Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-08-05998/USCOURTS-ca6-08-05998-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Onnie Nesbitt
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Southern District *

of Ohio, sitting by designation.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 10a0470n.06

No. 08-5998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ONNIE NESBITT, aka OMIE NESBITT,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

O P I N I O N

Before: GILMAN and WHITE, Circuit Judges; and WATSON District Judge.*

HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. Defendant Onnie Nesbitt (Nesbitt) appeals his 235-

month sentence, imposed after he pleaded guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), asserting that it is both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.

We disagree, and AFFIRM.

The presentence report (PSR) stated regarding the instant offense:

4. At approximately 9:35 p.m. on May 22, 2003, Milan Police Department (MPD)

Lt. Terry Jones was advised by the MPD dispatcherthat the defendant, Omie (Onnie)

Nesbitt, a previously convicted felon, had been at the home of his ex-wife, Evie

Nesbitt . . . in violation of an Order of Protection. Lt. Jones was further advised that

Mr. Nesbitt was in possession of a firearm and that he had fired one or more shots

inside the residence of Mrs. Nesbitt. Since the shot was fired, the defendant had fled

the aforementioned residence in a gray Mazda car driven by his brother, Kenneth

Nesbitt.

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 1
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

5. Shortly after receiving the aforementioned report, Lt. Jones observed a vehicle

matching the description provided by Evie Nesbitt. . . . According to Lt. Jones[’]

report, Omie Nesbitt exited the suspect vehicle and started advancing towards him.

Lt. Jones then drew his weapon and ordered the defendant to get on the ground. Mr.

Nesbitt refused to comply . . . and instead began walking backwards, in the direction

of a small patch of woods . . . A short time later, Mr. Nesbitt did return to the scene

of the vehicle stop, at which time he was placed under arrest. A search of the

defendant’s person yielded two (2) live rounds of .38 caliber ammunition and one (1)

fired .38 caliber shell casing. A search of the area into which Mr. Nesbitt had

retreated on foot resulted in the discovery of two (2) firearms, . . . one (1) Arminius,

Model HW38, .38 caliber revolver, . . . and one (1) Smith & Wesson, Model 10-8,

.38 caliber revolver . . . . 

6. [T]he defendant voluntarily admitted ownership of the firearms . . . . 

7. Shortly after Mr. Nesbitt’s arrest . . . . Evie Nesbitt provided a sworn statement

. . . [and] advised that Omie Nesbitt, against whom she had recently taken out an

Order of Protection, had entered her home, while holding a firearm . . . pointed the

weapon . . . and held it on her, while repeatedly telling her that he was going to kill

her that night. Mr. Nesbitt refused to let her leave the residence. At one point, Mr.

Nesbitt did fire one (1) shot . . . not [] in the direction of Evie Nesbitt. . . . 

. . . . 

9. Eventually . . . Kenneth Nesbitt [knocked on the door], instructed Omie to let go

of Evie and to leave the residence with him. Omie complied . . . As he left the

residence, Omie informed Evie Nesbitt that he would be back. Moments after . . .

Evie Nesbitt called 911, ultimately resulting in the above-described vehicle stop and

arrest. [PSR prepared June 3, 2008, at 4-6.] 

The PSR categorized Nesbitt as an armed career criminal, as defined in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4, and

calculated a total offense level of 31. PSR Worksheet C listed 17 prior convictions, resulting in 26

total criminal history points, which placed Nesbitt in criminal history category VI. Nesbitt’s

Guidelines range was 188 to 235 months of imprisonment. 

The PSR stated that Nesbitt has an 8 grade education, and that he and his three siblings grew th

up in “an extremely dysfunctional home environment, which included frequent spouse abuse by their

chronically-alcoholic father.” Regarding his mental and emotional health, the PSR stated that

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 2
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

extensive court-ordered psychological evaluation at the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in July

2004 revealed that Nesbitt “was in the extremely low range of intellectual functioning as compared

to his age peers, with an IQ of 51,” and that he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, alcohol

abuse, and adult antisocial behavior. The PSR noted that before his current federal detention, Nesbitt

was committed to a mental health institution five times between January 28, 2003 and January 20,

2004, and that during the first four of those hospitalizations he suffered “command auditory

hallucinations, visual hallucinations, paranoid delusions, and suicidal and homicidal ideations.”

The district court adopted the PSR’s Guidelines range calculation and sentenced Nesbitt to

235 months’ imprisonment, followed by 5 years of supervised release. The court declined defense

counsel’s request that it order Nesbitt be placed in a federal medical facility. This appeal ensued.

“[A]ppellate review of sentencing decisions is limited to determining whether they are

‘reasonable.’” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007). “[C]ourts of appeals must review all

sentences . . . under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. at 41; United States v.

