) that `was obvious or clear,' (3) that `affected defendant's substantial rights' and (4) that `affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.' United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting United States v. Gardiner, 463 F.3d 445, 459 (6th Cir.2006)). The bar for plain error is extremely high and overcome `[o]nly in exceptional circumstances' when `the error is so plain that the trial judge ... was derelict in countenancing it.' Id. (quoting Gardiner, 463 F.3d at 459). Regarding Johnson's crack cocaine claim, the district court did not commit plain error. In fact, that Johnson even makes this claim on appeal is bizarre because he was not convicted of, or sentenced for, a crack cocaine offense. Indeed, he was acquitted of that charge and the only drug charge of which he was convicted was possession of powder cocaine. Turning to Johnson's claim regarding his base offense level as a felon in possession of a firearm, he has not cleared the extremely high hurdle of plain error review. The district court held a lengthy sentencing hearing, was familiar with Johnson's background, discussed the need to deter Johnson from any further criminal behavior, and talked about the seriousness of Johnson's criminal history. Therefore, there is no obvious and clear error in Johnson's sentence. Accordingly, the district court did not commit plain error when sentencing Johnson.
Based on the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the holdings of the district court.