United States v. Jonathan Wilson
20-1984
| 6th Cir. | Jul 16, 2021Background:
- Wilson (felon) arrested in homeowner's basement with stolen unloaded .22 handgun, magazine, drug paraphernalia; his DNA on gun and magazine; texts suggested residents knew of gun.
- He pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)); admitted moving the gun from the mattress to a table and that he was absconding from parole.
- Presentence Guidelines agreed to by both parties: offense level 13, criminal-history category VI, recommended range 33–41 months; government sought 41 months; Wilson sought within-Guidelines sentence.
- District court found an unusually severe criminal record: six felonies, 23 criminal-history points (above highest CH category), multiple probation revocations, offenses while on parole, and poor supervision compliance.
- Court emphasized Wilson as a danger needing specific and general deterrence and that Guidelines could not fully reflect his excessive criminal-history points; increased offense level by two and imposed an upward variance to 51 months.
- Wilson appealed, arguing substantive unreasonableness based on alleged failure to consider offense circumstances (fleeting possession), overreliance on criminal-history quantity vs quality, and that the sentence was greater than necessary.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 51-month above-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable | Wilson: court ignored fleeting nature of possession and overstated factors, warranting lower sentence | Gov: court considered §3553(a) factors, unique and severe criminal history justified variance; Guidelines advisory | Affirmed: sentence not substantively unreasonable; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court gave improper weight to criminal history (quantity vs quality) | Wilson: court relied on quantity, not lack of violent convictions, so overweighted history | Gov: court addressed both extent and nature of offenses and poor supervision; CH points understate severity beyond category VI cap | Affirmed: district court permissibly weighed history; facts distinguished from Lee |
| Whether district court failed to consider offense circumstances or other §3553(a) factors | Wilson: court did not explicitly address every factual detail (fleeting possession) | Gov: court heard and considered defendant's statements; sentencing weighting is discretionary and need not recite every factor | Affirmed: court adequately considered §3553(a) factors and explained rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Milliron, 984 F.3d 1188 (6th Cir. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing variances; deviation need not be extraordinary)
- United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) (substantive-unreasonableness claim challenges sentence length and factor weighting)
- United States v. Lee, 974 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 2020) (reversed for excessive upward variance based largely on dated criminal history)
- United States v. Small, 988 F.3d 241 (6th Cir. 2021) (upward variance permitted when court addresses §3553(a) factors and provides detailed rationale)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts have discretion to vary from Guidelines; appellate courts may consider degree of variance)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (Guidelines are advisory; courts may vary based on individualized assessment)
- Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (sentence is unreasonable if greater than necessary to achieve sentencing purposes)