United States v. Mary Jane Johns, 65 F.4th 891

In the early 2000s Mary Jane Johns kidnapped and sexually assaulted her ex-girlfriend at gunpoint; she was arrested but later absconded from federal authorities for about 16 years.
Johns was originally convicted of three federal offenses, including an 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) charge; she received a 168-month sentence.
After United States v. Davis invalidated the legal basis for the § 924(c) conviction, the district court vacated that count and resentenced Johns on kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) and failure to appear (18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1)).
The parties agreed the Guidelines range for the remaining counts was 121–151 months; the district court imposed the top-of-range sentence of 151 months.
At resentencing Johns sought a below-Guidelines sentence, emphasizing deteriorating health (age, back and foot pain) among other mitigating factors; the court found aggravating factors (brutal offense and long flight) outweighed mitigation.
Johns appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; because she did not object at sentencing, appellate review is for plain error as to procedural claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness: Did the district court adequately consider and explain rejection of Johns’s health-based mitigation?	Johns: Court failed to adequately explain why her health concerns did not justify a lower sentence.	Government: Court discussed the sentencing memorandum and mitigating factors; no requirement for a point-by-point refutation; plain-error standard applies.	No plain procedural error; court sufficiently considered mitigation and need not give a formulaic, point-by-point response.
Substantive reasonableness: Is the 151-month within-Guidelines sentence substantively unreasonable given Johns’s health?	Johns: Sentence is too long in light of her health conditions and other mitigation.	Government: Within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; district court reasonably balanced offense gravity against mitigation.	Substantive challenge fails; no abuse of discretion and no "definite and firm conviction" of error.
Standard of review for unobjected procedural claims	Johns: (implicit) ordinary abuse-of-discretion review.	Government: Because Johns did not object at sentencing, plain-error review governs (Vonner).	Plain-error review applies; Johns bears the burden to show clear error affecting substantial rights and judicial integrity.

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) (SCOTUS decision invalidating a residual clause of § 924(c))
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Gapinski, 561 F.3d 467 (6th Cir. 2009) (district court committed procedural error by wholly ignoring a central mitigation argument)
United States v. Sweeney, 891 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 2018) (district courts need not provide a formulaic, point-by-point refutation of mitigation arguments)
United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) (explaining procedural versus substantive reasonableness review)
United States v. Hymes, 19 F.4th 928 (6th Cir. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion standard and ‘‘definite and firm conviction’’ standard for substantive unreasonableness)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (within-Guidelines sentences need not receive extensive explanation for ordinary mitigating factors)
United States v. Owen, 940 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2019) (within-Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)