NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 23a0503n.06

No. 22-4073

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DYLAN PITTMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

OPINION

Before: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Dylan Pittman was indicted on one count of conspiracy to 

distribute methamphetamine and two counts of distribution of a controlled substance. He entered 

a guilty plea before the district court to a three-count indictment with a written plea agreement.

After calculating Pittman’s sentencing-guidelines range and considering his criminal history, the 

district court sentenced Pittman to 140 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised 

release—the most lenient sentence in the guidelines range. This was consistent with the parties’ 

plea agreement. Pittman now appeals, asserting that his 140-month sentence was procedurally 

unreasonable because the district court failed to consider and articulate its reasons for rejecting his 

argument for a lower sentence. Considering the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, we affirm the judgment 

of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

In April 2022, Dylan Pittman and his co-conspirators were indicted by a Northern District 

of Ohio grand jury on one count of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 
No. 22-4073, United States v. Pittman

-2-

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846, and two counts of distribution of a controlled 

substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(ii) and 18 U.S.C § 2. In 

September 2022, Pittman accepted responsibility and pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to 

distributing methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement. 

The presentence report calculated a total offense level of 29, and, after considering his 

extensive criminal history, placed Pittman in category V, resulting in a sentencing-guidelinesrange 

of 140 to 175 months. The presentence-report guidelines calculation was consistent with the 

parties’ plea agreement. At the time, Pittman acknowledged that “the advisory guideline range 

[would] be determined by the [district court] at the time of sentencing,” and “that the district court 

alone [would] decide the advisory guidelines range under the Sentencing Guidelines, whether there 

[would be] any basis to depart from that range or impose a sentence outside the advisory range, 

and what sentence to impose.” In short, the parties agreed to a written Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea 

agreement in this case, outlining that neither party would recommend or suggest that a variance or 

departure was appropriate.

In December 2022, the district court conducted a sentencing hearing. Considering the 

amount of methamphetamine that Pittman conspired to distribute and distributed, a total of 385.6 

grams, the court found that a base offense level of 32 applied. Because Pittman accepted 

responsibility, however, the court reduced this base level to a total offense level of 29. Considering 

Pittman’s criminal history category V, the court determined that an advisory guidelines range of 

140-175 months applied. 

After considering the plea-agreement terms, the court noted that it was not departing from 

the guidelines. In weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the court observed the nature and 

circumstances of Pittman’s offenses. Particularly, the court noted that Pittman played a substantial 
No. 22-4073, United States v. Pittman

-3-

role in a large drug-trafficking operation of high-purity methamphetamine and had a lengthy prior 

criminal record, including four felony drug offenses and several violent offenses, including 

domestic violence, as well as several misdemeanor convictions for theft and other theft-related 

offenses. The court also considered the circumstances of Pittman’s offenses, including Pittman’s 

prolonged history of substance abuse, his abusive childhood, and his struggle with mental health.

Defense counsel highlighted that, while Pittman’s extensive criminal history placed him in 

category V, all his prior sentences had been less than one year. After considering the nature and 

circumstances of Pittman’s offenses, his history and characteristics, the need for the sentence 

imposed, and the kinds of sentences available, the court imposed the lowest sentence within the 

advisory guidelines range—140 months.

Pittman now appeals the procedural reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the district 

court failed to address a significant factor of his background—the short length of his previous 

sentences. We affirm.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Procedural Reasonableness

For a sentence to be procedurally reasonable, the district judge must explain the reasons 

for a chosen sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50 (2007). A judge provides an adequate 

explanation when the record reflects that he “considered the parties’ arguments and ha[d] a 

reasoned basis” for the sentence. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). Appellate review, 

therefore, should “focus less on what the transcript reveals that the court said and more on what 

the transcript reveals the court did.” United States v. Gunter, 620 F.3d 642, 646 (6th Cir. 2010). 

To fulfill its procedural duty, a district court must “conduct a meaningful sentencing hearing and 
No. 22-4073, United States v. Pittman

-4-

truly consider the defendant’s arguments.” Ibid. (citing United States v. Wilson, 614 F.3d 219, 226-

27 (6th Cir. 2010) (Martin, J., concurring)).

This court reviews sentences for procedural reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion 

standard. Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. If a district court sentence is within the guidelines range, then an 

appellate court may apply a presumption of reasonableness. Ibid. However, adopting a 

presumption of reasonableness does not mean that courts may also adopt a presumption of 

unreasonableness. Rita, 551 U.S. at 354-55. This court has held that properly calculated sentences 

under the advisory guidelines are accorded a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. United 

States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006).

Procedural errors include “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines

range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a 

sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—

including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. In 

reviewing the district court’s calculation of the guidelines, we “review the district court’s factual 

findings for clear error.” United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2007). Unless the 

record demonstrates a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” this court 

will not reverse a lower court’s finding of fact. United States v. Orlando, 363 F.3d 596, 603 (6th 

Cir. 2004). 

