United States v. Johnson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9548
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Johnson pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud; sentence included one day of imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release after a downward departure.
- Supervised release was revoked for state-court convictions of aggravated robbery and voluntary manslaughter, and for admitting to possessing and discharging a firearm during the robbery.
- State court sentenced Johnson to 12 years in Ohio DOC; revocation proceedings occurred in federal court.
- SRVR alleged two violations: (i) committing another crime, and (ii) possessing a firearm, with Grade A, leading to a 15–21 month advisory Guidelines range.
- Probation office recommended a 36-month sentence, consecutive to the state sentence, based on § 7B1.4 and § 7B1.3(f), and the district court adopted this upward departure.
- The district court imposed 36 months (outside the advisory range) consecutive to the state sentence, after considering § 3553(a) factors and Johnson’s mitigation arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Guidelines range and upward departure were properly explained | Johnson argues the court erred by treating 36 months as within the Guidelines range | Johnson contends the upward departure lacked a valid, specific rationale | Upward departure properly explained; range correctly identified and departure justified |
| Whether the court properly considered the § 3553(a) factors | Johnson argues mitigation factors warranted a within-Guidelines sentence | Johnson’s breach of trust and violence outweighed mitigation considerations | Court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors and balanced them to justify departure |
| Whether the district court adequately explained the departure for revocation | Johnson argues the departure lacks specific reasons tied to § 3553(a) | Court gave reasons focusing on seriousness of breach and need for deterrence | District court provided sufficiently compelling justification for the upward departure |
| Whether the court erred in imposing a consecutive sentence | Johnson argued for concurrent sentence in light of mitigating factors | Court had discretion to impose consecutive sentence under § 3584 and § 7B1.3(f) | Consecutive sentence proper; court considered factors and did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (establishes reason-giving and review standards for sentencing under Gall)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (requires opinion to consider § 3553(a) and explains procedural/reasonableness review)
- McBride, 434 F.3d 470 (6th Cir. 2006) (sufficient evidence of § 3553(a) consideration need not enumerate all factors)
- Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences; abuse review for outside-range)
- Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation sentences; totality of circumstances)
- Pembrook, 609 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2010) (pre-departure range vs. post-departure range for § 3553(a) considerations)