NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0280n.06

No. 14-1703

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

STEVEN ARTHUR MARKLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: NORRIS, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Steven Arthur Markley, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed 

on the revocation of his term of supervised release.

In 2010, Markley entered a guilty plea to a charge of retaliating against a federal official 

by threat. He was sentenced to twenty-four months of imprisonment and two years of supervised 

release. In 2012, his supervised release was revoked for possessing dangerous weapons, and he 

was sentenced to three months of imprisonment and twenty months of supervised release. In 

2013, he was charged in Michigan state court with misdemeanor assault and resisting a law 

enforcement officer. While in jail pending trial, he assaulted three police officers. That resulted

in three additional assault state-law charges being brought against Markley. The State eventually

dismissed the three new charges in exchange for Markley pleading guilty to the prior two ones. 

He received a sentence of 275 days of imprisonment in the state case. Back in federal court, his 

supervised release was again revoked based on his no contest plea to having violated his release 
No. 14-1703

United States v. Markley

- 2 -

conditions by assaulting the officers in jail. The guidelines range of imprisonment on the 

revocation was twelve to eighteen months. The district court sentenced Markley to sixteen 

months of imprisonment, with no further supervised release to follow. Markley now argues that 

the sentence is substantively unreasonable because he needs mental health treatment and should 

have received more supervised release rather than imprisonment. He also argues that the district 

court made no findings to justify the imposition of this sentence consecutively to his state 

sentence.

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. See 

United States v. Babcock, 753 F.3d 587, 590 (6th Cir. 2014). A sentence within the guidelines 

range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. 

Fields, 763 F.3d 443, 455 (6th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 392, 978, 987 (2015). 

Markley has failed to rebut the presumption that his within-guidelines sentence is substantively 

reasonable. The district court reasonably concluded that imprisonment, rather than more 

supervised release, was needed due to Markley’s repeated failure to conform to the conditions of 

supervised release. The district court’s reliance on the fact that Markley would be under state 

supervision for three years due to his state conviction, thus rendering federal supervision 

superfluous, and the need to protect the public and provide general and specific deterrence was 

also reasonable. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion by the district court.

Where no objection is raised in the district court, the imposition of a consecutive sentence 

is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Harmon, 607 F.3d 233, 236-38 (6th Cir. 2010). 

Relying on United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334, 346 (6th Cir. 2012), Markley argues that 

remand is required because the district court gave no rationale for the consecutive sentence. This 

case is distinguishable from Cochrane because the district court explained its reasoning for the 
No. 14-1703

United States v. Markley

- 3 -

consecutive sentence, stating: “Supervision is a matter of trust between the Court and the person 

who is on supervised release. In my judgment, that’s a different interest than the interest of the 

state court in protecting citizens from assault, and so therefore . . . the sentences should be 

consecutive.” This explanation is consistent with USSG § 7B1.3(f), which recommends a 

consecutive sentence for revocation of supervised release. Moreover, the state sentence in this 

case was based on different charges than those involved in the revocation of supervised release, 

and Markley’s state sentence had been fully served; the district court could not run his federal 

sentence concurrently. See 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a) (“[I]f a term of imprisonment is imposed on a 

defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run 

concurrently or consecutively.” (emphasis added)); United States v. Fay, 547 F.3d 1231, 1236 

(10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Labeille-Soto, 163 F.3d 93, 98 (2d Cir. 1998). No error, plain 

or otherwise, occurred.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.