United States v. Mark Evans
671 F. App'x 369
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mark Evans had a prior federal counterfeiting conviction (2009), sentenced to 15 months plus 3 years supervised release; supervised release was later revoked and he served an additional 24 months.
- Shortly after completing that term, Evans resumed counterfeiting and was later indicted in state courts in Georgia and Tennessee for multiple counterfeiting counts.
- In April 2015 Evans and his wife printed about $20,100 in counterfeit $100 bills and Evans passed some at Wal‑Mart; he pled guilty in federal court to passing counterfeit money (18 U.S.C. § 472).
- The district court calculated a Guidelines range of 24–30 months but departed upward to a 48‑month sentence, citing Evans’s rapid resumption of identical criminal conduct, lengthy and persistent criminal history, and the need for deterrence.
- Evans appealed, arguing his sentence was substantively and procedurally unreasonable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Evans) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of above‑Guidelines sentence | Sentence gave undue weight to prior conviction and criminal history already reflected in Guidelines | District court permissibly gave additional weight to rapid recidivism and persistent criminality to deter further offenses | Affirmed: sentence not substantively unreasonable; court properly weighed §3553(a) factors |
| Whether criminal‑history score already accounted for risk of recidivism | Guidelines score made additional upward departure improper | §4A1.3 permits departures where score underrepresents likelihood of reoffending; court explained why additional weight was warranted | Affirmed: upward departure permissible because score did not reflect similarity/timing of offenses |
| Consideration of mitigating personal factors | Court failed to adequately weigh Evans’s mental‑health, addiction, family, employment loss | Court considered mental‑health, treatment needs, family circumstances but balanced them against deterrence and respect for law | Affirmed: district court balanced §3553(a) factors reasonably |
| Procedural reasonableness / adequacy of explanation for departure | Court gave inadequate explanation for imposing above‑Guidelines sentence | District court articulated reasons (long criminal history, serial counterfeiting, failure of shorter sentences to deter); plain‑error review applies | Affirmed: explanation sufficient; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness)
- United States v. Nixon, 664 F.3d 624 (6th Cir. 2011) (district court may consider circumstances already reflected in Guidelines if explained under §3553(a))
- United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2008) (upward sentence permitted when shorter sentences failed to deter)
- United States v. Tristan‑Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2010) (approving above‑Guidelines sentences for repeat offenders)
- United States v. Sexton, 512 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2008) (court must balance §3553(a) factors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district courts must adequately explain departures)
- United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865 (6th Cir. 2004) (plain‑error review when defendant fails to object at sentencing)