USA v. Troy Walker
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Ralph B. Guy , Jr., Alice M. Batchelder, and Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0412n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
TROY LAMAR WALKER,
Jun 05, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: GUY, BATCHELDER, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Troy Lamar Walker appeals the district court’s judgment that revoked
his supervised release and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
In 2011, Walker pleaded guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The district court sentenced him to 24 months in prison and 10 years of
supervised release. We affirmed the district court’s judgment.
In 2013, Walker admitted
violating the conditions of his supervised release by failing to attend a mental health program
and by failing to comply with Virginia’s sex offender registration law. The district court
sentenced Walker to 8 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release.
In 2014, the district court determined that Walker again violated the conditions of his
supervised release by failing to receive prior approval from his probation officer before changing
his residence, by failing to report as instructed, and by failing to comply with the reporting
requirements of Michigan’s sex offender registration law. The district court determined that,
United States v. Walker
based on a Grade B violation and criminal history category of III, Walker’s guidelines range of
imprisonment was 8 to 14 months. The court varied upward from the guidelines range and
sentenced Walker to 16 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release.
On appeal, Walker argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the district court’s
finding that he willfully violated the reporting requirements of Michigan’s sex offender
registration law. Walker specifically contends that he could not comply with the law because he
was homeless and lacked a state identification card.
Walker also argues that his above-
guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable.
We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s finding that a defendant violated a
condition of his supervised release. United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 605 (6th Cir. 2001).
A district court may revoke a term of supervised release if the court finds by a preponderance of
the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his supervised release.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Walker violated the
conditions of his supervised release. The evidence introduced at the revocation hearing showed
that Walker knew that he must comply with the reporting requirements of Michigan’s sex
offender registration law and that he failed to do so. And, despite his argument to the contrary,
Walker’s homelessness and lack of a state identification card did not prevent him from properly
reporting. See People v. Dowdy, 802 N.W.2d 239, 245, 247 (Mich. 2011).
Walker also argues that his above-guidelines sentence is substantively unreasonable,
given the technical nature of his supervised release violations. We review sentences imposed
following revocation of supervised release under an abuse-of-discretion standard for
reasonableness, which has both a procedural and a substantive component. United States v.
United States v. Walker
Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2008). A sentence may be substantively unreasonable if
the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily, relies on an impermissible sentencing factor,
fails to consider a pertinent factor, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent
factor. United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503, 510 (6th Cir. 2008).
Walker’s sentence is substantively reasonable. Before imposing the sentence, the district
court discussed several relevant sentencing factors, including the nature of Walker’s supervised
release violations, his history and characteristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence,
protect the public, and provide Walker with effective correctional treatment. And the court
reasonably concluded that an above-guidelines sentence was warranted, given Walker’s
unwillingness to properly maintain his sex offender registration, his pattern of refusing to comply
with the instructions of his probation officer, and his history of domestic violence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
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?