NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 19a0300n.06
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Jun 11, 2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CARL D. PENNY; ADOLFO MAGADAN; ) OHIO
RENEE SERNA; MARTY MCCAULLEY, )
)
Defendants-Appellants. )
BEFORE: SILER, COOK, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise from a drug trafficking conspiracy
to which all appellants pleaded guilty. Carl D. Penny, Adolfo Magadan, Renee Serna, and Marty
McCaulley challenge their sentences as procedurally and substantively infirm. Because the district
court abused its discretion when it denied Penny safety valve consideration, employed the incorrect
legal standard to deny Magadan a minor participant reduction, and clearly erred when it imposed
on McCaulley a life term of supervised release, we vacate in part and remand for resentencing.
We affirm Serna’s sentence.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves a large-scale conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Adolfo Magadan, a
tractor-trailer driver, transported the drugs; Marty McCaulley funded the scheme; and Renee Serna
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
worked as their go-between.
In February 2017, Serna picked up six kilograms of cocaine from Magadan and delivered
them to McCaulley’s apartment. There, McCaulley, Serna, and Carl Penny weighed the drugs
before parting ways. Unbeknownst to the coconspirators, law enforcement agents had been
watching them for hours, observing Serna, Magadan, and McCaulley trading duffel bags of drugs
and money.
After the meeting, Penny dropped Serna off at a hotel, where Penny watched DEA agents
arrest Serna. Panicking, Penny hurried home, but agents caught him too. A post-arrest search of
Penny produced multiple cell phones, digital scales with cocaine residue, nineteen rounds of
ammunition, more than $100,000 in cash, and other drug paraphernalia. Agents also stopped
Magadan on his way from Cleveland to Chicago with another 7.9 kilograms of cocaine and
$169,000 in his truck.
By the time agents arrested McCaulley, he had distributed one of the six kilograms of
cocaine to another coconspirator, Paul Cramer. Agents searched McCaulley’s apartment and
found the remaining kilograms, sixteen cell phones, ammunition, and other drug paraphernalia.
A federal grand jury charged Penny, Magadan, Serna, and McCaulley, among others, in a
seven-count, six-defendant indictment. All four appellants pleaded guilty to Count 1: conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute approximately six kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Magadan, Serna, and McCaulley also entered guilty pleas
to Count 2: possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 18
U.S.C. § 2. Magadan pleaded guilty to another count for possessing cocaine with intent to
distribute for the additional 7.9 kilograms of cocaine destined for Chicago—Count 3, and
-2-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
McCaulley pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon—Count 7, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(2).
The court sentenced each defendant separately. Penny, Magadan, Serna, and McCaulley
raise distinct issues on appeal.
II. PENNY’S SENTENCE
Penny appeals his ninety-seven-month sentence and $100,000 fine, asserting both
procedural and substantive error.
A. Safety Valve Application
We first address Penny’s claim that the district court committed procedural error when it
denied him the benefit of USSG § 5C1.2(a), the safety valve provision permitting the court to
“impose a sentence . . . without regard to any statutory minimum sentence . . . .” 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(f); USSG § 5C1.2(a).
To be eligible for a safety valve sentence, Penny must satisfy five requirements by a
preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Haynes, 468 F.3d 422, 427 (6th Cir. 2006). The
only requirement at issue in this appeal concerns whether Penny “possess[ed] a firearm or other
dangerous weapon (or induce[d] another participant to do so) in connection with the offense.”
18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(2).
At sentencing, the government conceded that “the facts that we have do not support putting
a firearm in Mr. Penny’s possession.” Nevertheless, the district court found that possession of a
firearm disqualified Penny from consideration for a safety valve sentence. The court managed this
by inferring possession of a firearm from the nineteen rounds of ammunition agents recovered
from Penny. Questioning the government’s choice even to recommend safety valve relief, the
court mused:
-3-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
[P]eople don’t have ammunition along with their tools of their trade in the drug
trade unless they either have a gun, had a gun, have a gun stashed somewhere, are
using a gun. Makes no sense whatsoever you have .44 caliber ammunition and then
you want me to at least make the inference [Penny] didn’t possess a firearm.
