United States v. Young , 239 F. App'x 970 ( 2007 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 07a0639n.06
Filed: August 30, 2007
No. 06-2245
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
) EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
TROY LEE YOUNG, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
Before: KENNEDY and COOK, Circuit Judges; and ALDRICH, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. The court, having heard oral argument and considered the parties’ briefs
together with the joint appendix, determines that the judgment of the district court should be
affirmed. Young fails to establish that his sentence is unreasonable.
On August 23, 2006, Young’s probation officer submitted an amended petition alleging that
Young violated five conditions of supervised release: (1) drug use—Young tested positive for use
of marijuana six times, and for use of methamphetamine twice (J.A. at 18); (2) failure to participate
in a substance abuse treatment program (J.A. at 18); (3) failure to make restitution payments
consistently (J.A. at 19); (4) committing indecent acts in public in violation of state law (J.A. at 21);
*
The Honorable Ann Aldrich, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.
Nos. 06-2245
United States v. Young
and (5) failure to report his arrest to the probation officer (J.A. at 21).
At the revocation hearing, Young admitted probation violations 1, 2, 3, and 5 as set forth in
the probation officer’s petition, but remained mute on the pending charges for indecent exposure
(violation 4). (J.A. at 37.)
Young concedes that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors of rehabilitation,
punishment, deterrence, and protecting society in imposing its sentence but complains that the
district court neglected to consider or comment on the characteristics of the defendant, specifically
his employment and family responsibilities. The government responds that in addition to the factors
that Young acknowledges the court considered, the court did indeed consider the defendant’s
characteristics: his original offense, lengthy criminal history, adjustment to supervision, lengthy drug
history, failure to fully engage the drug treatment programs made available to him, and failure to
abide by society’s rules. (Gov’t Br. at 12.)
As the transcript demonstrates, the court adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors relevant
to a revocation of supervised release, pursuant to § 3583(e): rehabilitation (J.A. at 44); the
defendant’s characteristics, both favorable (J.A. at 44) and unfavorable (J.A. at 45-46); the
Sentencing Guidelines (J.A. at 44-45); the nature of the prior and current charges (J.A. at 45);
restitution (J.A. at 45); protecting society (J.A. at 46); deterrence (J.A. at 46); and the leniency of the
original sentence (the Guidelines’ minimum) (J.A. 46-47).
-2-
Nos. 06-2245
United States v. Young
Though the 36-month, statutory-maximum sentence imposed significantly exceeded the
policy statement range, in light of the nature of appellant’s admitted violations—failure to refrain
from use of alcohol or drugs and failure to properly participate in a substance-abuse program—and
in view of appellant’s failure to achieve adequate rehabilitation from serving his prior sentence at
the low end of the Guidelines range, we cannot say that the record evidences a sentence that is either
procedurally or substantively unreasonable.
Judgment affirmed.
-3-