NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0336n.06 No. 08-4732 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. I VEY J. MAYBOU, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Nor thern Di str ic t of

Oh io

B e fo re : B OG GS, SUH RH EI NR I CH , a

nd RO GE RS, C ir c uit

Judg e s. PER C U R I A M
. I v y Jo e M ay b o u w a s a s h e r i f

f ’ s d e p u t y an d p r i s o n g u a r d in Mahoning County , Ohio. Fe dera l ag ents arr ested May bou afte r he pur chase d coca ine for one of the prisoners unde r his supervision. Pursuant to a plea ag ree ment, May bou pleade d g uilty

to one count of ca rry ing a firea rm during a drug traffic king offense . The district cour t imposed an eig hty -four

mon th s e nte nc e , w hic h inc lud e d a tw e nty -f our- mon th up wa

rd va ri anc e . M ay

bo u n owa

pp e a ls h is sentenc e, claiming that it is substantively unrea sonable. Be cause we c onclude that the district c ourt did not abuse its discretion by imposing an eig hty -four -month sentenc e, we aff irm the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
. I May bo u b e c a me a

Maho nin g County

sh e ri ff ’s de pu ty in Jul y 20 07 , a ft e r w or

kin g fo r s ix y ear s as a pa

rt-time police of

fice r in Ba zetta Township. The sher iff’s de partment a ssigne d May bouNo. 08-4732

USA v. May

bou

- 2 - to s e rv e a s a

g ua rd a t th e Maho ning Count

y Justi c e Ce nte r. May

bo u s oo n d e ve lop e d a

fr ie nd sh ip with an inmate who “he thought c ould keep him informed a s to what’s g oing on . . . .” May bou beg an to per form small favor s for this inmate, such as br ingingthe inmate tobac co and a llowing the inmate to use May

bou’s ce ll phone. I n earl y Ap ri l 2008 , the inm a te of fe re d to pay Ma

y bo u $20 00 if he wo uld br ingthe inm a te dr ug s. Ma y bo u a g re e d. Un fo rt

un a te ly fo r Ma

y bo u, the inm a te wa s a

n F B Iinf or mant w ho pr omp tly
c on ta c te d th e F B Iand

re po rt e d th a t Ma

y bo u h a d a g re e d to br inghim dr ug s. The F BI provided the inmate with a cell phone numbe r to g ive to May bou. May

bou called th e n u mb e r

s e v e r a l t im e s , le a v in g v o ic e ma il me s s a g e s , an d u lt im a te ly

ar r an g e d to me e t a n
un derc ov er FBIagentto pi ck up t he “p ackage. ” At th e agreed-u po n t im e, M ay bo u m et wit h the FBI ag ent, who provide d May bou with $2000 and one ounc e of c ocaine

. FB Iag ents arr ested May bou as he ex ited the under cover ag ent’s vehic le. A sea

rch of May bo u’ s p e rs on re ve a le d tha t May bo u wa s carr

y ing a loa de d Glo c k 23, .4 0- c a lib e r h and g un . H is employ er did not authorize him to car ry the wea pon at that time. A f e de ra l g ra nd jur y re tur ne d a tw o- c ount i nd ic tme nt a g a ins t May bo u f or po sse ssi on

wi th int e nt t o d istri bu te c oc a ine (cou nt on e) a nd c arr y inga fi re arm duri nga dr ugtr a ff ic kin g of fe ns e (count two). Ma

y bou and the Gove rnment ente red into a Rule 11 plea ag ree ment, in w hich May bou ag ree d to plead g uilty

to the firea

rm co u nt and the Gove rnment ag ree d to dismi ss the possession
c ount. Pursuant to the pl ea ag ree ment, May bou pleade d g uilty to car

rying a fire arm duringa drug traff icking offe nse. The Pre sentenc e Investig ation Report (PSR) indicated that, under United StatesNo. 08-4732