R.120, PageID 991–92. The record of the proceeding confirms that the court viewed ammunition,
found near “other accoutrements of the drug trade,” as support for finding either that Penny
possessed a firearm or that the ammunition itself qualified as a dangerous weapon. This, despite
acknowledging the dearth of precedent supporting either of these rationales: “And I’ve looked at
some case law. And it appears to be silent as to whether the possession of . . . the ammunition,
would give rise to the disqualification for safety valve.” Id. at PageID 992–93.
Unsurprisingly, we reach the opposite conclusion. True, actual or constructive possession
of a firearm can serve to disqualify a defendant from safety valve consideration. See United States
v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 327 n.19 (6th Cir. 2002) (“[W]here a defendant had actual or constructive
possession over a firearm such that an increase to his or her base offense level under § 2D1.1 is
appropriate, such possession ‘defeats application of the safety valve.’”) (emphasis added) (citation
omitted). But our precedent demands evidence of a firearm—not evidence of ammunition for a
firearm. Here, as acknowledged by the government at the outset of the proceedings, a thorough
search of Penny’s person, apartment, and vehicle produced no firearm.
The same sort of thinking had the district court considering the ammunition itself to be a
“dangerous weapon” within the meaning of Guidelines § 1B1.1:
[T]he next question becomes is a bullet a dangerous weapon?
And I’ve looked at 1B1.1 which provides definitions. And I’ve looked at some
case law. And it appears to be silent as to whether the possession of the bullets
would give rise, or the ammunition, would give rise to the disqualification for safety
valve.
...
-4-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
In the alternative, even if the firearm itself, the possession of the gun doesn’t give
rise to the inference of the possession of the firearm, the possession of the
ammunition, or the ammunition, I should say, at least in my view, could be treated
as a dangerous weapon.
It’s a projectile which is designed to inflict harm. Typically a .44 magnum is
certainly a large-scale -- a large magazine. And the volume of the -- the sheer
number of the rounds of ammunition, 19 rounds, is such that I believe it would
qualify as a dangerous weapon.
And so for those reasons I will not provide two levels for the so-called safety valve.
R. 120, PageID 992, 994.
Both parties agree that neither the Guidelines nor any of our cases supports such a
conclusion. Without a weapon, the ammunition fails the definition the court invoked: “(i) an
instrument capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury; or (ii) an object that is not an
instrument capable of inflicting death or serious injury but” closely resembles one. USSG § 1B1.1,
Application Note 1(E). This record includes no evidence that Penny used the ammunition, much
less brandished it as a dangerous weapon. Plainly, ammunition is incapable of inflicting death or
serious injury without a firearm.
These misconceptions employed by the district court to deny Penny safety valve
consideration amount to an abuse of discretion warranting resentencing.
B. Reliance on Codefendant’s Confidential Proffer
Penny next contends that the court improperly drew information from his codefendant’s
confidential proffer to impose an upward variance. This being the first time Penny presents this
argument, we review for plain error. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 391–92 (6th Cir.
2008) (en banc). To prevail, Penny must persuade us that the district court erred in an obvious
fashion that affected his substantial rights and seriously undermined the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of his judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993).
-5-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
At sentencing, the court did consider information “from Mr. Cramer’s proffer which
outline[d] and assist[ed] the court in deciding Mr. Penny’s role [and] which is much like the
government appears to set forth.” R. 120, PageID 993. That information specifically “tie[d] in
and describe[d] Mr. Penny’s direct involvement with individuals in Mexico in bringing cocaine
into our country and his travels to Mexico to bring these large multiple kilos of drugs into our
country.” R. 120, PageID 1009. The court referenced Cramer’s proffer repeatedly: when it
declined to apply the safety valve, when it granted Penny a substantial assistance reduction, and
again when it decided to vary upward after considering the nature and circumstances of Penny’s
offense. But because the court never summarized the information in Cramer’s proffer for him,
Penny contends that the court denied him a “reasonable opportunity to comment on that
information.”
