NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0440n.06
No. 12-5548
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED
Apr 30, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE MIDDLE
JOHN PATRICK EDWARDS, ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: MARTIN and COOK, Circuit Judges; GRAHAM, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. John Patrick Edwards, a former law enforcement officer, pleaded guilty to
obstructing the investigation of a drug trafficking conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2).
The district court determined that, based on a total offense level of thirty-one and a criminal history
category of I, Edwards’s advisory sentencing guidelines range was 108 to 135 months of
imprisonment. The court varied upward from the sentencing guidelines range, however, and
sentenced Edwards to 220 months of imprisonment.
On appeal, Edwards argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district
court failed to rule on his objection to the conclusion in the presentence report that the conspiracy
involved at least fifty kilograms of cocaine, failed to reference the calculations used to determine his
*
The Honorable James L. Graham, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 12-5548
United States v. Edwards
guidelines range of imprisonment, and failed to adequately explain the basis for the upward variance.
Edwards argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court based the
upward variance on several factors that were adequately accounted for by the guidelines and
improperly considered a case that was unlike his when considering the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities.
Because Edwards failed to raise the procedural issues at the conclusion of the sentencing
hearing when given the opportunity to do so by the district court, we review those claims for plain
error. See United States v. Penson, 526 F.3d 331, 337 (6th Cir. 2008). We review the substantive
reasonableness of Edwards’s sentence using an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “For a sentence to be substantively reasonable, it must be
proportionate to the seriousness of the circumstances of the offense and offender, and sufficient but
not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a).” United States v.
Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 512 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A
sentence may be substantively unreasonable if the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily, bases
the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors or gives an
unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” Id. at 510 (citation, internal quotation
marks, and alterations omitted).
The district court did not commit plain procedural error in imposing Edwards’s sentence.
The court explicitly overruled Edwards’s objection to the amount of cocaine attributed to the
conspiracy in the presentence report after hearing testimony from a special agent that the conspiracy
involved well over fifty kilograms of cocaine. Further, the court explicitly referenced Edwards’s
-2-
No. 12-5548
United States v. Edwards
total offense level and criminal history category as calculated in the presentence report and
recognized the resulting advisory sentencing guidelines range of 108 to 135 months of imprisonment.
In addition, the court adequately explained that it varied upward from the guidelines range based on
the nature and sophistication of the drug conspiracy, the fact that Edwards violated the highly
confidential process related to wiretaps, and the fact that Edwards knowingly put numerous
individuals in serious danger for monetary gain.
Edwards’s sentence is also substantively reasonable. The district court’s stated reasons for
imposing an above-guidelines sentence were based on facts specific to Edwards’s case that were not
inherent in his offense or otherwise accounted for by the sentencing guidelines. Further, in
determining Edwards’s sentence, it was reasonable for the district court to consider the sentence it
imposed in a comparable case involving a major drug operation even though that case also involved
an individual being killed.
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
-3-