Opinion ID: 2975557
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Keller’s Sentence

Text: In Keller’s case, the advisory Guidelines yielded a sentencing range of 168 to 210 months of imprisonment. The district court, however, granted Keller a downward variance, sentencing him to 120 months. Keller argues on appeal that (1) his sentence is procedurally unreasonable, (2) the district court improperly refused to consider his argument regarding the calculation of losses attributable to his conduct, and (3) his sentence is substantively unreasonable. 1. The Procedural Reasonableness of Keller’s Sentence Keller claims that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court gave no indication that it considered the arguments he made for a lower sentence, including “(1) disparity, (2) sale of contestable policies, (3) viatication helped people, (4) age and first offender status, (5) productive life, (6) supportive family, (7) consecutive sentence, and (8) restitution.” (Keller’s Br. 6-7.) Keller provides no explanation whatsoever as to what these issues mean or what he said about them at his sentencing hearing that the district court ignored. We think that it would be proper to conclude that Keller has waived his procedural-reasonableness challenge by his failure to adequately present it to this Court. United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832, 846 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[I]t is a settled appellate rule that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived.”), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 48 (2006). However, because the record enables us to assess independently whether the district court sufficiently considered the § 3553(a) factors and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence it imposed, we will proceed to the merits of Keller’s procedural-reasonableness challenge. The record shows that the district court explicitly took account of Keller’s “productive life” and “supportive family” and treated these as bases for its downward variance. The court stated that Keller “is a good family man, he is well-liked by a lot of people” and that Keller “is a hard worker, he’s bright, articulate.” (JA 1301.) Moreover, the court entertained extensive argument from Keller’s counsel on the need to impose a sentence that would not be disparate relative to Sutherlin’s sentence, on how Keller’s status as a first-time offender warranted a reduced sentence, and on how Keller paid more than $600,000 in restitution, even though he had not done so voluntarily. The court also heard the testimony of witness Gary Johnson, who described how Keller’s purchase of his two life-insurance policies enabled Johnson to improve substantially his economic condition. We have previously stated that “[w]here a defendant raises a particular argument in seeking a lower sentence, the record must reflect both that the district judge considered the defendant’s argument and that the judge explained the basis for rejecting it.” United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2006). The purpose of requiring the district court to articulate its reasons for the sentence it imposes is to “enable this court to engage in a meaningful reasonableness review of the sentence.” United States v. Jones, 445 F.3d 865, 871 (6th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 251 (2006). However, we have also held that district courts need not explicitly address every argument a defendant raises at sentencing, no matter how non-meritorious or unsupported. See e.g., id. at 871 (concluding that a sentence is not unreasonable “whenever a district judge does not explicitly address every defense argument”); United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006) (“A sentencing judge has no more duty than we appellate judges do to discuss every argument made by a litigant; arguments clearly without merit can, and for the sake of judicial economy should, be passed over in silence.”) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3065 (2007). Nos. 05-6562/6725 United States v. Keller, et al. Page 10 As described above, the record shows that the district court did consider several of the factors that Keller contends it did not, including Keller’s age and first-offender status, the productive life he has led, and his supportive family. As to certain of the other issues Keller raises, we conclude that the district court was under no obligation to specifically address them. For instance, it borders on the frivolous to suggest that the district court should have explained why Keller was not entitled to a lower sentence on the grounds that “viatication helped people” (assuming that this refers to Johnson’s testimony about how Keller’s purchase of his policies enabled him to regain his financial footing), when Keller had been convicted for engaging in fraudulent viatication practices that resulted in tens of millions in losses. Similarly, there would have been no point to the court discussing “restitution” as grounds for a further variance where the record is clear that Keller had not willingly paid anything in restitution, and that the $600,000 of Keller’s assets that was applied toward his restitution obligation was done so only because the Government seized that money when Keller fled the country. To be sure, although the district court’s statements at sentencing suggested reasons why Keller did not merit as steep a variance as Sutherlin, it would have been appropriate for the court to directly explain why Keller’s sentence is not disparate to that imposed on Sutherlin. As Keller points out, after his and Sutherlin’s initial sentencing hearings, there was only a 17-month gap in their respective prison terms, but after they had been re-sentenced, there was an 84-month gap, without any changes in the operative facts underlying their criminal conduct. We are not persuaded that the district court’s failure to expressly address on the record Keller’s disparity argument renders Keller’s sentence procedurally unreasonable. We have repeatedly intoned that “a district court need not provide ‘a rote listing or some other ritualistic incantation of the relevant § 3553(a) factors.’” United States v. McGee, __ F.3d __, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 16385,  (6th Cir. July 11, 2007); see also Rita v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 168 L. Ed. at 219 (acknowledging that