Penny couches his argument in terms of disclosures required to be made to him or his
counsel by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(B). Without “impos[ing] a categorical
requirement of prior notice of the court’s intent to vary based on information not contained in the
presentence report,” Rule 32(i)(1)(B) “clearly requires the sentencing court to use a procedure that
affords the defendant a reasonable opportunity to respond.” United States v. Coppenger, 775 F.3d
799, 804 (6th Cir. 2015) (vacating a sentence because the district court “undeniably placed heavy,
if not exclusive, reliance” on confidential information outside of the presentence report to justify
a twenty-three-month variance). Courts grant relief when a defendant “demonstrates that the facts
or issues on which the district court relied to impose a variance came as a surprise and that his or
her presentation to the court was prejudiced by the surprise.” Id.
Penny demonstrates surprise, as nothing in his presentence report signaled that the court
would consider “direct involvement” with Mexican traffickers or “travels to Mexico”—“specific[,]
-6-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
detailed information not disclosed to the defendant,” id. at 805, and relied upon to vary upward.
The court relied on confidential information in Cramer’s proffer to justify harsher sentencing at
the expense of Penny’s “right to review other information relied on by a court at sentencing.”
United States v. Hamad, 495 F.3d 241, 245 (6th Cir. 2007).
But Penny presents no argument to explain how this surprise regarding the Mexico aspect
of his transactions prejudiced him. Specifically, he never suggests what approach he would have
taken to challenge the court’s view of his role in the conspiracy once armed with this information.
See United States v. Rossi, 422 F. App’x 425, 433 (6th Cir. 2011) (denying relief because the
defendant did not demonstrate what he would have done differently had he been given an adequate
opportunity to confront and debate the relevant issues). Recall that Penny failed to object when
the court announced it would rely on Cramer’s proffer. To now contend that the court’s
consideration of the confidential proffer left him “completely unable to formulate an appropriate
argument in response” leaves this court without a basis to find that error in this regard satisfies the
plain error standard.
C. Relying on Policy Grounds to Vary Upward
Before the hearing, the court announced it was considering an upward variance from the
Guidelines and provided counsel a copy of an article with statistics from the county medical
examiner on cocaine-related deaths in 2016. When proceedings resumed, the court linked “the
consequences of [Penny’s] behavior” to the sharp increase in cocaine-related deaths. R. 120,
PageID 1011. Without attributing any specific overdose death to Penny, the court found “a long
sentence” necessary “to reflect the seriousness of the offense and the damage that’s being done.”
R. 120, PageID 1011–13. Invoking its discretion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court varied
-7-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
upward by three levels, imposing a within-Guidelines sentence of 97-months’ imprisonment.
Penny’s counsel objected, arguing that none of the overdose deaths were attributable to Penny.
Penny now contends that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence
in giving undue weight to the medical examiner’s statistics in its consideration of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553 factors. We review his challenge for abuse of discretion. A sentence is substantively
unreasonable when the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily, relies on impermissible
factors, fails to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors, or gives unreasonable weight to any pertinent
factor. United States v. Jones, 489 F.3d 243, 252 (6th Cir. 2007).
On this record, we find the district court acted within its discretion in considering cocaine-
overdose deaths in the county where Penny conspired to sell cocaine together with the seriousness
of his offense conduct. In United States v. Hubbard, 744 F. App’x 273, 276 (6th Cir. 2018), we
upheld this judge’s using such statistics as grounds for varying upward. The court “had discretion
to vary from the guidelines on policy grounds” and could “partially rely upon the need to protect
the public from further crimes of the defendant . . . in light of the community’s serious drug
epidemic.” Id. (citation omitted). Same story with this same judge in a third case, United States v.
Robinson, 892 F.3d 209, 215 (6th Cir. 2018). As in those cases, we find the court’s consideration
of the cocaine-overdose data substantively sound.
D. Fine
In addition to Penny’s custodial sentence, the district court imposed a $100,000 fine. Penny
argues error in that the court did not make factual findings on the record concerning his ability to
-8-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
pay. He did not object to the fine at sentencing, so we review his within-Guidelines fine for plain
error. United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 770–71 (6th Cir. 2006).
