United States v. Anthony Broome , 599 F. App'x 579 ( 2015 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0254n.06
No. 14-5691
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Apr 08, 2015
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
v. ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
) TENNESSEE
ANTHONY BERNARD BROOME, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
BEFORE: MERRITT, BOGGS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Anthony Bernard Broome appeals the sentence imposed upon the
revocation of his supervised release.
Broome was convicted in 1997 of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute,
possession of a firearm in connection with drug trafficking, and possession of a firearm by a
felon. He was sentenced to 130 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release.
While on supervised release, Broome was convicted in state court of possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and was sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment. He admitted that his state
conviction was a violation of the terms of his supervised release. The guidelines range for the
revocation was thirty to thirty-six months of imprisonment. At the sentencing hearing, Broome
argued for a sentence below the guidelines range, emphasizing that he had complied with the
terms of supervised release for approximately four years before his violation. The district court
discussed the seriousness of the new offense and the need for deterrence, and imposed a sentence
No. 14-5691
United States v. Broome
of thirty months, at the bottom of the guidelines range, with no further supervised release to
follow.
On appeal, Broome argues that his sentence is unreasonable. He contends that his
original sentence from 1997 was longer than it would be if he committed the same offense today,
and that the district court failed to consider his argument that he complied with the terms of his
supervised release for four years.
A sentence imposed on the revocation of supervised release is reviewed for
reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 575
(6th Cir. 2007). A sentence within the guidelines range may be presumed to be substantively
reasonable. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Nothing
presented by Broome overcomes the presumption that his bottom-of-the-range sentence is
reasonable, or demonstrates any abuse of discretion by the district court. He claims without
support that his original sentence for his 1997 conviction was longer than what he would receive
today. The government refuted this claim, noting that Broome was not sentenced for crack
cocaine but powder cocaine, for which the penalties have not changed. Broome also argues that
the district court failed to consider his compliance with the supervised release conditions for four
years. The court was not required to address this argument explicitly. See United States v. Gale,
468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006). The transcript shows that the district court was troubled by
Broome’s commission of the same offense for which he was originally sentenced and concluded
that at least a bottom-of-the-range sentence was necessary for purposes of deterrence. Finding
no abuse of discretion by the district court, we AFFIRM Broome’s sentence.
-2-