USA v. May

bou

Be cause May

bou d o es n o t argue that his sentenc e is proce durally unrea sonable, we need 1 only revie w his sentence for substantive r easona bleness. Un ite d S

tat es v . W all s , 546 F.3d 728, 736 (6th Cir. 2008). - 3 - Sentencing Guideline 2K2.4(b), the Guidelines sentenc e for car rying a firea

rm during a d rug traff icking offe nse wa s “the minimum term of imprisonment r equire d by statute” (quotingU.S.S.G. §2K2.4(b)) . The rele vant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), provide d for a five-y ear mandatory

minimum
se nte nc e , s o M ay

bo u’ s G uid e lin e s r ang e wa s si xty mon ths

. At the sentenc ing he arin g, t h e district cour t acc epted the PSR’s findings a nd found that May bo u’ s G uid e lin e s r ang e wa s si xty mon ths . T he c ourt

de te rm ine d, ho we ve r, that a sixty -m on th sentenc e wa s not adequate. I n the cour t ’s v i ew , t h e peculiar

trust that society

place s in police of fi c e rs and pr iso n g ua

rd s, and the un iqu e da

ng e r t hat su c h in div idu a ls p os e wh e n th e y c ho os e to u se their positions to pursue illega l ends, nec essitated a h i gh er s en t en ce. T his led the court to var y upwar d twenty -four

months from the Guide lines rang e, re sulting in an e ighty -four -month sentence

. May bou filed a timely

appea l. Although his p l ea agre ement conta ins an appe al-wa iver provision, May

bou specific ally

rese rved the rig ht to appeal a n above- Guidelines sentenc e. II On appe al, May

bou challeng es the substantive re asonable ness of his sentenc e. This court 1 revie ws the substantive re asonable ness of a sentenc e under

a def erential abuse- of-discr etion standard. United States v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 581 ( 6th Cir. 2007). A sentenc e may be substantively

unrea sonable if the district c ourt selec ts the sentenc e arbitra rily , bases the sentenc e onNo. 08-4732

USA v. May

bou

U.S.S.G. §2K2.4(b) re ndere d the U.S.S.G. §3B1.3 e nhance ment inapplicable to Ma y bou. 2 - 4 - imp e rm iss ibl e fa c tor s, fa ils to co ns ide r pe rt ine nt 1 8 U .S. C. § 35 53 (a ) f a c tor s, or g ive s unr e a so na

ble weig ht to any

pertinent fa ctor. Un ite d S tat es v . V owe ll , 516 F.3d 503, 510 ( 6th Cir. 2008). For sentenc es th a

t f a ll within t he Guidelines r ang e, the c ourt applies a r ebuttable pr esumption of substantive re asonable ness. United St ates v. Vonne r , 516 F.3d 382, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en ba nc ). Ho we ve r, the c ourt

do e s not ap ply a pr e su mpt ion of un re a so na

ble ne ss w he n th e se nte nc e is outside the Guidelines ra

ng e. Vo we ll , 516 F.3d at 509. Rather, althoug h the cour t “may consider the extent of the deviation” f rom the Gui d elines ra

ng e, the c ourt “must g ive due de fer ence to the district court’s de cision that the [18 U.S.C .] § 3553(a) fa ctors, on a w hole, justify the extent of the varia nce.” Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). I n this case, the distric t co u rt methodically discussed ea ch § 3553(a ) fa ctor, a naly zed how tho se fa c tor s a

pp lie d to May

bo u’ s c a se , a

nd c on c lud e d th a t th e y

jus tif ie d a tw e nty -f ou r- mon th upwar d varia

nce. May bou asser ts that the district c ourt never theless acte d unrea sonably beca use (1) the va ri anc e e xce e de d th e no rm a l U.S. S.G . §3B 1. 3 en ha nc e me nt f or an a bu se of a po sit ion of tr us t, 2 Appell an t’ s B r ie f

a t 1 6 , an d

( 2 ) th e d is tr ic t c o u rt “ g a v e anin o r d in a te a mo u n t o f e mp h a s is to” M ayb o u ’ s p o s i t i o na s a