A district court must impose a fine within the Guidelines range unless a defendant
establishes his inability to pay any fine. USSG § 5E1.2(a), (f). In assessing a defendant’s ability
to pay, a court considers several statutory factors, including the defendant’s income, earning
capacity, and financial resources. 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a); USSG § 5E1.2(d).
After considering each of the § 3553(a) factors for Penny’s custodial sentence, the court
stated:
[T]here will be a fine. This defendant has over $300,000 in assets, and a substantial
fine is also warranted so that we have – again, we will make sure the monies can
be used, perhaps, hopefully by the government to deter others.
His total assets are $313,000. His net worth is $304,000.
The advisory guideline calculation counsels, for guidelines purpose, the provisions
of a fine are $20,000 to $10 million.
He has accumulated a substantial sum of money. And so I don’t misstate it, in his
accounts – I say the net worth is $300,000.
...
The fine in this case will be $100,000. It’s a large fine. It’s appropriate because of,
again, the kind of drug trafficking this defendant engaged in. He has the
wherewithal to pay it. He has the assets to pay it. He had $100,000 in drug proceeds
with him at the time this all occurred. So that gives you an idea of how much money
was coming and going and how much he was earning in the drug trade.
R. 120, PageID 1014–15.
Though it did not explicitly invoke any statutory factors before fining Penny, the court’s
analysis adequately supports its exercise of discretion. See United States v. Tosca, 18 F.3d 1352,
1355 (6th Cir. 1994) (finding the district court satisfied § 3572(a), despite not making express
-9-
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
findings of fact, where it could be fairly inferred that it considered the statutory factors in imposing
the fine). Penny fails to demonstrate that the court plainly erred.
To the extent Penny argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because his co-
conspirators’ sentences did not include fines, this argument also fails. The district court was not
required to consider sentencing disparities between co-defendants. See United States v. Mitchell,
681 F.3d 867, 883 (6th Cir. 2012).
III. MAGADAN’S SENTENCE
Magadan, the tractor-trailer driver, challenges only the procedural reasonableness of his
seventy-one-month sentence. He contends that the district court erred in failing to grant him an
adjustment for a mitigating role in the conspiracy under USSG § 3B1.2. Because Magadan
objected to the court’s reasoning during sentencing, we review the court’s denial of the minor
participant reduction for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
Section 3B1.2 authorizes a sentencing court to reduce a defendant’s offense level by two
if he was a “minor participant,” defined as someone “less culpable than most other participants in
the criminal activity, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” USSG § 3B1.2(b),
Application Note 5. Magadan’s plea agreement and presentence report both included the two-
level minor-role reduction, but the district court declined to adopt that recommendation because it
considered Magadan a “very, very important cog in the system.” Magadan was “essential”—
“[w]ithout him moving the goods, then they would not be on the streets of Cleveland.” More
generally, the court did not “believe [the minor participant reduction] applies at all in this case or
in the case of these large-scale drug couriers.”
For this, the district court relied on language from our decision in United States v. Skinner,
690 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2012), which held “[a] defendant who plays a lesser role in a criminal
- 10 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
scheme may nonetheless fail to qualify as a minor participant if his role was indispensable or
critical to the success of the scheme, or if his importance to the overall scheme was such as to
justify his sentence.” Id. at 783-84 (quoting United States v. Salgado, 250 F.3d 438, 458 (6th Cir.
2001)). Applying Skinner, the court found “[Magadan’s] role here, of course, is essential. He
facilitated, in the words of Skinner, the transportation of vast amounts of” cocaine and “[t]he
conspiracy would not have been successful without the participation of the driver.”
