USA v. Lonnie Jude
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 28(g). David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge; Helene N. White, Circuit Judge and Jack Zouhary, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Case: 10-5309 Document: 006110937555 Filed: 04/26/2011 Page: 1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 11a0265n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
Apr 26, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
LONNIE R. JUDE,
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
McKEAGUE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; ZOUHARY, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Lonnie R. Jude pled guilty to distribution of oxycodone, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to nine months in prison. He appeals, arguing that the district
court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a term of imprisonment instead of probation. We
“The touchstone of appellate review of a district court’s sentencing decision is
reasonableness, a concept that has both a procedural and substantive component.” United States v.
Gunter, 620 F.3d 642, 645 (6th Cir. 2010). Here, J ude chal l enges onl y t he s ubs t an t i v e
reasonableness of his sentence. To determine if a sentence is substantively reasonable, we consider
whether the length of the sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), United States v. Harmon, 607 F.3d 233, 240 (6th Cir. 2010)
The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio,
sitting by designation.
Case: 10-5309 Document: 006110937555 Filed: 04/26/2011 Page: 2
United States v. Jude
(internal quotation marks omitted), “‘tak[ing] into account the totality of the circumstances,
including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Jimenez, 605 F.3d
415, 420 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Where, as here,
the defendant is sentenced within a properly calculated Guidelines range, we apply a presumption
of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 464 (6th Cir. 2010). We
consider the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuse of discretion standard. See
United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632 (6th Cir. 2010).
Under § 5B1.1(a) of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, the district court may sentence
a defendant to probation if his resulting Guidelines range is in Zone B of the sentencing table. Jude’s
established range, which was six to twelve months, fell within this zone. Jude argues on appeal that
the district court should have imposed probation because his criminal conduct was minimal; his prior
convictions were misdemeanors resulting only in fines or probation; his “prior encounters” with the
state domestic violence system “were ultimately dismissed;” and he had extensive family ties, was
lacking in education, had remained steadily employed when work was “available,” and had no
history of mental health or substance abuse treatment.
While the Guidelines permit imposition of a term of probation, the sentencing court is not
required to do so. Here, the district court sentenced Jude in the middle of the established Guidelines
range, making his sentence presumptively reasonable. Further, the court explained that although
Jude’s criminal history did not include “major crimes,” his criminal conduct was escalating, the
sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of Jude’s crime, and a term of imprisonment would serve
as a deterrent. Thus, we cannot find that the court abused its discretion in sentencing Jude to nine
Case: 10-5309 Document: 006110937555 Filed: 04/26/2011 Page: 3
United States v. Jude
months of imprisonment. See United States v. Johnson, Nos. 92-5459 & 92-5477, 1993 WL 133801,
at *7 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 1993). Accordingly, we AFFIRM the sentence imposed by the district court.
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?