NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 12a0132n.06 No. 11-6042 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. BRODE RI CK PRI CE, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

BEF ORE: McKEAGU E and WHI TE, Circuit J udg es; BA RRETT, District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Br oderic k Price a p p e a ls a d is tr

ic t- c o u r t ju dg ment revoking his probation and sentenc ing him to seve n months of imprisonment. W e af firm. I n 2010, Price enter ed a g uilty plea to one count of conspirac y to de fra ud the United States and two counts of uttering forg ed and counter feit secur ities. He was sentenc ed to three y ear s o f probation. Price soon found himself back befor e the court, as his probation office r rep o rt ed that Price tested positive for marijuana on five occa sions (admitting to four uses), twice failed to repor t to the probation office when schedule d, had sever al violations of his elec tronic-m o n i t o ri ng home detention, and twice failed to attend classes require d by his drug -treatment prog ram. At the hear ing, the district court found that Price had violated his probation and that it should be revoke d. The court reje cted c o u

n s el’s argument that an exception to the mandatory revoc ation require d for three positive

The Honora

ble Michae l R. Ba

rre tt, United States District J udg e for the Southern District of * Ohio, sitti ngby

desig nation.No. 11-6042

United States v. Price d rug tests should be made. The court noted that the g uidelines sentenc ing rang e was fo u r t o t en months of imprisonment, and afte r hear ing argument from both counsel and allocution from Price, imposed a sentenc e of seven months’ imprisonment. On appea l, Price argues that the district court abused its discr etion in de clining to make an exception to ma ndatory revoc ation and in se ntencing Price to more tha

n the bottom of the g uidelines rang e. We revie w a revoc ation of probation for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bujak , 347 F.3d 607, 609 (6th Cir. 2003). Be cause Price had more than three positive drug tests, revoc ation was mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3565(b)( 4) unless the district court deter mined that a drug -treatment prog ram would be more suitable, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3563(e)

. I n this case , Pric e h ad twice failed to comply with the attendanc e require ments of his drug -treatment program and tested positive for drug use on multipl e occa sions. Additionally , the district c ourt rec alled that Price had also had his bond revoke d on the underlying char g es due to drug problems. Under t h e circ umstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to make an exception to mandatory revoc ation in favor of

a drugtreatment prog ram. Cf. United States v. Crace , 207 F.3d 833 ( 6th Cir. 2000). The sentenc e of im p ri s onment imposed upon revoc ation of probation is revie wed for proce dural and substantive rea sonablene ss under an abuse- of-discr etion standard. Bujak , 347 F.3d at 609-10; see also United St ates v. Bolds , 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007) (reviewing sentenc e imposed for revoc ation of supervised rele ase)

. A sentenc e within the g uidelines rang e is entitled to

a presumption of rea sonablene ss. Bolds , 511 F.3d at 581. Price makes only vague and conclusory arguments that his sentenc e was unrea sonable, stating t h at a s en t en ce at the bottom of the rang e rathe r than the middle would have been sufficie nt. Review of the hear ing transcr ipt reve als that the district court considere d and addre ssed the fac tors raised by Price and his counsel. Price’s desire for -2-No. 11-6042

United States v. Price

a more lenient sentenc e is an insufficient re ason to disturb the district court’s judgme nt. United States v. Trejo-Martinez , 481 F.3d 409, 413 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Acc ording ly , the district court’s judg ment is affirme d.

-3-