NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 15a0431n.06

Case No. 14-3895

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TAURUS DEVAULT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

BEFORE: MOORE and COOK, Circuit Judges; COHN, District Judge.*

COOK, Circuit Judge. Taurus Devault appeals his below-guidelines sentence for sextrafficking a minor and conspiring to promote prostitution. We AFFIRM.

In July 2012, federal task-force officers responded to a post on www.backpage.com 

advertising the services of a sixteen-year-old girl and another woman. Devault drove the two 

women and his co-conspirator, Duane Hill, to an arranged meeting at a Toledo, Ohio motel. The 

officers took the women into custody after they agreed to exchange sex for money. Devault and 

Hill fled to avoid arrest but both were eventually apprehended and charged. 

Devault pleaded guilty to conspiring to use a facility in interstate commerce to promote 

prostitution in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1952(a)(3), and knowingly recruiting, enticing, 

 

*

The Honorable Avern Cohn, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District 

of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Case No. 14-3895

United States v. Taurus Devault

- 2 -

or transporting a minor to engage in a commercial sex act in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1) 

and (c). His total offense level of 36 and criminal history category of V yielded an advisory 

guidelines range of 292 to 365 months’ imprisonment, but the district court varied downward 

and imposed a 224-month sentence. His co-defendant, Hill, received a 200-month sentence.

Devault argues that his sentence produces unwarranted sentencing disparities between codefendants and is greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

We review for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Because we 

accord within-guidelines sentences a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness, Devault faces an 

“even more demanding” burden in challenging the length of his below-guidelines sentence. 

United States v. Fields, 763 F.3d 443, 455 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal citation and quotation marks 

omitted). He fails to carry that burden here. 

We perceive no abuse of discretion in the court’s decision to impose a longer sentence on 

Devault than his co-defendant, Hill. Although Devault continues to argue that he played at most 

a minor role in their scheme, the district court found it “far more likely than not that [Devault 

was] an active participant in the activities that Mr. Hill was helping to orchestrate,” including

other incidents of prostitution. Devault also had a more extensive criminal history than his codefendant and submitted a forged document to the court in an attempt to shift all responsibility to 

Hill. Under the circumstances, Devault’s longer sentence is reasonable.

Devault also argues that his personal characteristics warranted a larger downward 

variance, pointing to his largely non-violent criminal history and success in obtaining a GED 

despite untreated substance abuse. But he fails to explain why those factors required the district 

court to impose a lighter sentence than 224 months’ imprisonment. See United States v. Brown, 

579 F.3d 672, 687 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Jackson, 466 F.3d 537, 540 (6th Cir. 
Case No. 14-3895

United States v. Taurus Devault

- 3 -

2006)). Moreover, the district court accounted for Devault’s unique circumstances at 

sentencing—specifically, the fact that eight of his fourteen criminal-history points stemmed from 

convictions for driving without a license or with a suspended license—and lowered his criminal 

history category from VI to V when calculating his guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(b). 

And it ultimately imposed a sentence well below the guidelines range, notwithstanding Devault’s 

serious crime and unwillingness to accept responsibility.

Finding no abuse of discretion, we AFFIRM.