USA v. Broderick Price
Per Curiam OPINION filed : the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED. Decision not for publication pursuant to local rule 206. David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge; Helene N. White, Circuit Judge and Michael R. Barrett, U.S. District Judge, SDOH.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0132n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Feb 02, 2012
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BEFORE: McKEAGUE and WHITE, Circuit Judges; BARRETT, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Broderick Price appeals a district-court judgment revoking his probation and
sentencing him to seven months of imprisonment. We affirm.
In 2010, Price entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States
and two counts of uttering forged and counterfeit securities. He was sentenced to three years of
probation. Price soon found himself back before the court, as his probation officer reported that
Price tested positive for marijuana on five occasions (admitting to four uses), twice failed to report
to the probation office when scheduled, had several violations of his electronic-monitoring home
detention, and twice failed to attend classes required by his drug-treatment program. At the hearing,
the district court found that Price had violated his probation and that it should be revoked. The court
rejected counsel’s argument that an exception to the mandatory revocation required for three positive
The Honorable Michael R. Barrett, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.
United States v. Price
drug tests should be made. The court noted that the guidelines sentencing range was four to ten
months of imprisonment, and after hearing argument from both counsel and allocution from Price,
imposed a sentence of seven months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Price argues that the district court
abused its discretion in declining to make an exception to mandatory revocation and in sentencing
Price to more than the bottom of the guidelines range.
We review a revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bujak, 347
F.3d 607, 609 (6th Cir. 2003). Because Price had more than three positive drug tests, revocation was
mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(b)(4) unless the district court determined that a drug-treatment
program would be more suitable, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3563(e). In this case, Price had twice
failed to comply with the attendance requirements of his drug-treatment program and tested positive
for drug use on multiple occasions. Additionally, the district court recalled that Price had also had
his bond revoked on the underlying charges due to drug problems. Under the circumstances, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make an exception to mandatory revocation
in favor of a drug treatment program. Cf. United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 2000).
The sentence of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of probation is reviewed for
procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Bujak, 347 F.3d
at 609-10; see also United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007) (reviewing sentence
imposed for revocation of supervised release). A sentence within the guidelines range is entitled to
a presumption of reasonableness. Bolds, 511 F.3d at 581. Price makes only vague and conclusory
arguments that his sentence was unreasonable, stating that a sentence at the bottom of the range
rather than the middle would have been sufficient. Review of the hearing transcript reveals that the
district court considered and addressed the factors raised by Price and his counsel. Price’s desire for
United States v. Price
a more lenient sentence is an insufficient reason to disturb the district court’s judgment. United
States v. Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment 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?