Opinion ID: 181821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Criminal-History Category

Text: Johnson contends that the district court erred by not departing downward when calculating his criminal-history category. As we explained in our prior decision in Johnson’s case, we normally do “‘not review a district court’s decision not to depart downward unless the record shows that the district court was unaware of, or did not understand, its discretion to make such a departure.’” Johnson, 553 F.3d at 999 (quoting United States v. Santillana, 540 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 469 (2008)). “[W]e presume that the district court understood its discretion, absent clear evidence to the contrary.” Santillana, 540 F.3d at 431. Here, the resentencing transcript reflects the district court’s understanding and exercise of its discretion. The district court found that Category VI accurately reflected Johnson’s “very very substantial” criminal history, which exceeded the minimum required for placement in Category VI. R. 100 (Resentencing Tr. at 31). When determining the likelihood that Johnson would reoffend, the district court emphasized Johnson’s failure to participate in rehabilitation programs in state prison and the number of crimes that were not factored into his criminal history. Id. The district court’s reasoning reveals an understanding of its power to depart from the Guidelines. We will not review its decision to refrain from exercising that power.