United States v. Chiolo, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13310

Chiolo admitted violating supervised release by engaging in domestic violence; district court imposed 37 months, above the advisory range of 5–11 months.
Chiolo previously pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana; initial sentence 120 months mandatory minimum was reduced to 78 months, then to 41 months, followed by five years of supervised release.
Chiolo completed the 41-month term and began supervised release on October 7, 2008.
On June 11, 2009, Chiolo was arrested for felonious assault and domestic violence; a urine drug screen later indicated substitution.
At the July 16, 2009 sentencing for the supervised-release violation, the district court heard testimony detailing a brutal attack on Gregory, photographs of injuries, and competing credibility statements; the court considered the allegations serious and not merely a grade C violation.
The court grounded the 37-month sentence on the serious nature of the violation, evidence of return to drug activity, protection of the public and the victim, and Chiolo's prior substantial sentence reductions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of above-guidelines sentence	Chiolo argues the district court misapplied 3553(a) by imposing an above-guidelines term.	USA contends the court properly balanced 3553(a) factors and justified an above-guidelines sentence.	Sentence deemed procedurally reasonable.
Addressing non-frivolous arguments for leniency	Chiolo contends the court failed to expressly address several non-frivolous arguments for a lesser sentence.	The court's reasoning implicitly addressed those arguments within its stated factors.	Court's reasoning sufficiently addressed arguments; no remand required.
Consideration of defendant's history and characteristics	Chiolo maintained the court did not adequately weigh psychological treatment, caregiving, or anger management needs.	Court considered history and characteristics, including prior leniency reductions and recidivist behavior.	Court properly considered history and characteristics; rationale supported.
Implicit rejection of aberrant-behavior argument	Chiolo argued the domestic-violence conduct could be aberrational and not indicative of ongoing risk.	Court found evidence suggested return to drug use and ongoing threat, warranting harsher sentence.	Implicit rejection supported by context; no error in determination.

United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758 (6th Cir.2009) (reasoning must reflect considerations listed in 3553(a) and allow meaningful appellate review)
United States v. Mayberry, 540 F.3d 506 (6th Cir.2008) (framework for evaluating reasonableness of sentence under 3553(a))
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (requires meaningful consideration of arguments and a reasoned explanation)
United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348 (6th Cir.2009) (conceptually straightforward arguments may be inferred in absence of explicit discussion)
United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (6th Cir.2010) (vacatur when district court fails to address disparity arguments)
United States v. Thomas, 498 F.3d 336 (6th Cir.2007) (remand avoided when district court's reasoning implies consideration of arguments)
United States v. Petrus, 588 F.3d 347 (6th Cir.2009) (explicit discussion not required if reasoning demonstrates consideration)
United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929 (6th Cir.2006) (district court explanation within statutory factors suffices)
United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir.2004) (Bostic question relates to sentencing review standards)