USA v. Olufemi Young
Per Curiam OPINION filed: Accordingly we AFFIRM the sentence imposed below. Decision not for publication. Ralph B. Guy , Jr. Julia Smith Gibbons, and John M. Rogers, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0413n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Jun 05, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: GUY, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Olufemi Young, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed upon
the revocation of his term of supervised release.
Young entered a guilty plea in 2001 in the Western District of Pennsylvania to charges of
carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime and possession of a firearm by a felon.
He was sentenced to 157 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. His
supervised release term commenced in December 2011. Beginning in March 2013, Young
repeatedly tested positive for marijuana. He admitted that his drug use violated the terms of his
supervised release. A sentencing hearing was held in November 2014. The guidelines range for
the violation was calculated at six to twelve months of imprisonment. The government argued
for a sentence within the range. Young argued that he had successfully started his own business
and asked to be allowed to continue his final month of supervised release. The district court
United States v. Young
discussed the seriousness of the violation and the needs to promote respect for the law, to punish,
and for deterrence in imposing a term of imprisonment of twelve months with no additional
supervised release to follow. Young now argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
He states that he required drug treatment rather than incarceration.
We review a sentence imposed on the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness
under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 575 (6th Cir. 2007).
A sentence within the guidelines range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of substantive
reasonableness. United States v. Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007); United
States v. Morris, 448 F.3d 929, 932 (6th Cir. 2006). Young presents nothing that indicates an
abuse of discretion by the district court or rebuts the presumption of reasonableness of his
He was given the opportunity to complete drug treatment on
supervised release and squandered that opportunity. Young’s wish for a more lenient sentence is
insufficient to disturb the district court’s judgment.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed below.
See Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d at 413.
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?