UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 22-2009 │ v. │ │ KEJUAN PHARRELL CARTER, │ Defendant-Appellant. │ ┘

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids. No. 1:22-cr-00073-1—Jane M. Beckering, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: December 27, 2023

Before: GILMAN, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Joanna C. Kloet, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. Daniel T. McGraw, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.

LARSEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which NALBANDIAN, J., joined in full. GILMAN, J. (pp. 8–10), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. _________________

OPINION _________________

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Kejuan Pharrell Carter pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine and was sentenced to 108 months’ imprisonment. Carter challenges the procedural reasonableness of that sentence, arguing that the district court failed to address his policy argument for a downward variance from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. No. 22-2009 United States v. Carter Page 2

Carter is not entitled to relief because he either waived his right to bring this challenge or invited the alleged error, and no manifest injustice will result from declining to consider his challenge. We AFFIRM.

I.

Carter sold approximately 320 grams of methamphetamine to an undercover officer in 2022. He was charged with three counts of distributing methamphetamine and, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded guilty to one count. His advisory Sentencing Guidelines range was 108 to 135 months’ imprisonment. In his sentencing memorandum, Carter made two arguments for a downward variance. First, Carter made a policy argument, arguing that the Guidelines’ focus on drug quantity and purity improperly punished low-level offenders. Carter contended that the purity of methamphetamine in average circulation has increased since the Guidelines’ implementation, so low-level offenders are receiving punishments meant for “kingpins.” Second, Carter made an argument based on his life experience and characteristics. He argued that a downward variance was warranted because of his traumatic upbringing and his willingness to make this case a turning point in his life.

At his sentencing hearing, Carter made only passing reference to his policy argument. He focused primarily on his life experience and characteristics. The district court followed suit and did not directly discuss Carter’s policy argument. Instead, after noting that the court had read Carter’s sentencing memorandum and understood the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory, the district court considered the relevant § 3553(a) factors and focused on Carter’s primary argument, his life experience and characteristics. The district co