USA v. Marc Easton

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Deborah L. Cook and Richard Allen Griffin, Circuit Judges; and Walter H. Rice, District Judge.

Case: 13-4118

Document: 31-1

Filed: 07/30/2014

Page: 1

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0577n.06
No. 13-4118
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MARC S. EASTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

FILED
Jul 30, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO

BEFORE: COOK and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; RICE, District Judge.



PER CURIAM. Marc S. Easton appeals the 188-month sentence imposed following his
guilty plea to a charge of bank robbery. We affirm.
At the sentencing hearing, the district court calculated a sentencing guidelines range of
151 to 188 months because Easton is a career offender. A sentence at the top of the range was
imposed. On appeal, Easton argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court
failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors and articulate the reasons for the sentence
imposed.
We review a criminal sentence for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). A sentence within
the guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v.
Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 774 (6th Cir. 2009). Where a sentence is within the guidelines range, no


The Honorable Walter Herbert Rice, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Case: 13-4118

Document: 31-1

Filed: 07/30/2014

Page: 2

No. 13-4118
United States v. Easton
lengthy explanation of the sentence is required, as long as the record makes clear that the parties’
arguments were considered. Id.
Easton argues that the district court made only a conclusory reference to the sentencing
factors, citing United States v. Thomas, 498 F.3d 336, 340 (6th Cir. 2007), and that it is not clear
which sentencing factors the district court considered to be important, citing United States v.
Penson, 526 F.3d 331, 338 (6th Cir. 2008). However, review of the transcript of the sentencing
hearing reveals that the district court mentioned numerous sentencing factors. Easton’s criminal
history was discussed. Easton had been released less than one year previously after having been
sentenced to 160 months for a series of bank robberies. The district court also placed a great
deal of emphasis on the need to protect the public and discussed Easton’s medical condition of
cystic fibrosis and his age. The court gave Easton a sentence at the top of the guidelines range in
order to address his criminal history and his danger to the public, but ran the sentences for
violating two periods of supervised release concurrently. Therefore, no abuse of discretion is
apparent, and the presumptive reasonableness of this within-guidelines sentence has not been
rebutted. The district court’s judgment is accordingly affirmed.

-2-