Opinion ID: 2975018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: We review a sentence both for procedural and for substantive reasonableness. United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 2006). At oral argument, Burk’s counsel made clear that only substantive reasonableness is at issue in this case. A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court “select[s] the sentence arbitrarily, bas[es] the sentence on impermissible factors, fail[s] to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors or giv[es] an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” Id. (quoting United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 (6th Cir. 2005)). Where “the district court grants a downward departure for substantial assistance and the defendant’s claim on appeal goes only to the extent of the departure, this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal.” United States v. Jones, 417 F.3d 547, 551 (6th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). In Jones, however, we did not foreclose the argument now made by Burk “that the sentence ultimately imposed after any departure is taken into account was unreasonable.” Id. at 551 n.3. Post-Jones, we have made clear that the appropriate 3 No. 06-5817 / 5824 United States v. Burk guideline range, including departures, must still be considered as part of a reasonableness review of the § 3553(a) factors in their totality. See United States v. McBride, 434 F.3d 470, 476-77 (6th Cir. 2006); accord United States v. Carroll, 189 F. App’x 450, 456 (6th Cir. 2006). Burk argues that the sentence imposed was greater than necessary in light of his status as a methamphetamine addict who “did not have the strength to avoid the drug,” his immediate cooperation and acceptance of responsibility, the amount of information he provided to the government, and his “strong and stable family life.” As outlined above, the district court discussed virtually all of the § 3553(a) factors. Specifically pertaining to the arguments now raised by Burk, the court expressly considered Burk’s drug addiction in recommending a treatment program, his family support (as the only stated reason for sentencing at the low end of the guideline range), and his cooperation (by granting a threelevel departure). Although Burk is displeased with the amount of departure, that is an issue within the discretion of the sentencing judge. See Jones, 417 F.3d at 550-51; U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a). Lastly, Burk’s argument that the district court considered an inappropriate 5K1.1 factor - the cumulative nature of his cooperation - is without merit as the list of 5K1.1 factors is nonexclusive and includes “the court’s evaluation of the significance and usefulness of the defendant’s assistance . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1(a)(1). The district court 4 No. 06-5817 / 5824 United States v. Burk articulated its consideration of the 5K1.1 factors, including timeliness, usefulness, truthfulness, and the government’s evaluation, in granting, within its discretion, the departure that it deemed appropriate. Burk has failed to demonstrate that the district court selected his sentence arbitrarily, based his sentence on impermissible factors, failed to consider any pertinent § 3553(a) factor, or gave an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent consideration. “The fact that the district court did not give the defendant the exact sentence he sought is not a cognizable basis to appeal, particularly where the district court followed the mandate of section 3553(a) in all relevant respects.” United States v. Jackson, 466 F.3d 537, 540 (6th Cir. 2006). We therefore AFFIRM. 5