United States v. Richard Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043

Background

Richard Parrish, a federal inmate, was found with a cellphone after an anonymous tip from a woman led officers to a prison bathroom where he pulled, broke, and discarded the phone. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of contraband in prison under 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2).
The Guidelines range was 4–10 months; the government requested within-Guidelines; defense sought a 1-day downward variance citing BOP discipline and family contact.
At sentencing Parrish stated he had the phone to contact his children; the court inferred the outside woman did not want contact and emphasized deterrence, sentencing him to five months consecutive to his 250-month drug sentence.
Parrish appealed, arguing the sentence was unreasonable because the district court relied on unsupported factual speculation (that contact was unwanted/harassing), and that the court overemphasized deterrence and ignored local sentencing disparities.
The Sixth Circuit majority treated Parrish’s claim as a procedural-reasonableness challenge, held the district court’s inferences were reasonable and supported by the record, and affirmed the within-Guidelines five-month sentence.
Judge Damon J. Keith dissented, arguing the record lacked support for the court’s assumptions and that reliance on unfounded factual inferences required vacatur and resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court based the sentence on unreasonable speculation/impermissible factual findings	Parrish: court inferred harassment/unwanted contact without record support, so sentence procedurally flawed	Government: court may draw reasonable inferences (woman’s tip implied she did not welcome contact); facts support inference	Court: inference that the woman did not want contact was reasonable; no procedural error; affirmed
Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable for overemphasizing deterrence	Parrish: court relied solely on deterrence, ignoring other § 3553(a) factors	Government: court considered offense nature, seriousness, available sentences, public protection, and respect for law in reaching sentence	Court: district court considered multiple § 3553(a) factors; within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; affirmed
Whether the court failed to address sentencing disparities (local practice)	Parrish: similar local cases received 1-day sentences; court ignored disparity argument	Government: district court considered and rejected disparity argument and § 3553(a)(6) focuses on national, not individual, disparities	Court: record shows court considered and distinguished disparities; no abuse of discretion; affirmed
Standard of review and preservation of objection	Parrish: argues plain-error review inapplicable because court didn’t solicit objections per Bostic	Government: even under plain error, no reversible error because inferences were reasonable	Court: need not decide plain-error; regardless, no procedural error found; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Morgan, 687 F.3d 688 (6th Cir. 2012) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (requirement to adequately explain sentencing decision and review framework)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (preservation requirement for sentencing objections; presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Cabrera, 811 F.3d 801 (6th Cir. 2016) (consideration of impermissible factors is a procedural error)
United States v. Hunt, 521 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2008) (a sentence may be reversed if the judge relied on facts it could not properly consider)
United States v. Jones, 489 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2007) (when defendant raises specific mitigation, district court must show it considered and explained rejection)
United States v. Gamble, 709 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2013) (§ 3553(a)(6) addresses national, not individualized, sentencing disparities)