NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 18a0320n.06

Case No. 17-4237

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RYAN TENNEBAR,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO 

BEFORE: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Ryan Tennebar appeals his 48-month sentence for obstructing 

justice. We affirm. 

Tennebar owned and operated Healthcare Essentials, Inc., a company that sold medical 

devices. Part of its business involved selling machines manufactured by Kinetic Concepts, Inc. 

But Kinetic employed its own salesforce to sell its products; it did not permit other companies to 

do so. When Kinetic discovered that several of its machines were missing from customer facilities, 

only to resurface with their serial numbers defaced and replaced with Healthcare Essentials labels, 

it suspected that Healthcare Essentials stole the machines and resold them under its own label.

Kinetic sued Healthcare Essentials and reported its suspicions to the FBI, which opened a 

criminal investigation. In April 2017, agents showed up at Tennebar’s house with a search warrant.
Case No. 17-4237

United States v. Tennebar

2

They asked Tennebar whether his company kept its records in a storage unit. Tennebar said no. 

But as soon as agents began searching his home, Tennebar drove to a hardware store, bought bolt 

cutters, broke into the storage unit that housed company records, and removed several boxes of 

documents.

That earned him an obstruction of justice charge, to which he pleaded guilty. The district 

court sentenced him to 48 months in prison, above the 15- to 21-month range recommended by 

the Sentencing Guidelines. 

Tennebar complains that his sentence is substantively unreasonable—that it is too long in 

short. But district courts have considerable latitude to pick an adequate sentence, and we may 

reverse only if the court abused its discretion when applying the relevant statutory factors. Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). 

No abuse occurred here. To start, Tennebar ignores the district court’s careful 

consideration of the statutory factors. The court noted that this was Tennebar’s first felony 

conviction. And it acknowledged that it would generally be inclined to impose a within-guidelines

sentence in such circumstances. But a longer sentence was appropriate, it explained, to “promote 

respect for the law.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A).

That determination was reasonable in view of Tennebar’s “repeated violation of court 

orders.” R. 33 at 21. In a separate civil lawsuit between Kinetic and Healthcare Essentials, 

Tennebar refused to turn over key documents despite court orders to do so. That earned him three 

days in jail for contempt. After he posted bond, Tennebar violated the conditions of his release, 

which required him to get approval from his probation officer before leaving his house. His 

probation officer gave him permission to get a haircut and visit a bank to get money to pay his 

attorney. Instead of doing that, Tennebar visited a different bank and sent $43,000 to his girlfriend 
Case No. 17-4237

United States v. Tennebar

3

in Mexico. When the FBI reported the violation, the district court revoked his bond and ordered 

him detained.

When the district court gave Tennebar a chance to explain his conduct, moreover, he

refused to accept responsibility. He claimed that he transferred the $43,000 to his girlfriend in 

Mexico so that she could meet payroll expenses for his company. But the district court suspected 

that Tennebar transferred the money to protect the company from a potential fine or civil judgment. 

Tennebar also claimed that he broke into the storage unit to retrieve files for the civil lawsuit, not 

to hamper the FBI investigation. But the district court found that explanation implausible because 

Tennebar lied about the existence of the storage unit and because he visited the unit as soon as he 

realized that the FBI was investigating him. All in all, the district court found that Tennebar would 

“prefer playing games instead of facing the consequences of his actions.” Id. at 20. Ample 

evidence supports that finding.

The district court considered Tennebar’s arguments for leniency, including his education 

and minimal criminal record. It weighed those arguments against Tennebar’s repeated refusal to 

follow court orders. And it determined that an above-guidelines sentence would promote respect 

for the rule of law. We have no reason to upset that determination, as that is just what an 

individualized assessment of the § 3553(a) factors allows. United States v. Sherer, 770 F.3d 407, 

413 (6th Cir. 2014).

We affirm.