Opinion ID: 2975082
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ernest Miller’s Apprendi Claim

Text: For his fifth assignment of error, Ernest Miller asks: “When the prosecution fails to prove specificity as to drug amounts and firearm possession, does Apprendi require a new jury trial?” Nowhere in this section of his brief does Miller mention his sentence. The Government responds to this argument as if it were only a claim that Miller’s sentence was wrongly calculated. Whatever the nature of this claim, it is without merit. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), held, as indeed, Ernest Miller’s brief correctly quotes: Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 490. Miller points to no authority, and we are aware of none, that even implies that Apprendi entitles a defendant to a new trial when the jury has not made specific findings with regard to facts that would affect the sentence. Rather, that case requires, as we have repeatedly held, that “where drug quantity is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant’s sentence cannot exceed the 22 statutory range set forth in § 841(b)(1)(C).” United States v. Copeland, 321 F.3d 582, 603 (6th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). Miller is not entitled to a new trial, the only relief he asks for with regard to this claim. This assignment of error is frivolous. J. Richard Ramsey’s Sentence Richard Ramsey appeals the reasonableness of his sentence under United States v. Booker. He asserts that “the district court only considered the Guideline calculations and made only a cosmetic reference to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in fashioning a sentence and failed to indicate that it was considering any of the other factors listed . . . as required by Booker.” The district court found that Ramsey’s base offense level was 32 and his Criminal History Category was VI. Ramsey’s counsel did not object to the calculation at sentencing. The advisory Sentencing Guideline range was 210 to 262 months. After considerable discussion of Ramsey’s extensive criminal history, and after considering the Government’s request that the court impose the highest possible sentence, the court sentenced Ramsey to 210 months on Counts 1 and 10, and 120 months on Count 11, to run concurrently. This sentence is at the low end of the Guideline range. The court explained that it had arrived at this sentence after considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the advisory nature of the guidelines, and the other factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and was satisfied that this sentence “will afford adequate deterrence and provide just punishment.” In United States v. Williams, we made clear that a sentence within the properly calculated guideline range is credited with “a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). Williams provides that although the sentencing judge must consider the list of sentencing factors articulated in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), “[s]uch consideration 23 . . . need not be evidenced explicitly . . . .” Id. Here, Ramsey “fails to point to any indication that the district court ignored those factors.” Id. Likewise, as in Williams, Ramsey “identifies no factor from § 3553(a) that would render his sentence unreasonable; instead he asks the court to conclude that the district court’s failure to explicitly discuss each factor rendered his sentence unreasonable.” Id. As we have explained, “a sentence that falls within the advisory Guidelines range is given ‘a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness.’” United States v. Ward, 447 F.3d 869, 871 (6th Cir. 2006). While we have recognized that “[t]his rebuttable presumption does not relieve the sentencing court of its obligation to explain to the parties and the reviewing court its reasons for imposing a particular sentence,” United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 553-54 (6th Cir. 2006), we have also held that a district court “need not recite these [§ 3553(a) ] factors but must articulate its reasoning in deciding to impose a sentence in order to allow for reasonable appellate review.” United States v. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621, 626 (6th Cir. 2005). The court in this case expressly indicated that it considered the appropriate factors before issuing a sentence that enjoys a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. Ramsey has provided no insight into his claim that his sentence is unreasonable; nor has he intimated which sentencing factor mitigates against the sentence imposed. We reject this claim of error. K. Mary Miller’s Sentence Mary Miller appeals her sentence, arguing that the district court placed undue weight on the advisory Guidelines range by using it as a starting point for sentencing. This claim is without merit. As we have discussed relative to Richard Ramsey’s sentencing claim, the sentencing court must demonstrate its consideration of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, but it need not recite those 24 factors or explain its reasoning in applying those factors to the defendant’s conduct. Here, Ms. Miller’s counsel set out the particular circumstances that she wanted the court to consider, and indicated that those were more fully explained in her sentencing memorandum. The district judge advised Ms. Miller’s counsel that he had considered her sentencing memorandum, which he considered to be excellent, and had made it part of the record. The court then stated that it “has considered the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant and the advisory guideline range, as well as the other factors set forth in Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” The Presentence Report calculated a base offense level of 24 and a Criminal History Category II. The Guideline range for these levels is 57 to 71 months, with a statutory consecutive sentence of 60 months for the firearm conviction. The court sentenced Mary Miller to a term of 37 months on the drug-related charges, and 60 months on the firearms charge to run consecutively, for a total sentence of 97 months. The court departed downward from the Guidelines, but indicated its belief “that this sentence will afford adequate deterrence and provide just punishment.” Miller argues that her sentence is unreasonable because the court relied on the Guidelines as a starting point for its consideration. We rejected this argument in United States v. Cage, 458 F.3d 537, 543 (6th Cir. 2006), in which we held that “the district court did not err in viewing the Guidelines as a presumptively reasonable starting point and ‘considering the Sentencing Guidelines and the Guideline ranges before the court does anything else.’” (Citation omitted). In this case, the record indicates that the district court considered the Guidelines, the sentencing factors, and the interests of justice. We find that the district court adequately considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, and imposed a reasonable sentence. 25