USA v. Charles Collin
Per Curiam OPINION filed : AFFIRMED; decision not for publication. Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge; John M. Rogers, Circuit Judge and Jane Branstetter Stranch, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0891n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
CHARLES WESLEY COLLINS,
Dec 03, 2014
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: BOGGS, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
Charles Wesley Collins appeals his sentence upon revocation of
In 2008, Collins pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The district court sentenced him to one year and one day in prison, to be
followed by three years of supervised release. During his term of supervised release, Collins
possessed a firearm, and he was convicted in state court of being a felon in possession of a
firearm. The state trial court sentenced Collins to one year in prison. Collins subsequently
admitted that he violated the conditions of his federal supervised release by possessing a firearm
and by violating Kentucky law. The federal district court determined that Collins’s guidelines
range of imprisonment was four to ten months. The court varied upward and sentenced Collins
to 18 months in prison, to be served consecutively to his state sentence.
United States v. Collins
On appeal, Collins argues that his above-guidelines sentence is substantively
unreasonable. He also argues that his sentence violated his double-jeopardy rights because it
was imposed for the same conduct underlying his state conviction and sentence for being a felon
in possession of a firearm. Collins’s double-jeopardy claim fails as a matter of law because his
18-month sentence for revocation of supervised release is part of his punishment for the 2008
offense, not punishment for the conduct underlying his state conviction. See Johnson v. United
States, 529 U.S. 694, 700 (2000); see also United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, 203 (6th Cir.
We review sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness,
which has both a procedural and a substantive component.
United States v. Studabaker,
578 F.3d 423, 430 (6th Cir. 2009). Collins does not contend that the sentence is procedurally
unreasonable. A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court selects the sentence
arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing
factors, or gives unreasonable weight to any relevant factor. United States v. Zobel, 696 F.3d
558, 569 (6th Cir. 2012).
Before imposing its sentence, the district court engaged in a thorough discussion of the
relevant sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). And the court reasonably explained that
an above-guidelines sentence was warranted based on Collins’s pattern of possessing firearms
illegally, the significant risks resulting from his possession of firearms and his domestic-violence
issues, and the need to afford adequate deterrence and protect the public. Because there is
nothing in the record suggesting that the district court failed to consider a relevant sentencing
factor or gave improper weight to any factor, the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing
the 18-month sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm Collins’s sentence.
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?