yes, I probably would have smoked with her.” At the conclusion of Williams’s testimony, which contained numerous inconsistencies, the district court opined: “I’m not sure you even realize what you are saying.... You sat here on this witness stand this morning and told me that it was your intention to distribute that crack cocaine.” Despite this apparent admission that Williams intended to distribute the crack to his girlfriend, however, the district court gave him the benefit of the doubt and refused to make such a finding: “I’m not going to enhance your sentence based upon a conclusion that you were possessing those drugs for resale when in fact I cannot rest easy with the conclusion that you were.” Because the district court did not enhance Williams (6th Cir.2007) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). And Williams’s contention that the district
holding that defendants 46month aboveguidelines sentence upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable even where the guidelines recommended a sentence of only seven to thirteen months holding that confinement in community treatment center after parole revocation was part of original term of imprisonment holding that term of supervised release was not automatically terminated when defendant was deported from united states and thus defendants subsequent commission of another offense illegal reentry after deportation prior to expiration of term of supervised release violated condition of supervised release that defendant commit no new offenses holding that an aboveguidelines sentence based in part on the defendants commission of new crimes only nine days after his release from confinement  was not improper holding that defendants 36month aboveguidelines but belowstatutorymaximum sentence upon revocation of supervised release was not unreasonable where the district court had discussed both the guidelines and other  3553a factors during sentencing