United States v. David Ward, 436 F. App'x 601

Ward pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin for smuggling into Big Sandy prison in Kentucky.
He was classified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 due to prior violent crimes, boosting his offense level to 32 before adjustments.
The PSR set a total offense level of 29 after acceptance of responsibility; criminal history category was VI because of the career offender status.
The district court declined to grant a downward departure, despite arguments Ward was a minor participant and despite Fletcher-based rationale, and sentenced him to 75 months to run consecutively to undischarged terms.
Ward argued for a minor-participant deduction and for departure from the career offender rule; the court did not grant these requests and imposed a below-guidelines sentence by considering § 3553(a) factors.
On appeal, the court reviews the sentence for reasonableness, addressing whether the district court properly considered § 3553(a) factors and applicable guidelines in light of consecutive-sentence law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in not downward departing as a minor participant	Ward was a minor participant in the conspiracy.	Ward should receive a minor-participant deduction under § 3B1.2(b).	Issue not reached; career offender designation controls and forecloses the minor-participant deduction.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by not departing from the career-offender guideline	Court should depart under Fletcher even though career offender applied.	Should have downward departure or variance notwithstanding career offender status.	Court properly declined to depart; not reversible error.
Whether Ward’s sentence for the instant offense should run concurrently with undischarged terms	Consecutive sentence was improper; should be concurrent.	Court should consider § 3553(a) factors and allow concurrency where appropriate.	Plain error review applied; district court properly analyzed § 3553(a) factors and sentenced consecutively in line with § 5G1.3(a) guidance.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review for sentencing; abuse of discretion standard)
United States v. Tate, 516 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2008) (defendant bears burden to show substantive/unreasonable sentence)
United States v. Harmon, 607 F.3d 233 (6th Cir. 2010) (plain error standard for sentencing appeals when objections not preserved)
United States v. Santillana, 540 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of district court's awareness of its discretion to depart)
United States v. Clark, 385 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2004) (district court discretion in applying guidelines and § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Campbell, 309 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2002) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentences under § 3584 and § 5G1.3 analysis)
United States v. Fletcher, 15 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 1994) (discussion of downward departures from career offender status)
United States v. Koeberlein, 161 F.3d 946 (6th Cir. 1998) (plain-error review and sentencing considerations under existing guidelines)