Grossman, 513 F.3d 592, 595 (6th Cir. 2008). The review is two-tiered: we must review for both

procedural and substantive error. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

In this circuit, a sentence that falls within the Guidelines enjoys “a rebuttable presumption

of reasonableness.” United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, a

sentencing court must still “explain to the parties and the reviewing court its reasons for imposing

a particular sentence.” United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir. 2006).

I. Procedural Reasonableness

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 3
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

Nesbitt asserts that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court either

failed to consider his severe mental health issues, or failed to adequately explain how its

consideration of the issue entered into its decision to sentence him at the high end of the Guidelines

range.

Under Gall, procedural errors include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the

Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a)

factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the

chosen sentence . . .” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Nesbitt’s position paper objecting to the PSR argued that his serious mental health conditions

were factors warranting a departure:

Given the fact that Defendant suffers from multiple serious mental health

impairments as shown in the presentence report, a sentence within the recommended

range is greater than necessary to address the statutory concerns. Defendant is in

need of ongoing mental health treatment and should be housed in a mental health

facility [hospital]. An extended incarceration by itself, will not address Defendant’s

serious ongoing medical needs. All it will do is warehouse Defendant for that period

of time. It is unlikely that Defendant will be able to take advantage of nor benefit

from the programs offered by the Bureau of Prisons, given his mental retardation.

. . . .

Defendant requests that he be recommended for placement in a Bureau of

Prisons medical facility or hospital. [R. 84.]

Nonetheless, the Government is correct that Nesbitt’s counsel did not object to the court’s

calculation of Nesbitt’s sentence at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, when the district court

asked counsel whether there were “any other issues that have been raised that I’ve not yet ruled upon

or any issues now presented that need ruling upon?” We thus review Nesbitt’s claim of procedural

unreasonableness for plain error. See United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385-86 (6th Cir. 2008)

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 4
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

(en banc) (applying plain-error review because the defendant, after having been given opportunity

to object, had not expressly objected to the adequacy of the court’s explanation for the sentence at

the sentencing hearing).

After hearing from counsel at sentencing, the district court noted its agreement with the

probation officer’s calculation of the Guidelines range, heard from Nesbitt, and then stated:

THE COURT: Mr. Nesbitt, your case is an unusual one. What makes it unusual is

that it’s perhaps the longest pending criminal case this court has ever had. Your case

started in 2003 and here we are in 2008 and we’re still working on your case. That

has been brought about as a result of numerous evaluations that we’ve had. You are

probably the most evaluated defendant that this court has ever seen. I think there

were at least three major evaluations. All those evaluations, Mr. Nesbitt, lead the

court to conclude that you have some serious mental issues that have contributed to

your life of crime. But the record before this court is that you are competent to

proceed and were sane, or at least not insane, at the time of this offense. So that’s the

only evidence this court has to proceed on.

In deciding your sentence I have to look at several issues. One . . . factor I

have to look at is the guideline range, and the guidelines in your case suggest that I

should sentence you somewhere to a term of imprisonment of 188 to 235 months.

But that’s not the only factor. I have to look at other factors.

I have to look at the nature of this offense, and this was a serious crime, Mr.

Nesbitt. It’s fortunate that someone wasn’t killed or seriously injured the night of

this incident. Holding someone against their will in their house at gunpoint – or in

a house at gunpoint is a serious crime.

I also have to consider the history and characteristics of you, and you have a

long and troubled history. You have 26 criminal history points, and I think that’s

among the top two or three that I have ever seen. You may be the highest criminal

history that this court has dealt with. Perhaps you’re not the top defendant, but

you’re near the top. In addition, you have some 19 convictions that didn’t result in

any criminal history points. So you’ve really got a lot more criminal history than 26

points, but 19 of them didn’t result in any points. So you have a long, long history

of criminal behavior.

But what troubles me about yours is the nature of your criminal history. Now,

a lot of your criminal history are disorderly conduct and public drunkenness and DUI,

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 5
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

but you have perhaps more assaults and batteries and aggravated offenses than this

court has ever seen. You have been a very violent person. And it appears fortunate

to me, Mr. Nesbitt, that someone hasn’t been more seriously injured or killed as a

result of all your assaultive behavior. You are a very dangerous person.

Now, it may be that you’re dangerous when you aren’t medicated, but when

you’re out on the streets, you obviously are not being medicated because you have

perhaps the most . . . lengthy violent history this court has seen in years. I have to

take that into account in deciding what your sentence should be.

I have to consider the availability of alternative sentences, and there are none

in this case that would protect society and appropriately punish you other than

incarceration.

I have to consider the need to give you a sentence similar to that received by

other people who have committed various offenses with similar backgrounds. It’s

hard to do in your case, Mr. Nesbitt, because I haven’t seen many people with a

similar background. But I don’t want to give you more time than they would get nor

do I want to give you less time.

I have to consider the need to protect society. And quite frankly, Mr. Nesbitt,

the only way I can protect society is to keep you away from society.

I have to send a message to other people that want to possess firearms after

they’re convicted of a felony, and the message is that there’s a serious penalty

attached to that.

