United States v. Henry Tippett, Jr.
679 F. App'x 405
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tippett led an oxycodone distribution conspiracy: members traveled to Florida pain clinics to obtain pills for street distribution in Ohio.
- He pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C).
- Sentencing calculations: total offense level 31, CHC I → guideline range 108–135 months; Tippett argued for a lower calculation (offense level 29) making the range 87–108 months.
- District court sentenced Tippett to 96 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release, stating it would have imposed the same sentence even under Tippett’s lower guideline range.
- Tippett challenged the sentence as procedurally unreasonable (court relied on erroneous factual premises about oxycodone leading to heroin use/overdose) and substantively unreasonable (insufficient weight to unwarranted disparity argument about the Sentencing Commission’s oxycodone–marijuana equivalency).
- The district court emphasized Tippett’s leadership, exploitation of vulnerable associates, community harms from oxycodone, and mitigating personal factors (employment, health, age) in selecting the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness: Did the court rely on clearly erroneous facts (oxycodone → heroin/overdose) when sentencing? | Tippett: Court relied on a government-cited study not in the record; factual reliance was erroneous and prejudicial. | Gov/Court: Judge may consider broad sources and court relied on its own experience and recognized harms of oxycodone; Tippett offered no contradictory evidence. | Affirmed — no procedural error; sentencing explanation adequate and facts not clearly erroneous. |
| Substantive reasonableness: Did the court give inadequate weight to unwarranted sentencing disparity tied to Commission’s equivalency? | Tippett: Court’s acceptance of Commission’s equivalency (based on alleged erroneous factual belief) led to improper weighting against variance. | Gov/Court: Even if Commission’s equivalency were wrong, court stated it would impose the same sentence based on offense nature and other §3553(a) factors. | Affirmed — sentence not substantively unreasonable; court permissibly weighed factors and would have imposed same term. |
| Standard of review for unpreserved objections | Tippett: Challenges asserted but some arguments were not raised below; plain-error review should apply if unpreserved. | Court: Regardless of preservation, merits fail under abuse-of-discretion; Tippett bore heavier burden as a below-guidelines defendant. | Affirmed — applicable standards (abuse of discretion/plain error) discussed; outcome favorable to government. |
| Burden for below-guidelines sentences | Tippett: Must show sentence unreasonable despite being below guidelines. | Gov/Court: Below-guidelines defendants face heightened burden to show unreasonableness. | Affirmed — Tippett did not meet heightened burden; sentence reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (establishes procedural and substantive reasonableness review and discretion of sentencing court)
- United States v. Bridgewater, 606 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2010) (district court abuses discretion when it applies incorrect standard or relies on clearly erroneous facts)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (plain-error review applies if objection not raised below)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (plain-error reversal requires error that affects substantial rights and the fairness/integrity of proceedings)
- United States v. Curry, 536 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2008) (defendant sentenced below guidelines bears heightened burden to show unreasonableness)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (district court may disagree with Guidelines policy statements and vary sentence)
- United States v. Cunningham, 669 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2012) (upholding sentence where court relied on studies and its experience; defendant failed to rebut)
- United States v. Burnette, [citation="414 F. App'x 795"] (6th Cir. 2011) (district court may rely on its own experience and extrarecord materials when sentencing)
- United States v. Walls, 546 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2008) (substantive unreasonableness occurs if sentence is greater than necessary or relies on impermissible factors)
- United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2010) (inquiry focuses on whether sentence is greater than necessary to achieve sentencing goals)