But the district court failed to review amendments to § 3B1.2’s Application Notes, or our
later cases disavowing Skinner’s logic, and therefore employed an erroneous legal standard. The
amendment to § 3B1.2’s notes clarify that “a finding that the defendant was essential to the offense
does not alter the requirement, expressed in Note 3(A), that the court must assess the defendant’s
culpability relative to the average participant in the offense.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual,
suppl. to App. C, amend. 794 at 114-17 (2015). Application Note 3(C) confirms that “perform[ing]
an essential or indispensable role in the criminal activity is not determinative” and that “[s]uch a
defendant may receive an adjustment under this guideline if he or she is substantially less culpable
than the average participant.” Id. And the Sentencing Commission specifically referenced Skinner
as an example of a case misconstruing the guideline as inapplicable where the defendant’s conduct
was central to the commission of the crime. Id. at 116.
In light of these changes, this court has disavowed Skinner’s reasoning and instead defers
to the Sentencing Guidelines application notes. United States v. Hernandez-Fierrosi, 453 F.3d
309, 313 (6th Cir. 2006). Another example of sentencing error stemming from Skinner occurred
in United States v. Ednie, 707 F. App’x 366, 371–72 (6th Cir. 2017). There, we found legal error
requiring resentencing when a district court declined to apply the minor-role reduction because the
defendant played a “vital” role in the conspiracy. Id. at 371. That reasoning employed “precisely
- 11 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
the analysis the Commission sought to end with [the] Amendment.” Id. The panel focused on the
absence of evidence that the court reviewed the non-exhaustive list of factors under Application
Note 3(C).
Here, too, the record shows that the court incorrectly found Magadan ineligible for
treatment as a minor participant because he performed an “essential” role in the conspiracy by
driving the drugs to Ohio. The government presses the feature of the court considering Magadan’s
culpability relative to other members of the conspiracy because Magadan admitted to transporting
the drugs into Ohio with plans for a second delivery in Chicago. But the court referenced these
facts only to confirm that Magadan, like all mules and couriers, completed an essential function
for the drug trafficking conspiracy. This argument would be more convincing had the government
been able to point to the court weighing whether Magadan was substantially less culpable than the
average participant, or the five factors intended to guide the determination. See United States v.
Daneshvar, No. 18-1101, 2019 WL 2297455, at *19 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 2019) (“In determining
whether [the defendant] was ‘less culpable than most other participants’ . . . .we turn to the
U.S.S.G. advisory committee notes to § 3B1.2, which provides a non-exhaustive list of factors for
a court’s consideration.”). Instead, the district court overruled Magadan’s objection because his
role was “essential.” That’s legal error requiring resentencing. See United States v. Kaminski, 501
F.3d 655, 672–73 (6th Cir. 2007) (vacating sentence and remanding for resentencing because
district court enhanced defendant’s offense level in contravention of application note).
We therefore vacate Magadan’s sentence and remand for resentencing for the district court
to consider Magadan’s relative culpability using the five factors in Application Note 3(C).
- 12 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
IV. SERNA’S SENTENCE
Serna alleges that the court violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when it
varied upward and imposed a seventy-one-month sentence. Like Penny, Serna takes issue with
the court’s use of information his codefendant proffered and an article reporting increased cocaine-
overdose death numbers. But Serna does not argue that the court imposed an unreasonable
sentence because that information was never disclosed to him. Instead, he argues the court
performed unconstitutional factfinding when it drew on facts that a jury did not find beyond a
reasonable doubt. This claim too, forfeited at sentencing, gets plain error review. See Vonner,
516 F.3d at 391–92.
As when sentencing Penny, the court relied on the proffers of Serna’s coconspirators and
the article about cocaine related overdose deaths, characterizing Serna’s role as “much, much more
than a mule” in an international drug trafficking conspiracy. Responding to argument in favor of
a minor participant reduction, the court warned Serna’s counsel not to “paint him in a way which
is completely contrary to what we know about his role, not from his proffers, but from proffers
and statements made by others.” R. 130, PageID 1123.
Serna relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey’s requirement that “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.” 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). But the Court has since clarified
that its holding applies only to factual findings that enhance mandatory minimum sentences—not
factual findings that influence judicial discretion. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 116
(2013).
