United States v. David Mays, 435 F. App'x 519

Mays was convicted by jury of RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and conspiracy to use or carry a firearm during a drug trafficking or violent crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(o); district court sentenced to 121 and 120 months, to be served concurrently.
This court previously affirmed but remanded for resentencing; on remand, base level 28 with a 4-level enhancement for injuries yielded a total offense level of 32, Guidelines range 135–168 months.
The district court varied upward to 192 months despite the Guidelines range, resulting in concurrent sentences.
On appeal, Mays challenged (1) the § 2A2.1(b)(1)(A) four-level enhancement for permanent or life-threatening injuries, (2) underrepresentation in criminal history, (3) consideration of state prison time on related charges, and (4) the upward variance and its explanation.
The appellate court reviews for procedural and substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, applying Gall v. United States and related Sixth Circuit precedents.
The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the enhancement, the consideration of § 3553(a) factors, or the rationale for the upward variance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the four-level enhancement for injuries was proper	Mays argues the enhancement is improper	Mays argues the district court properly applied it	District court did not abuse discretion; enhancement upheld
Whether the criminal-history explanation was adequate	Mays contends underrepresentation not adequately explained	Court properly considered history factors	Explanation adequate; no error in handling history
Whether rejection of time served in state prison was adequately explained	Mays argues the court failed to justify credit for state-prison time	Court considered state prison time in sentence fashioning	Court adequately explained consideration of state-prison time
Whether the upward variance was warranted and properly explained	Mays challenges lack of adequate justification for variance	Court explained seriousness, enterprise, and recidivism risk	Upward variance warranted and properly explained

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for reasonable sentencing under § 3553(a))
United States v. Vowell, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (framework for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Woodard, 638 F.3d 506 (6th Cir. 2011) (touchstone: reasonableness in light of § 3553(a) factors)