Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-23-01994/USCOURTS-ca6-23-01994-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ransom Tae-Rick Robinson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 24a0491n.06

No. 23-1994

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RANSOM TAE-RICK ROBINSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

OPINION

Before: GRIFFIN, STRANCH, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. Ransom Tae-Rick Robinson challenges the substantive reasonableness of 

his below-Guidelines sentence for a drug offense. As set forth below, we affirm Robinson’s 

sentence.

After Robinson sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant on four occasions, a 

federal grand jury indicted him on four counts of distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Robinson pleaded guilty to one of those counts in exchange 

for the dismissal of the other counts. 

Robinson’s presentence report set forth a Guidelines range of 121 to 151 months of 

imprisonment based on a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of II. Both 

parties moved for a downward variance from the Guidelines range, citing Robinson’s limited 

criminal history, his longtime employment, his family responsibilities, and the nature and 

circumstances of his offense. At sentencing, the district court addressed the sentencing factors 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and granted the government’s motion for a two-level downward 

Case: 23-1994 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 1
No. 23-1994, United States v. Robinson

- 2 -

variance, which resulted in a Guidelines range of 97 to 121 months of imprisonment. The district 

court concluded that a sentence at the low end of that range was appropriate and reflected the 

seriousness of the offense, promoted respect for the law, and provided just punishment. See 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). So the district court sentenced Robinson to 97 months of imprisonment 

followed by two years of supervised release. 

In this timely appeal, Robinson challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. 

We review the substantive reasonableness of Robinson’s sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). “The essence of a 

substantive-reasonableness claim is whether the length of the sentence is ‘greater than necessary’ 

to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. TristanMadrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632–33 (6th Cir. 2010). “Simply put, a defendant’s sentence is 

substantively unreasonable if it is too long.” United States v. Lee, 974 F.3d 670, 676 (6th Cir. 

2020). “One way to gauge the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is to ask whether ‘the 

court placed too much weight on some of the § 3553(a) factors and too little on others’ in reaching 

its sentencing decision.” United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d 748, 753–54 (6th Cir. 2020) 

(quoting United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019)). We afford a withinGuidelines sentence a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness. See United States v. 

Curry, 536 F.3d 571, 573 (6th Cir. 2008). As a result, Robinson’s burden of demonstrating that 

his below-Guidelines sentence “is unreasonably long is even more demanding.” Id.; see also

United States v. Greco, 734 F.3d 441, 450 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Although it is not impossible to 

succeed on a substantive-reasonableness challenge to a below-guidelines sentence, defendants who 

seek to do so bear a heavy burden.”). 

Case: 23-1994 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 2
No. 23-1994, United States v. Robinson

- 3 -

Robinson contends that when the district court considered the seriousness of his offense, it 

placed an unreasonable amount of weight on the 20-year statutory maximum penalty, rather than 

the overall statutory scheme. Robinson relies on the district court’s observation that the 20-year 

statutory maximum penalty “is a clear indication” that the executive and legislative branches 

“believe[] that distribution of this drug is a very serious offense.” According to Robinson, the

statutory minimum penalty is more significant than the statutory maximum penalty. Robinson 

argues that probation was an available sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a). And he emphasizes 

that, because other drug offenses are subject to mandatory minimum penalties and are offenses for 

which probation is expressly precluded, those offenses are significantly more serious than his 

offense. Compare 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)–(B) (requiring mandatory minimum sentences and 

prohibiting probation), with 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) (omitting any mandatory minimum 

requirement and permitting probation).

In considering the seriousness of Robinson’s offense, however, the district court did not 

limit its discussion to the statutory maximum penalty. The district court found that Robinson’s 

offense was serious because it involved “significant quantities of distribution of 

methamphetamine.” Robinson sold a total of 2.06 kilograms of methamphetamine to the 

confidential informant.1 The district court went on to state that “[m]ethamphetamine regretfully 

is the number one drug of abuse in the Western District of Michigan.” The record does not show 

that the district court placed an inordinate amount of weight on the statutory maximum penalty in 

discussing the seriousness of Robinson’s offense. Nor does the record support Robinson’s claim 

that the district court misunderstood the statutory sentencing range. 

1 The government points out that each count in the indictment could have carried a 10-year 

mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) based on the quantity and 

purity of the methamphetamine involved in each controlled buy. 

Case: 23-1994 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 3
No. 23-1994, United States v. Robinson

- 4 -

Robinson has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that his below-Guidelines 

sentence is substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm Robinson’s sentence. 

Case: 23-1994 Document: 31-2 Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 4