NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0174n.06

No. 14-1817

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

ANTOINETTE KING,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: GRIFFIN and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; STEEH, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. Antoinette King appeals the sentence imposed upon the revocation of 

her supervised release. We affirm. 

In 2005, King pleaded guilty to bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and was 

sentenced to ninety-six months of imprisonment. King’s three-year term of supervised release 

began on January 10, 2013. On May 16, 2014, after a positive drug test, the probation office 

filed a petition with the district court recommending the revocation of King’s supervised release

on the basis that she had violated the conditions of her supervision by possessing and using 

cocaine. At the revocation hearing, King admitted this violation. Based on King’s Grade B 

violation and criminal history category of VI, the imprisonment range under the sentencing 

 

The Honorable George C. Steeh III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District 

of Michigan, sitting by designation.
No. 14-1817

United States v. King

- 2 -

guidelines was twenty-one to twenty-seven months. The district court sentenced King to twentyone months of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.

On appeal, King challenges her sentence as substantively unreasonable. We review the 

substantive reasonableness of King’s sentence under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. 

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 

2007) (“Sentences imposed following revocation of supervised release are to be reviewed under 

the same abuse of discretion standard that we apply to sentences imposed following 

conviction.”). “The essence of a substantive-reasonableness claim is whether the length of the 

sentence is ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a).” United States v. Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632-33 (6th Cir. 2010). “A 

sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court selects a sentence 

arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing 

factors, or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. 

Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 520 (6th Cir. 2008). We apply a rebuttable presumption of substantive 

reasonableness to a sentence within the guidelines range. Bolds, 511 F.3d at 581.

King contends that a twenty-one-month sentence is substantively unreasonable, given

that this was her first violation after over fifteen months on supervised release, she realized and 

admitted that she had a drug problem, and she took steps to find a suitable rehabilitation 

program. While King admitted at the revocation hearing that she used cocaine, her probation 

officer stated that this was the first admission that he had received. The district court pointed out 

that King did not seek assistance from her probation officer after she used cocaine and that she 

denied using cocaine when her probation officer contacted her about the test results. King’s 

probation officer stated that he would have preferred graduated sanctions but that King would 
No. 14-1817

United States v. King

- 3 -

not admit her use of cocaine and was not open to drug treatment. The court sentenced King to 

twenty-one months of imprisonment with no supervised release to follow.

The record demonstrates that the district court considered the relevant sentencing factors, 

including the nature and circumstances of King’s violation, her refusal to comply with the 

supervised release conditions, the inability of those conditions to address her characteristics, and 

the risk of continued behavior, and did not select the sentence arbitrarily, base it on 

impermissible factors, or give an unreasonable amount of weight to any factor. King has not 

overcome the presumption that her within-guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm King’s sentence.