Opinion ID: 2975372
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Timothy Pierre Clark

Text: The district court calculated Clark’s applicable Guidelines range as between 110 and 137 months of imprisonment. He was sentenced to 110 months, which carries a presumption of reasonableness because it is within the Guidelines range. See Rita, 2007 WL 1772146, at -9. Clark asked for leniency on the ground that others who were, in his words, “equally, if not[] more culpable to him” had been sentenced far below their Guidelines range. He specifically focused on Lawson, who received a sentence of 12 months’ home confinement despite having a Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months of imprisonment. The district court rejected this request, distinguishing Lawson’s conduct because “it didn’t require a whole lot of him to take the checks and turn them over to Mr. Clark and Mr. Burley.” Instead, the court concluded that Clark was “[t]he real brains behind the operation.” Clark was responsible for planning the scheme, acquiring the counterfeiting equipment, and recruiting check-cashers. The court further noted that “the sentencing direction that the Court has is to treat these folks individually and to focus on a sentence that’s proportionate to the violation and the violator.” After noting the large amount of loss, the number of people involved in the offense, the planning required for the scheme, and Clark’s history of convictions for similar types of offenses, - 19 - Nos. 06-1333, 06-1494 U.S. v. Burley, U.S. v. Clark the court determined that “the guideline range is a range that the Court should look to in imposing a sentence.” Clark’s criminal history, the court noted, also indicated that he had not learned from his past convictions. As with Burley’s sentence, we conclude that Clark’s sentence also meets the standard for reasonableness. The district court was “aware that [the] ultimate sentencing authority rested with the sentencing court, not the guidelines[,]” and adequately accounted for the § 3553(a) factors. United States v. Mickens, 453 F.3d 668, 673 (6th Cir. 2006). Although the court again could have perhaps done more in analyzing the factors in relation to this particular defendant and in linking Clark with the sentence imposed, we conclude that it sufficiently explained the basis for its ruling.