Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-24-05184/USCOURTS-ca6-24-05184-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gregory Scott Sizemore
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 24a0510n.06

No. 24-5184

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GREGORY SCOTT SIZEMORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

OPINION

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BUSH and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. Gregory Sizemore pleaded guilty to two charges related 

to drug dealing. The parties agree that the applicable sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing 

Guidelines was 360 months to life imprisonment. The district court sentenced Sizemore to 389

months’ imprisonment, incorporating an initial sentence of 420 months less 31 months time served. 

Sizemore makes one contention on appeal, that the district court did not properly consider 

the guidelines range. He believes the district court impermissibly modified the guidelines range 

by setting the bottom end of the range at 420 months instead of 360 months’ imprisonment. 

Sizemore grounds his claim in the district court’s statement that “under the facts that are presented 

here, when I look at comparable sentences, my starting point is 420 months.” Transcript of 

Sentencing Hearing, R. 61, PageID 255.

Sizemore did not object to this alleged procedural error at sentencing. A defendant

“generally forfeits the right to challenge on appeal any procedural errors to which he did not object 

Case: 24-5184 Document: 27-2 Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 1
No. 24-5184, United States v. Sizemore

2

at the time of sentencing.” United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2009). 

To preserve his argument, Sizemore’s counsel, Mr. Abell, needed at sentencing to give a “clear 

articulation of any objection and the grounds therefor.” United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 873 

(6th Cir. 2004). Sizemore argues Abell did so in the following exchange:

MR. ABELL: I would hope the Court would conclude that a sentence of 329 months 

reconciles the factors under 3553(a)(2). It’s certainly a lengthy sentence.

THE COURT: Does that diminish the death that’s occurred in this case as a result of this 

defendant’s actions?

MR. ABELL: It does not, Your Honor. That factor is accounted for in the guidelines 

calculation. I think that’s a determination that’s committed to the Court’s judgment and 

discretion. I know it’s very disturbing to the Court and, frankly, to all of us, but I think 

that’s been accounted for.

R. 61, PageID 246. 

Mr. Abell did not do enough here to preserve the issue. This conversation happened before 

the district court said anything about 420 months. While it is possible that a defendant could 

preserve an argument before the district court addresses the underlying point, nothing above

specifically focused on this alleged error. Mr. Abell’s words are best read as an argument for why 

the bottom of the guidelines range would be the appropriate sentence. It is implausible to read 

them as an objection to the district court’s understanding of the guidelines range in the first 

instance. Therefore, we review for plain error. See Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d at 579.

It would be procedurally unreasonable for the district court to sentence Sizemore using an 

improperly calculated guidelines range. See United States v. Osborn, 12 F.4th 634, 638 (6th Cir. 

2021). Sizemore believes the judge changed the agreed 360 months baseline to 420 months, 

creating an improperly calculated range.

But the district court did not change the baseline number—it thoughtfully considered and 

rejected it as the basis for a final sentence. The district court said, “I begin with the properly 

Case: 24-5184 Document: 27-2 Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 2
No. 24-5184, United States v. Sizemore

3

calculated guideline range in the case of 360 to life.” R. 61, PageID 252. It then considered a 

handful of sentencing factors to arrive at a sentence of 420 months. The court found that 

Sizemore’s addiction history was an aggravating factor and that he had a high risk of recidivism. 

The court also considered providing a just punishment after Sizemore caused a death and continued

to deal drugs. Finally, the court discussed the need for general and specific deterrence. Only after 

weighing these factors did the district say, “my starting point is 420 months.” R. 61, PageID 255. 

When read in context, it is clear that “starting point” referred to the district court’s final 

sentence before incorporating time served, not the beginning of the whole analysis. Soon after 

saying “my starting point is 420 months,” the court elaborated by saying, “the judgment will reflect 

my starting point of 420 months for a period of incarceration reduced by 31 under 5G1.3, and that 

would get us down to 389 months period of incarceration,” reflecting Sizemore’s time served in 

custody. Id. at PageID 256. In a prior colloquy, the prosecutor said, “the starting point, at least 

for the United States, is 480 months. And if there’s an adjustment for time spent in state custody, 

I think that would put him at 442 months . . . and that would be the sentence that the United States 

would advocate for.” Id. at PageID 251–52. Given that the district court also discussed “starting 

point” closely to credit for time served, the district court likely meant it in the same sense that the 

prosecutor did. 

Sizemore does not meet his burden under plain error review of showing that the district 

court applied a guidelines range with an improper baseline of 420 months. The record suggests

the district court properly accounted for the agreed upon sentencing range of 360 months to life 

imprisonment and found that 420 months was sufficient, but not greater than necessary to satisfy

the sentencing factors of 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

We AFFIRM Sizemore’s sentence.

Case: 24-5184 Document: 27-2 Filed: 12/10/2024 Page: 3