United States v. Michael Jackson, 477 F. App'x 377

Jackson pled guilty in Lorain County to three state offenses: two trafficking in drugs (fifth-degree felonies), possession of criminal tools (fifth-degree felony), and possession of drug paraphernalia (fourth-degree misdemeanor); he also agreed to act as a confidential informant.
He received three years’ probation in state court for those offenses.
A U.S. probation officer later alleged supervised-release violations: two new law violations and acting as a confidential informant without court permission.
At initial sentencing, the district court calculated a Guideline range of 51–60 months and imposed a five-year conditional sentence, held in abeyance for GPS-home detention; the judge later left the bench and a new judge found no authority to impose a conditional sentence and ordered the original five-year sentence.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated and remanded for de novo resentencing; at resentencing, the district court treated the violations as Grade A and sentenced to five years (statutory maximum).
Jackson argues the correct range should reflect Grade C violations given the state-convicted offenses, which would yield a much shorter range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the Guideline range correctly determined for supervised release violations?	Jackson argues Grade C applies because offenses under Ohio law have statutory caps ≤1 year.	District court held Grade A based on actual conduct and applicable controlled-substance violations.	No; court properly used Grade A based on actual conduct and the underlying offenses.
Did the district court err by basing the sentence on rehabilitation considerations?	Jackson contends the court penalized him to obtain treatment, which Tapia prohibits.	Court did not lengthen for rehabilitation; it properly weighed factors and circumstances.	No; rehabilitation considerations did not drive the length of the sentence.
Did the court properly consider Jackson's age and health in sentencing?	Jackson contends age/health warranted leniency.	Court acknowledged age/health but found they did not warrant leniency given the conduct and record.	Yes; court properly considered but found no basis for leniency.
Is the five-year sentence within the reasonable bounds of the statute and guidelines?	Jackson seeks a shorter term based on Grade C; bond pending appeal requested.	Guideline range and aggravating factors justify the five-year sentence.	Yes; sentence affirmed as reasonable within guidelines.

United States v. Peebles, 624 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for supervised-release sentences; abuse of discretion)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (reasonableness review guidance; procedural/substantive standards)
United States v. Chames, 376 F. App’x 578 (6th Cir. 2010) (Rules; admissibility and reliability in revocation hearings)
United States v. Brownlee, 297 F. App’x 479 (6th Cir. 2008) (Grade A vs Grade C violations; actual conduct basis)
United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008) (reasonable sentencing within guidelines; factors weighing)