Here, the district court’s consideration of Serna’s codefendant’s proffer and the rate of
cocaine-overdose deaths did not affect his maximum possible sentence—life imprisonment—
- 13 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
obviating his claims under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court calculated Serna’s
Guidelines range to be 37 to 46-months, and a sentence within that range, in the court’s view,
would not reflect the seriousness of the drug trafficking conspiracy or adequately address
deterrence. Thus, the court varied upward two levels, finding 57 to 71-months as a more
appropriate Guidelines range given Serna’s role in the conspiracy and its effect on the community.
Finding no error, we affirm Serna’s sentence.
V. MCCAULLEY’S SENTENCE
The court sentenced McCaulley to 200 months’ imprisonment on the conspiracy count and
a concurrent 120-month imprisonment term on the felon-in-possession count. The court also
imposed a life term of supervised release. McCaulley alleges procedural error, arguing that the
court (1) failed to adequately explain the length of his supervised release term in light of the
statutory factors, and (2) relied on an impermissible factor: the government’s decision not to file
an information that would have subjected McCaulley to a twenty-year mandatory minimum
sentence based on his prior felony drug convictions. He also contends that the court erred by
imposing a sentence exceeding the advisory Guidelines range calculated in his presentence report,
arguing that his plea agreement bound the court to impose a shorter sentence.
A. Lifetime Supervised Release
McCaulley contends that the district court selected a life term of supervised release without
adequate justification. He did not object below to the length of term, so we limit our review to
plain error. See Vonner, 516 F.3d at 391–92.
In determining the procedural reasonableness of McCaulley’s term of supervised release,
we consider “whether the district court adequately stated in open court at the time of sentencing
its rationale for mandating” supervision. United States v. Brogdon, 503 F.3d 555, 563 (6th Cir.
- 14 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
2007) (citation omitted). The reasons justifying supervised release commonly overlap with the
facts supporting the defendant’s custodial sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) (mandating that district
courts consider several factors set forth in § 3553(a) when deciding term of supervised release).
Thus, if the district court addresses these facts elsewhere on the record, we do not require it to
review these factors twice. We look only for some explanation about why the factors justify the
term of supervised release it imposes. United States v. Inman, 666 F.3d 1001, 1004 (6th Cir. 2012);
United States v. Giganti, 405 F. App’x 31, 40 (6th Cir. 2010). “Failing to do so warrants reversal,
even under plain-error review.” United States v. Bunkley, 732 F. App’x 388, 395 (6th Cir. 2018);
see also United States v. Emmons, 524 F. App’x 995, 1000 (6th Cir. 2013).
The court never explained the choice of a life term, noting only that, by supervising
McCaulley for life, “we will know if he does return to the drug trafficking trade, there will be a
consequence. He’ll return to Federal Court where the sentencing will be lengthy.” R. 151, PageID
1279–80. Our precedent requires more. See, e.g., Inman, 666 F.3d at 1004, 1007; Bunkley, 732
F. App’x at 395; Emmons, 524 F. App’x at 1000. We vacate McCaulley’s sentence and remand
for the district court to resentence and properly explain any term of supervised release imposed.
See Inman, 666 F.3d at 1004, 1007.
B. Guidelines Range Calculation
McCaulley also alleges that the court failed to properly calculate his advisory Guidelines
range. Though true that a “sentence is procedurally unreasonable where a district court fails to
calculate or improperly calculates the Guidelines range,” United States v. Hall, 632 F.3d 331, 335
(6th Cir. 2011), the district court got it right.
At the start of proceedings, the court announced that McCaulley’s offense level of twenty-
nine and category IV criminal history yielded a 121 to 151-month Guidelines range, as set forth in
- 15 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
the PSR. Yet later, the court stated that it would start calculating from a lower, 84 to 105-month
range. McCaulley contends that because the district court announced these two different
Guidelines range calculations as the “starting point and initial benchmark,” the district court failed
to properly calculate the applicable Guidelines range.
