Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-02437/USCOURTS-ca6-14-02437-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone Hogan
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0453n.06

No. 14-2437

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TYRONE HOGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: BOGGS and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges, BLACK, District Judge.

*

PER CURIAM. Tyrone Hogan, a federal prisoner, appeals the six-month sentence 

imposed for his violation of his conditions of supervised release.

Hogan entered a guilty plea in 2009 to charges of bank fraud conspiracy, wire fraud, and 

conduit campaign contributions. He was granted a downward variance in his sentence, resulting 

in a sentence of twelve months and one day of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, 

and restitution of over $2 million. His period of supervised release began in April 2013. In 

August 2014, the district court held a hearing on Hogan’s violation of the conditions of 

supervised release. Hogan admitted that he failed to pay anything towards his restitution and that 

he tested positive for cocaine. Hogan had not documented any attempt to obtain employment, 

 

*

The Honorable Timothy Black, United States District Judge for the Southern District of 

Ohio, sitting by designation.

 Case: 14-2437 Document: 27-1 Filed: 06/16/2015 Page: 1
No. 14-2437

United States v. Hogan

- 2 -

but he represented at the hearing that he had recently found a job. The district court granted 

Hogan a “zero tolerance” adjournment. Three months later, Hogan still had failed to make any 

payments on the restitution judgment. The guidelines sentencing range for the more serious 

violation of supervised release, using a controlled substance, was six to twelve months of 

imprisonment; the district court sentenced Hogan to six months with no further period of 

supervised release. Hogan raised no objection to the sentence.

On appeal, Hogan argues that the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing 

factors and that his failure to pay restitution was not willful. Because Hogan raised neither of his 

procedural objections below, thus denying the district court an opportunity to correct any 

problems, we review the judgment for plain error only. See United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 

318, 323 (6th Cir. 2008). To establish plain error, an appellant must demonstrate, inter alia, that 

the alleged errors affected the outcome or fairness of the proceeding. United States v. Babcock, 

753 F.3d 587, 590-91 (6th Cir. 2014).

Hogan complains that the district court failed to consider relevant sentencing factors. 

The discussion of the reasons for a sentence within the guidelines range need not be lengthy. 

United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 774 (6th Cir. 2009). No ritual incantation of the factors 

is required where the reason for the sentence is obvious. Polihonki, 543 F.3d at 324. Here, as 

discussed at the August hearing, the relevant factors were the seriousness of Hogan’s violations 

and the need for deterrence. He was given a zero-tolerance adjournment and still failed to make 

any bona fide effort to make payments toward his restitution responsibility. Although he now 

argues that his failure to pay was not willful, he admitted at the hearing that he considered 

waiting until his supervised release period expired to obtain employment that did not need to be 

approved by his probation officer. He does not argue that his use of a controlled substance was 

 Case: 14-2437 Document: 27-1 Filed: 06/16/2015 Page: 2
No. 14-2437

United States v. Hogan

- 3 -

not willful. Hogan has demonstrated no procedural error affecting the outcome or fairness of the 

sentencing hearing. To the extent that Hogan challenges the substantive reasonableness of his 

sentence, he has not overcome the presumption that his sentence at the bottom of the guidelines 

range is reasonable. See, e.g., United States v. Robinson, 503 F.3d 522, 528 (6th Cir. 2007). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

 Case: 14-2437 Document: 27-1 Filed: 06/16/2015 Page: 3