NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0254n.06

No. 14-5691

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY BERNARD BROOME,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

TENNESSEE

BEFORE: MERRITT, BOGGS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Anthony Bernard Broome appeals the sentence imposed upon the 

revocation of his supervised release.

Broome was convicted in 1997 of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, 

possession of a firearm in connection with drug trafficking, and possession of a firearm by a 

felon. He was sentenced to 130 months of imprisonment and six years of supervised release. 

While on supervised release, Broome was convicted in state court of possession with intent to 

distribute cocaine and was sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment. He admitted that his state 

conviction was a violation of the terms of his supervised release. The guidelines range for the 

revocation was thirty to thirty-six months of imprisonment. At the sentencing hearing, Broome 

argued for a sentence below the guidelines range, emphasizing that he had complied with the 

terms of supervised release for approximately four years before his violation. The district court 

discussed the seriousness of the new offense and the need for deterrence, and imposed a sentence 
No. 14-5691

United States v. Broome

- 2 -

of thirty months, at the bottom of the guidelines range, with no further supervised release to 

follow.

On appeal, Broome argues that his sentence is unreasonable. He contends that his 

original sentence from 1997 was longer than it would be if he committed the same offense today, 

and that the district court failed to consider his argument that he complied with the terms of his 

supervised release for four years.

A sentence imposed on the revocation of supervised release is reviewed for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 575 

(6th Cir. 2007). A sentence within the guidelines range may be presumed to be substantively 

reasonable. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389-90 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Nothing

presented by Broome overcomes the presumption that his bottom-of-the-range sentence is 

reasonable, or demonstrates any abuse of discretion by the district court. He claims without 

support that his original sentence for his 1997 conviction was longer than what he would receive 

today. The government refuted this claim, noting that Broome was not sentenced for crack 

cocaine but powder cocaine, for which the penalties have not changed. Broome also argues that 

the district court failed to consider his compliance with the supervised release conditions for four 

years. The court was not required to address this argument explicitly. See United States v. Gale, 

468 F.3d 929, 940 (6th Cir. 2006). The transcript shows that the district court was troubled by 

Broome’s commission of the same offense for which he was originally sentenced and concluded 

that at least a bottom-of-the-range sentence was necessary for purposes of deterrence. Finding 

no abuse of discretion by the district court, we AFFIRM Broome’s sentence.