USA v. Joshua Ramsey
Per Curiam OPINION: Ramsey's sentence is AFFIRMED, decision not for publication. Martha Craig Daughtrey, Circuit Judge; Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge and Richard Allen Griffin, Circuit Judge.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0303n.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JOSHUA E. RAMSEY,
Apr 27, 2015
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Joshua E. Ramsey appeals his sentence. In 2009, Ramsey pleaded guilty
to aiding and abetting the attempted burglary of a controlled substance from a Drug Enforcement
Administration registrant, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2118(b). The district court sentenced
Ramsey to 33 months in prison and three years of supervised release. In 2013, after Ramsey
admitted that he violated the conditions of his supervised release, the district court sentenced him
to eight months in prison and two years of supervised release.
In 2014, a probation officer filed a petition in the district court, alleging that Ramsey had
again violated the conditions of his supervised release. The petition alleged nine violations,
including that Ramsey had violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by submitting monthly supervision reports
in which he falsely denied possessing or using illegal drugs. Ramsey admitted the alleged
Based on a Grade B violation and criminal history category of V, Ramsey’s
guidelines range of imprisonment was 18 to 24 months. The district court concluded, however,
United States v. Ramsey
that the statutory maximum sentence was 16 months, and the court sentenced Ramsey to 16
months in prison.
On appeal, Ramsey argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable.
specifically contends that, had he not submitted false supervision reports, his guidelines range
would have been seven to thirteen months, and that it is unreasonable to increase his guidelines
range by eleven months for lying to the probation officer. We review the reasonableness of
sentences imposed following revocation of supervised release under an abuse-of-discretion
standard. United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2008). A sentence may be
substantively unreasonable if the district court selects the sentence arbitrarily or gives an
unreasonable amount of weight to any sentencing factor. United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503,
510 (6th Cir. 2008). We apply a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to a
within-guidelines sentence. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en
Ramsey has not overcome the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is
substantively reasonable. Before imposing the sentence, the district court discussed several
relevant sentencing factors, including the nature of Ramsey’s underlying offense, his criminal
history and personal characteristics, and the need to afford adequate deterrence and protect the
public. And it was reasonable for the court to conclude that Ramsey’s submission of false
supervision reports warranted an increased guidelines range and that a statutory maximum
sentence was appropriate based on Ramsey’s significant criminal history and his repeated
violations while on supervised release.
Accordingly, we affirm Ramsey’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?