USA v. Larry Moore
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Gilbert S. Merritt, Circuit Judge; Boyce F. Martin , Jr., Circuit Judge and Ronald Lee Gilman, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0016n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
Jan 07, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
LARRY O. MOORE,
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
Before: MERRITT, MARTIN, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Larry O. Moore, who is represented by counsel, appeals the sentence
imposed by the district court following his guilty pleas to possession with the intent to distribute
cocaine and cocaine base.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Moore pleaded guilty to one count of possession with the intent
to distribute approximately ninety-eight grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B); and one count of possession with the intent to distribute approximately
thirty-three grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). A presentence
report calculated Moore’s total offense level as twenty-five and his criminal history category as IV,
resulting in an advisory sentencing guidelines range of eighty-four to 105 months of imprisonment.
Because the cocaine-base conviction required a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 120
months, the statutorily required minimum sentence became the guidelines range. See USSG
-2Prior to sentencing, the district court granted a motion by the government for a two-level
reduction in Moore’s offense level due to his substantial assistance. This reduction resulted in a
revised sentencing guidelines range of seventy to eighty-seven months of imprisonment, and allowed
the district court to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum. See USSG § 5K1.1. After
consideration of the factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court determined that Moore’s
criminal history category of IV was insufficient and stated that it was departing upward to category
V, resulting in an advisory sentencing guidelines range of eighty-four to 105 months of
The district court ultimately sentenced Moore to one hundred months of
On appeal, Moore argues that the district court abused its discretion by departing upward,
rendering his sentence substantively unreasonable. Moore asserts that the district court unreasonably
relied on the fact that firearms were found in his home, when the presence of the firearms had
already been taken into consideration in calculating the advisory sentencing guidelines range.
We review criminal sentences for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence will be
found to be substantively unreasonable when “the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases
the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an
unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Camiscione, 591 F.3d 823,
832 (6th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Reasonableness review also
applies to sentences that result from departures, which the district court imposed here. United States
v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 513 (6th Cir. 2008).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by departing upward and imposing a one
hundred-month sentence. In particular, the district court did not place an unreasonable amount of
weight on the fact that guns were found in Moore’s possession at the time of his arrest. A district
court does not necessarily commit reversible error by attaching great weight to any single factor.
-3Gall, 552 U.S. at 56–57. Although the district court discussed the weapons in Moore’s possession,
the court also emphasized other compelling reasons for departing upward to a higher criminal history
The district court explained that Moore had a lengthy prior record. The court considered the
types of sentences available and noted that, without the government’s substantial-assistance motion,
Moore would have been subject to a mandatory minimum term of 120 months of imprisonment. The
court considered the need for the sentence imposed to provide just punishment and deterrence to
Moore and the need to protect the public from him. The district court recognized that Moore had
twelve prior drug convictions, had numerous opportunities for community control, but continued to
violate the law with little or no sanction ever imposed. The court determined that given Moore’s
prior criminal history, a sentence at the top of the seventy to eighty-seven month advisory guidelines
range was insufficient, as was a criminal history category of IV. The court departed upward one
criminal history category to a range of eighty-four to 105 months and imposed one hundred months
The record does not demonstrate that the district court gave unreasonable weight to the
weapons found in Moore’s possession. See United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469, 477–78 (6th Cir.
2011). The district court explicitly referenced several of the sentencing factors and did not rely on
a clearly erroneous finding of fact or clearly misapply the law. The district court’s imposition of a
one hundred-month above-guidelines sentence was not an abuse of discretion that warrants reversal.
See Gall, 552 U.S. at 56–57.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
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?