USA v. Rickey Jones

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED; decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 28(g). Boyce F. Martin , Jr., Circuit Judge; Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Circuit Judge and Robert Holmes Bell, U.S. District Judge, for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Download PDF
Case: 09-3306 Document: 006110826937 Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 1 N O T RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Name: 10a0791n.06 N o . 09-3306 U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 28, 2010 U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P l a in tif f -A p p e lle e , v. R I C K E Y D. JONES, D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LEONARD GREEN, Clerk O N APPEAL FROM THE UNITED S T A T E S DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF O H IO B E F O R E : MARTIN and SILER, Circuit Judges; BELL, District Judge.* P E R CURIAM. Defendant-Appellant Rickey D. Jones appeals the sentence imposed o n him following revocation of supervised release. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. I. I n 1999, Jones was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana in v io la tio n of 21 U.S.C. 846, 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). His original sentence of 120 m o n th s in prison was vacated on appeal. United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. The Honorable Robert Holmes Bell, United States District Judge for the Western D is tric t of Michigan, sitting by designation. 1 * Case: 09-3306 Document: 006110826937 Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 2 No. 09-3306 United States v. Jones 2 0 0 2 ). Jones was sentenced on remand to 70 months in prison, followed by 5 years of su p e rv ise d release. Jones did not appeal his amended sentence. In 2004, Jones began his f irs t term of supervised release. His supervised release was revoked in March 2006, and he w a s sentenced to twelve months in custody followed by 34 months of supervised release. J o n e s commenced his second term of supervised release in March 2007. In August 2008, Jones traveled from Dayton, Ohio, where he was serving his term o f supervised release, to Phoenix, Arizona, without the permission of his probation officer. H e traveled with two other convicted felons, one of whom was a co-defendant in his u n d e rlyin g federal drug conviction. Upon arriving at the Phoenix airport, Jones and his c o m p a n io n s were stopped and questioned by police. The police seized approximately $9,000 in cash and some marijuana residue from Jones. No criminal charges resulted from this in v e stig a tio n , and Jones did not report this police contact to his probation officer. Jones was a r re s te d on December 2, 2008, in Sierra Blanca, Texas, on a warrant for supervised release v io la tio n s . On March 18, 2009, Jones admitted that he was guilty of all five violations alleged in the supervised release violation report: (1) leaving the judicial district without permission; (2 ) associating with known felons; (3) failing to submit monthly supervision reports for July a n d August 2008; (4) being in possession of marijuana residue; and (5) failing to notify his p r o b a tio n officer of his questioning by Phoenix, Arizona, police. All of the violations are 2 Case: 09-3306 Document: 006110826937 Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 3 No. 09-3306 United States v. Jones G ra d e C violations under Chapter 7 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and carry a g u id e li n e range of 6 to 12 months in prison. The district court recognized the applicable g u id e lin e range, but sentenced Jones to the maximum term of incarceration, 24 months, with n o supervised release to follow, as recommended in the supervised release violation report. O n appeal, Jones argues that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. II. We review sentences imposed following revocation of supervised release "under the s a m e abuse of discretion standard that we apply to sentences imposed following conviction." U n ite d States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089, 1092 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. B o ld s , 511 F.3d 568, 572-73, 578 (6th Cir. 2007)). Under this standard of review, "we may o v e rtu rn a sentence only if it is procedurally or substantively unreasonable." Id. (citing U n ite d States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743, 753 (6th Cir. 2008)). "The essence of a s u b s ta n tiv e - r e a s o n a b le n e ss claim is whether the length of the sentence is `greater than n e c es s a ry' to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)." United States v . Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632-33 (6th Cir. 2010). A district court has broad d isc re tio n to determine what sentence will best serve the objectives of 3553(a), particularly in the "discretion-filled context of supervised release." Kontrol, 554 F.3d at 1093. "A s e n te n c e is substantively unreasonable if the district court `selects a sentence arbitrarily, b a se s the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or 3 Case: 09-3306 Document: 006110826937 Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 4 No. 09-3306 United States v. Jones g iv e s an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.'" United States v. Lapsins, 5 7 0 F.3d 758, 772 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th C ir. 2008)). Jones contends that the 24-month sentence was substantively unreasonable because i t was based on speculation and because it was twice the length of the high end of the a p p lic a b le guideline range. Jones's contention that the sentence was based upon a mistaken factual finding is w ith o u t merit. The district court specifically withdrew its finding that Jones was attempting t o flee to Mexico, and reiterated its determination that Jones should receive a 24-month s e n te n c e even without this finding. Jones's contention that the district court impermissibly relied on an unsubstantiated a lleg a tio n that he had been involved in a drug trafficking transaction is also without merit. " [ I]t is well established that a sentencing court is not prohibited from considering uncharged c rim in a l conduct." United States v. Mayle, 334 F.3d 552, 565-66 (6th Cir. 2003). "Congress h a s provided that `[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the b a c k g ro u n d , character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the U n ited States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate s e n te n c e.'" Id. at 566 (quoting 18 U.S.C. 3661). Here, Jones admitted to the relevant facts re g a rd in g his unauthorized travel to Arizona, his association with felons, his questioning by 4 Case: 09-3306 Document: 006110826937 Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 5 No. 09-3306 United States v. Jones p o lice officers, and the seizure of cash and marijuana residue from him. It was reasonable an d appropriate for the district court to view this evidence as significant in light of Jones's p rio r conviction for conspiring to distribute cocaine and marijuana. Even if the sentence was not based upon impermissible factors, Jones contends that th e sheer length of the sentence makes it substantively unreasonable. In reviewing a sentence f o r substantive reasonableness, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including the e x te n t of any variance from the guideline range. United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318, 3 2 2 (6th Cir. 2008). Although we do not apply a presumption of substantive reasonableness to a sentence that falls outside of the guideline range, we must still give "due deference" to th e district court's decision that the 3553(a) factors justify the variance. Id. at 322 (quoting G a ll v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). The greater the departure from the guideline s e n te n c e , "the more compelling the justification based on factors in 3553(a) must be." U n ite d States v. Brown, 501 F.3d 722, 726 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Davis, 4 5 8 F.3d 491, 496 (6th Cir. 2006)). The district court was well aware that the 24-month sentence was "substantially a b o v e " the guideline range but indicated that it would have imposed an even higher sentence if it were not constrained by the maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3). The district c o u rt noted that it appeared from Jones's conduct that he was returning to behavior and asso ciatio n s consistent with his underlying criminal conviction. 5 In light of Jones's Case: 09-3306 Document: 006110826937 Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 6 No. 09-3306 United States v. Jones u n d e rlyin g criminal conviction, the serious nature of his supervised release violations, and h is revocation history, the district court found that he was unable or unwilling to conform to th e requirements imposed upon him during supervised release. The district court was c o n v in c e d that "nothing short of a significant additional term of imprisonment" would serve th e 3553(a) sentencing goals of reflecting the seriousness of the violations and providing ju s t punishment that promotes respect for the law. Although the 24-month sentence imposed in this case is substantially higher than the 6 to 12 month guideline range, we have upheld similar variances in other cases where the d e f e n d a n t engaged in repeated supervised release violations. See, e.g., Brown, 501 F.3d at 7 2 6 (finding a sentence ten months above the top of the recommended sentencing range re a so n a b le where the defendant was before the court on his third revocation hearing); United S ta te s v. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621, 628 (6th Cir. 2005) (finding that, despite a guideline range of 4 to 10 months, the statutory maximum term of 20 months "was more than justified by [ d e f e n d a n t's ] repeated transgressions."). The district court provided a sufficiently compelling justification for imposing the s ta tu to ry maximum term of imprisonment, and we conclude that the sentence was not s u b s ta n tiv e ly unreasonable. III. 6 Case: 09-3306 Document: 006110826937 Filed: 12/28/2010 Page: 7 No. 09-3306 United States v. Jones F o r these reasons, we AFFIRM 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?