The record supports just the opposite and resolves the discrepancy McCaulley now sees as
error. When the court raised the specter of an upward variance to account for McCaulley’s prior
drug trafficking convictions, the government requested a sidebar where it moved for a four-level
substantial-assistance downward departure and explained its grounds. The court granted the
government’s request and after resuming proceedings in open court, announced its lower
Guidelines range calculation of 84 to 105-months, reflecting McCaulley’s adjusted offense level
of twenty-five. As the record confirms, the district court properly recognized the applicable
Guidelines range and, thus, did not err in this regard.
C. 21 U.S.C. § 851 Information
McCaulley also claims that the court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence by
relying on an impermissible factor: the government’s decision not to file an information under 21
U.S.C. § 851, which would have established McCaulley’s prior drug convictions and subjected
him to a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence.
Section 851 provides that increases in sentences premised on prior felony drug convictions
may not be imposed unless “the United States Attorney files an information . . . stating the previous
convictions relied upon.” 21 U.S.C. § 851(a)(1). The court acknowledged the government’s
decision not to file for the enhancement just before varying upward, stating:
This case would have been, but for the parties’ plea agreement, should have been, at
least in my view, should have been a mandatory 20 years. The 851 would have
brought him a minimum 20 years to life. Minimum.
- 16 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
I can’t get into plea negotiations. That’s between the government and the defendant.
But I do have the discretion and the authority to impose the kind of sentence that will
deter Mr. McCaulley, make certain he does not come back to the community and
begin to sell drugs because that’s where he will be. He has continued, even after long
periods of incarceration, to come right back in our community. And he is a danger,
serious danger, to the safety, the health, the well-being of our community.
So having said all those things, I’m cognizant of the fact the Court’s upward variance
is going to be substantial. I’ll note that for the record.
But for all the reasons that I’ve just stated, this defendant must be removed from
society for as long a period of time as reasonable to make certain he doesn’t continue
on.
R. 151, PageID 1278–79.
McCaulley contends that the court unfairly relied on the government’s omission in its
consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and to justify an upward variance. True, § 851 gives the
government “sole and unreviewable discretion” to seek an enhanced sentence. See United States
v. Watford, 468 F.3d 891, 911 (6th Cir. 2006). But that statutory commitment still leaves discretion
with the court to consider the defendant’s prior drug felony convictions. Indeed, § 3553(a)
requires the court to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant and the need to afford
adequate deterrence in determining the particular sentence to be imposed. See § 3553(a)(1),
(2)(B).
The record shows that the court did just that. Though the court opined that McCaulley
should have faced the twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence, it did so only after finding
McCaulley’s thirteen adult convictions demonstrated that “he ha[d] not been deterred by any prior
periods of incarceration.” R. 151, PageID 1273–76. Further, the court’s acknowledgement that it
would not question the plea agreement and that the government’s decision not to file an
information was “between the government and the defendant” belies McCaulley’s suggestion that
the court substituted the government’s discretion for its own. R. 151, PageID 1278. The district
court retained discretion to vary, and McCaulley’s record warranted its choice.
- 17 -
Case Nos. 17-3862/3877/3901/4076, United States v. Penny, et al.
McCaulley fails to show that the court relied on an impermissible factor in determining his
sentence.
D. Binding Plea Agreement
Finally, McCaulley argues that his 200-month sentence was unreasonable because it
exceeded the advisory Guidelines range calculated in his Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea agreement.
Strangely, McCaulley relies on the Guidelines range calculated in his presentence report for his
argument. But neither the plea agreement nor the presentence report limited the court in its
discretion from determining an appropriate sentence, as McCaulley acknowledged in both. R. 101,
PageID 801 (“Such a recommendation or request does not bind the Court.”); R. 34, PageID 290
(“Defendant understands that the recommendations of the parties will not be binding upon the
Court, that the Court alone will decide the advisory guideline range under the Sentencing
Guidelines, whether there is any basis to depart from that range or impose a sentence outside the
advisory guideline range, and what sentence to impose.”). Thus, McCaulley failed to support his
claim of unreasonableness.
VI.
For these reasons, we VACATE in part Penny, Magadan, and McCaulley’s sentences and
REMAND for resentencing in accordance with this opinion. We AFFIRM Serna’s sentence.
- 18 -