United States v. Chavis Douglas, 563 F. App'x 371

Defendant Douglas appeals a district court sentence of 151 months after guilty pleas to two counts of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Probation designated Douglas as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 based on two prior Tennessee drug convictions; one conviction classification was unclear in the PSR.
The district court treated Douglas as a true career offender, imposing a within-Guidelines sentence of 151 months.
Douglas sought a variance for substantial assistance and argued the career-offender designation overstates his history.
Douglas asked for a departure/variance and for the federal sentence to run concurrently with state custody.
On appeal, the panel affirmed, applying plain-error review for the career-offender designation and denying a downward departure/variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying substantial-assistance variance.	Douglas argued for a variance based on substantial assistance.	Douglas claimed credit for assistance warranted a lower sentence.	No reversible error; within-Guidelines sentence presumed reasonable.
Whether the district court plainly erred in applying career-offender status.	Douglas contends the two prior offenses do not both qualify as controlled-substance offenses.	Government argues plain-error review applies; statute 39-17-417 is a controlled-substance offense.	Plain-error review applied; district court did not plainly err in applying § 4B1.1.
Whether the district court properly declined to depart/vary from the Guidelines.	Douglas argued for a downward departure/variance for policy considerations.	District court was aware of discretion to depart/variance but chose not to.	Court lacked jurisdiction to reverse; district court’s decision to not depart/variance within discretion.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requirement to explain reasons for sentence; adequate consideration of arguments)
Gapinski, 561 F.3d 467 (2009) (courts must show consideration of arguments; explicit rebuttal not always required)
Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (2009) (precludes wholesale remand where record shows consideration of arguments)
Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (2008) (en banc; when no explicit objection, plain-error framework may apply)
Duane, 533 F.3d 441 (2008) (court must explain why it imposed its sentence; substantial discussion of factors)
Gillis, 592 F.3d 696 (2009) (downward departure/variance discretion under career-offender context)
Madden, 515 F.3d 601 (2008) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentence)
Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (2010) (merits of failure to consider substantial-assistance argument; plain-error review)
Gunter, 620 F.3d 642 (2010) (consideration of § 3553(a) factors supports reasonableness review)
Petrus, 588 F.3d 347 (2009) (reflection on plain-error and consideration of evidence)
Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758 (2009) (guidelines factors considered in sentencing variance/departure)
Duane, 533 F.3d 441 (2008) (detailed discussion on procedure and reasoning at sentencing)