United States v. John Redmond, Jr., 418 F. App'x 403

Redmond transported his 16‑month‑old son Jaheim on a Greyhound bus, during which Redmond’s agitation prompted a welfare call by the driver.
Police found 26.3 grams of crack cocaine in Jaheim’s diaper bag as Redmond was arrested and he later pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute over 5 grams of cocaine base.
The presentence report designated Redmond as a career offender based on two North Carolina robbery convictions, which Redmond objected to but the district court adopted the designation.
Redmond moved to treat his cocaine offense as powder cocaine under Kimbrough, which the district court allowed, yielding a Guidelines range of 188–235 months.
The district court imposed a 265‑month sentence, finding the range too low after considering upward factors, and Redmond appealed.
The government contended Redmond’s North Carolina convictions should be counted as two separate terms within 15 years for career-offender purposes; Redmond argued otherwise due to a prior paper parole ruling and its rescission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Career-offender designation within 15-year window	Redmond contends he was incarcerated for only one NC robbery within the window.	The government argues both convictions count because 1997–1999 incarceration covered both terms.	Redmond is a career offender; both convictions counted as incarceration within the window.
Procedural reasonableness of upward departure	Redmond argues the court failed to justify any upward departure from the Guidelines.	The government contends the court explained moral defensibility and extensive criminal history supporting departure.	The district court adequately explained its upward departure rationale.
Substantive reasonableness under 3553(a)	Redmond argues the sentence is greater than necessary to serve 3553(a) factors.	The government asserts exceptional circumstances, including involving his infant son and broad criminal history, justify the sentence.	The district court did not abuse its discretion; sentence affirmed as substantively reasonable.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness review of sentences)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (upward variance based on policy disagreement with guidelines)
United States v. McCarty, 628 F.3d 284 (6th Cir. 2010) (clear error standard for factual findings during sentencing)
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (procedural reasonableness and articulation of reasons for sentence)
United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2009) (exceptional circumstances may justify departure)
Robbins v. Freeman, 487 S.E.2d 771 (N.C. App. 1997) (rescission of paper parole affecting calculation of custody)