I am also going to take into account the fact that you have had a long history

of mental illness, and that will be considered in the sentence as well.

So taking all those factors into consideration, Mr. Nesbitt, given your long

and unbroken chain of criminal activity, it’s my conclusion that a sentence of 235

months in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons is the only thing that will protect

society and appropriately punish you for this offense, which is enhanced by your long

and violent history.

Upon release from prison you’ll be placed on supervised release for five

years.

. . . . 

While you’re on supervised release . . . [y]ou’ll comply with . . . the following

additional conditions:

. . . . 

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 6
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

That you participate in a program for mental health treatment as directed by

the probation officer, including outpatient or inpatient, whatever is necessary.

You’ll comply with all treatment conditions and/or recommendations as set

forth by the approved mental health treatment provider, to include strict adherence

to any prescribed medication regimen.

. . . . 

I’m not going to make a specific recommendation about a hospital

environment. The BOP knows Mr. Nesbitt’s background probably better than any

inmate in the institutional set up. They have complete records on Mr. Nesbitt. The

Bureau of Prisons will make the determination as to what type of incarceration or

what level of supervision Mr. Nesbitt needs. [R. 94 at 42-47.]

As the above-quoted sentencing colloquy demonstrates, the district court acknowledged and

clearly took into account Nesbitt’s long history of mental illness, his multiple evaluations, and his

need for medication, contrary to Nesbitt’s contention that the court failed to consider his severe

mental health issues. And the district court adequately explained how its consideration of those

issues played into its decision to sentence him at the high end of the Guidelines range. In doing so,

the district court noted that given Nesbitt’s protracted and extensive criminal history – which

included a number of assaultive and aggravated offenses – a sentence at the top of the Guidelines

range was needed to assure society’s protection, deter others, and appropriately punish him, while

also noting that it was taking into account his long history of mental illness. 

The district court fulfilled its obligation to “ adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow

for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Gall, 552 U.S.

at 50. Nesbitt has not shown that any procedural error, plain or otherwise, occurred in the district

court’s imposition of the 235-month within-the-Guidelines sentence, so his procedural

unreasonableness claim fails. 

II. Substantive Reasonableness

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 7
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

Nesbitt also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district

court “failed to truly consider” his history and characteristics, and because the sentence, which will

likely warehouse him for 24 1/2 years without access to needed mental health treatment, will not

address his mental illness. He asserts that “a shorter sentence, or one that involved serious mental

health treatment, would be a more adequate sentence,” and that a 235-month sentence is greater than

necessary to comply with the § 3553(a) factors. 

 If the district court’s sentencing decision is procedurally sound, this court proceeds to

consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed under an abuse-of-discretion

standard. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. “A sentence may be substantively unreasonable where the district

court ‘select[s] the sentence arbitrarily, bas[es] the sentence on impermissible factors, fail[s] to

consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors or giv[es] an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent

factor.’” United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v.

Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 383 (6th Cir. 2005)). “The touchstone for our review [for substantive

reasonableness] is whether the length of the sentence is reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors.”

United States v. Tate, 516 F.3d 459, 469 (6th Cir. 2008).

Nesbitt does not argue that the district court selected his sentence arbitrarily or based the

sentence on impermissible factors. His argument as we understand it is that the court failed to give

enough weight to his mental health history and characteristics, while giving too much weight to his

criminal history.

Although the district court declined Nesbitt’s counsel’s request to order Nesbitt placed in a

federal medical facility, it left the placement decision to the BOP because the BOP was most familiar

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 8
No. 08-5998

United States v. Nesbitt

with Nesbitt’s extensive mental health evaluations and treatment while in custody. Nesbitt cites no

authority to support the proposition that a sentence is substantively unreasonable by virtue of a

district court declining to order placement in a medical facility. 

After considering the parties’ arguments, hearing from Nesbitt, and considering the PSR, the

district court provided an analysis of the § 3553(a) factors, and set forth the reasoning behind its

determination to sentence Nesbitt at the high end of the Guidelines range. See colloquy, quoted

supra. As mentioned, the district court noted that given Nesbitt’s protracted and extensive criminal

history – which included a number of assaultive and aggravated offenses – a sentence at the top of

the Guidelines range was needed to assure society’s protection, deter others, and appropriately

punish him, while also noting that it was taking into account his serious mental health problems. 

“We do not require a rote recitation of § 3553(a) factors but rather an explanation of why the

district chose the sentence it did.” United States v. Smith, 474 F.3d 888, 892 (6th Cir. 2007). The

district court more than adequately explained why it chose the 235-month sentence.

We conclude that the length of the sentence is reasonable in light of the § 3553(a) factors,

see Tate, 516 F.3d at 469, and that Nesbitt’s substantive unreasonableness claim thus fails.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

 Case: 08-5998 Document: 006110696434 Filed: 08/03/2010 Page: 9