USA v. Donald Wesley
Per Curiam OPINION filed : No abuse of discretion is apparent that would rebut the presumed reasonableness of this sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range. The district court's judgment is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. John M. Rogers and Deborah L. Cook, Circuit Judges; and Stephen J. Murphy , III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0377n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
May 20, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: ROGERS and COOK, Circuit Judges; MURPHY, District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Donald Wesley, a federal prisoner, appeals through counsel the 100month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a charge of being a felon in possession of a
In the presentence report, Wesley’s guidelines sentencing range was calculated at 100 to
120 months. Wesley filed a request for a downward variance. At the sentencing hearing,
defense counsel argued that the death of Wesley’s father, when Wesley was a teenager,
explained why Wesley had drifted into criminal activity.
He argued that the firearm was
discovered during a traffic stop of a car in which Wesley was a passenger, and not during the
commission of another crime. Wesley also spoke, and argued that he had reformed since his
prior criminal history when he was young. The district court rejected the request for a downward
The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy, III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, sitting by designation.
United States v. Wesley
variance and sentenced Wesley at the bottom of the guidelines range. On appeal, Wesley argues
that the district court failed to address the relevant sentencing factors.
A failure to address the sentencing factors can be both a substantive and procedural error.
United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2008). We review the sentence for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746, 756
(6th Cir. 2013). A within-range sentence is accorded a rebuttable presumption of substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Brown, 579 F.3d 672, 677 (6th Cir. 2009).
The transcript of the sentencing hearing shows that the district court was not persuaded
that Wesley had reformed since his criminal history when he was young and that he was only
involved in a traffic stop that led to the discovery of the firearm. The record showed that Wesley
was stopped in relation to an investigation of a gang shooting, and that Wesley had an
outstanding warrant for a charge of selling cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. The district
court discussed the serious nature of the offense, Wesley’s history, and the need for the sentence
to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, act as a deterrent, protect the public, and
provide needed training and treatment. While the district court did not specifically mention the
death of Wesley’s father, a sentencing court is not required to address explicitly every argument
in every case. See United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006).
Therefore, no abuse of discretion is apparent that would rebut the presumed
reasonableness of this sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range. 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?