United States v. Berryon Moore, III, 654 F. App'x 705

Moore was indicted (Dec 2013) for heroin distribution, released on bond, and later charged again for selling heroin while on pretrial release (2014).
He pleaded guilty (Jan 2015) to Count One (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin) under a plea agreement that acknowledged potential enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 3147 for committing a felony while released and a 3-level Guidelines increase per U.S.S.G. § 3C1.3.
The PSR produced a Guidelines range of 135–168 months. The government ultimately recommended a below-Guidelines term of 105 months; defense sought an even lower sentence, citing sentencing disparities (national average downward variance for heroin offenders ≈ 24 months).
At sentencing the district court stated it would consider parties’ arguments, then imposed 90 months on Count One plus 15 months for the pretrial-release violation (total 105 months), i.e., 30 months below the Guidelines range. The written judgment, however, reflected a single 105-month term for Count One.
On appeal Moore challenged (1) application of the § 3147 sentence and (2) the district court’s failure to explicitly address his sentencing-disparities argument. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 3147 enhancement	Moore: § 3147 does not apply because the offense he pleaded to arose before his pretrial release, so he wasn’t "convicted of an offense committed while released."	Government: Moore expressly agreed in plea and at plea hearing that § 3147 applied; thus enhancement valid.	Waived by Moore via plea agreement and admissions; Court declined to reach merits and refused review.
Failure to explain rejection of sentencing-disparities argument	Moore: District court erred by not explicitly addressing his nonfrivolous disparities argument; this procedural error is plain error.	Government: Court considered arguments (stated it would keep them in mind), and imposed a below-Guidelines sentence greater than the disparity Moore cited; any omission did not affect substantial rights.	No reversible error. Record implied consideration; under plain-error review Moore failed to show a reasonable probability a lower sentence would have been imposed absent the omission.

United States v. Morgan, 687 F.3d 688 (6th Cir.) (standard for review of sentencing reasonableness)
United States v. Petrus, 588 F.3d 347 (6th Cir.) (district court need not explicitly address every argument if record permits implicit reasoning)
United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (6th Cir.) (district must reflect consideration and explain rejection of nonfrivolous mitigation arguments; emphasized in within-Guidelines context)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinction between waiver and forfeiture)
United States v. Mabee, 765 F.3d 666 (6th Cir.) (explicit plea agreement concessions waive appellate challenges to enhancements)
Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (reasonable probability that sentence would differ is required to show effect on substantial rights under plain-error review)
United States v. Chiolo, 643 F.3d 177 (6th Cir.) (affirming sentence where transcript implicitly responds to defendant’s arguments)
United States v. Taylor, 696 F.3d 628 (6th Cir.) (record can show rejection of mitigation argument by implication)
United States v. Brooks, 628 F.3d 791 (6th Cir.) (substantive-reasonableness standards)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)