Here, no such error occurred. The record clearly demonstrates that the district court

carefully considered the § 3553(a) factors, adequately expressed the reasons for its sentence, and 

correctly calculated and imposed a reasonable sentence. While neither party could argue for 

departure or variance under the terms of the plea agreement, both parties could set forth sentencing 

arguments for the district court to consider during its sentencing hearing. When putting forth a 
No. 22-4073, United States v. Pittman

-5-

sentencing argument, defense counsel expressly argued for a guidelines sentence and noted to the 

district court that Pittman’s prior sentences were significantly shorter in length than the one that 

he was facing at the sentencing hearing whether the 10-year statutory minimum sentence or the 

higher sentencing range of 140 to 175 months.

After considering the arguments, the district court imposed a sentence at the lowest end of 

the guidelines range sentence. Prior to stating its reasoning for imposing such sentence, the district 

court articulated that “in determining the reasonable and appropriate sentence in this case, [it] must 

consider the relevant factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, as well as the guidelines and policy 

statements” and the arguments put forth by counsel. The district court then articulated several 

factors that it considered, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, Pittman’s 

substantial role in the offense, the high purity of the methamphetamine that he pled guilty to 

conspiring to distribute and distributing, his extensive criminal record, his abusive childhood, and 

his struggle with mental health.

In particular, the court stated that it considered Pittman’s “history and characteristics as 

presented to this Court during the hearing today, as well as the presentence report and the defense’s 

sentencing memorandum” and highlighted that Pittman “had a difficult upbringing, an abusive 

childhood . . . [and] a history of mental health and substance abuse which is detailed in the 

presentence report.” Finding the sentence at the low end of the advisory guidelines range as 

reasonable and appropriate in this case, the court imposed a sentence of 140 months. The record, 

therefore, clearly reflects that the district court meaningfully considered the facts and the § 3553(a) 

factors, and provided an adequate explanation for its reasonable, low-end guidelines sentence.

Thus, Pittman’s within-guidelines-range sentence is procedurally reasonable.
No. 22-4073, United States v. Pittman

-6-

B. Addressing Arguments

Pittman contends that the district court’s sentence is procedurally unreasonable because it 

failed to articulate its reasons for rejecting his salient, non-frivolous argument—the brief length of 

his prior sentences—for a lower sentence. We disagree. 

The district court adequately addressed Pittman’s claim. We require an explanation to 

ensure that a district court had a “reasoned basis” for its sentence. United States v. Liou, 491 F.3d 

334, 338 (6th Cir. 2020). This basis requires a sentencing judge to “set forth enough” to satisfy the 

appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments. Rita, 551 U.S. at 356. When a 

defendant presents “conceptually straightforward” arguments and the district court imposes a 

within-guidelines sentence, we assume that the sentence reflects consideration of the argument 

even absent express analysis by the judge. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 388 (2008) (en 

banc); United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348, 361 (6th Cir. 2009).

A district court need not “engage in a formulaic point-by-point refutation” of each 

argument made by a defendant in favor of a more lenient sentence. United States v. Sweeney, 891 

F.3d 232, 239 (6th Cir. 2018). Nor does a court need to recite “magic words,” such as “I have 

considered [the defendant’s] arguments and I reject them.” United States v. Chiolo, 643 F.3d 177, 

184 (6th Cir. 2011). A district court’s failure to address each of a defendant’s arguments head-on 

will not lead to automatic reversal. United States v. Smith, 505 F.3d 463, 468 (6th Cir. 2007). 

Rather, a sentence will be vacated when the “context and the record” do not clarify the court’s 

reasoning. Liou, 491 F.3d at 339 n.4 (citation omitted). 

Here, the district court clearly explained its reasoning for imposing Pittman’s sentence. 

This included careful consideration of both aggravating and mitigating facts. These included 

Pittman’s criminal history of continued drug trafficking, his abusive childhood, and his struggle 
No. 22-4073, United States v. Pittman

-7-

with mental health. The court then weighed these facts in light of the 28 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors,

the need to provide just punishment, and the need to protect the larger community from any further 

crimes that Pittman might commit. 

Specifically, the court expressly stated that it considered all the information before it, 

including the “argument presented by the United States and counsel for the defense.” This would 

inherently include defense counsel’s argument that Pittman faced a significantly longer sentence 

than he had ever faced before. The court need not echo magic words or engage in a point-by-point

discussion of defendant’s specific argument that his prior sentences were much shorter than the 

one imposed to be deemed properly considered and rejected. 

In imposing its low-end-of-the-guidelines 140-month sentence, the context and the record 

make clear that the court thoroughly considered the relevant sentencing factors, the presentence 

report and the defense’s sentencing memorandum, and Pittman’s history, characteristics, and 

extensive criminal record, and explained its reasoning. It was not required to expressly reject each 

of defendant’s arguments nor explain why it did not impose a lesser sentence. Thus, Pittman’s 

140-month sentence is procedurally reasonable.

AFFIRMED.