p r i s o ng u ar d an d

i g n o r e d h i s c l e anc r i m i n a l r e c o r d , t h e n e e d s o f h i s f a m i l y, and “the relative rec ency

of his post.” Id. at 16-17. We find neith er o f M ay

b o u ’s ar g uments persua sive. First, this case did not involve the U.S.S.G §3B1.3 enha

nceme nt, a

nd May bou’s actions wer e more eg reg ious than the ty pical §3B 1.3
case . By ag ree ing to buy

illega l narc otics for a

prisoner, May

bou violated not only

the trust that theNo. 08-4732

USA v. May

bou

- 5 - public place s in police officer s to uphold the l aw, but also the trust that the public plac es in prison g uards to maintain prison sec urity

. See U nited States v. Siciliano , 953 F.2d 939, 942 -43 (5th Cir. 1992) (f inding a n upwar d depar

ture in addition to the §3B1.3 enhanc ement re asonable wher e “the defe ndant [was] m ore tha n mere ly a law e nforc ement o ff

i ce r who e ng ag e[d] in a prohibited tr ans a c tio n . . . , h e [wa s] a lso a g ua rd wh o e ng a g e d in

a pr oh ibi te d tr ans a c tio n w hil e c ha rg e d w ith

ma int a ini ngpr iso n s e c ur ity” ); se e als o United States v. Gilliam , 315 F.3d 614, 618 ( 6th Cir. 2003) (n oti ngthat the pu

bli c “ pla c e s tr e me nd ou s tr us t in pr iso n e mpl oy e e s th a t th e y wi ll n ot c on sp ir e wi th inm a te s to violate the law” (c ita tio n o mit te d) ); United States v. Talley , 194 F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 1999) (f inding that a

police off

icer who us ed his position to pursue criminal ends abused a position of tr us t) ; United States v. Clay , 320 F. App’ x 384, 392 (6th Cir. 2009) (rejec ting the a rg ument that a “f irst-y ear corr ectional of

fice r” did not occ upy

a position of trust). Second, contrary to May

bou’s contentions, the di strict court e x plicitly rec og nized May

bou’s
c r i m i n a l r e c o r d , h i s s h o rt t e n u r e w i t h t h e s h e r i f f ’ s d e p art m e n t , an d t h e n e e d s o f M ayb o u ’ s f

a m i l y. The c ourt conc luded, howeve r, that those fa ctors did not outweig h the need f or an a bove-guidelines sentenc e, which w ould refle ct the ser iousness o f M ay bou’s offe nse and de ter similar conduc t by oth e r p oli c e of

fi c e rs . G ive n th e un iqu e da ng e r c re a te d b y

po lic e of fi cers ’ ab ili ty

to o bs c ur e the ir
cr im in a l c o n d

u c t b e h in d th e v e il o f p o li c e a u th o r it y , an d th e thr e a t p o s e d to p r is o n s afe ty and discipline by

the introduction of illeg al nar cotics, this conclusion was not unre asonable

. Cf. United States v. Arroyo , 546 F.3d 54, 57 (1st Cir. 2008) (af firming an upwa

rd depa rture w here the district court found that a police of fice r se t a v er y b ad example by buy ing a nd making available illega l drug s). Moreove r, t o the ex tent that May bou sug g ests “that the district cour t should have bala

ncedNo. 08-4732

USA v. May

bou

- 6 - the § 3553(a ) fa ctors diffe rently , it is ‘sim ply bey ond the scope of our a ppellate review, w hich looks to whether

the sentenc e is rea sonable, a s o p p o s ed t o wh ether in the first instance w e would have imposed the same se ntence .’” United St ates v. Se xton , 512 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Un ite d S tat es v . E ly , 468 F.3d 399, 404 ( 6th Cir. 2006)). Acc ording ly , the district c ourt did not abuse its discr etion when it determined that May bou should rece ive an e ighty -four -month sentence

. III F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.