Opinion ID: 868775
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: substantive-reasonableness claim

Text: Dumphord sought, and received, a sentence within the Guidelines range of eight to fourteen months. He does not contest on appeal that his actions violated the conditions of supervision. Appellant Br. at 7. Nevertheless, Dumphord now claims that any term of incarceration would be substantively unreasonable. Specifically, Dumphord argues that both incidents motivating the revocation of his supervised release occurred because of his abuse of alcohol, and that incarceration would thwart the rehabilitative purpose motivating supervised release. A district court may “revoke a term of supervised release[] and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that 3 No. 12-6222 United States v. Dumphord resulted in such term of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). “We review for abuse of discretion the sentence imposed by a district court upon revocation of supervised release.” United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, 201 (6th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007) (“Sentences imposed following revocation of supervised release are to be reviewed under the same abuse of discretion standard that we apply to sentences imposed following conviction.”). Dumphord challenges the substantive reasonableness of his within-Guidelines sentence. “In reviewing for substantive reasonableness, we must consider the sentence imposed in light of ‘the totality of the circumstances. . . .’” Johnson, 640 F.3d at 202 (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). We further “may apply a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness” to a sentence that falls within the Guidelines range. Id. Dumphord offers no support for the proposition that a defendant’s struggle with alcohol abuse alone renders a term of imprisonment unreasonable.2 In addition, Dumphord did not mention his alcohol usage during either the revocation or sentencing hearings as a reason to impose a lower term of imprisonment. Instead, Dumphord’s counsel sought a sentence within the Guidelines range appropriate for a Class C violation of the conditions of supervision. Cf. United States v. Goodman, 519 F.3d 310, 319 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[A]n attorney cannot agree in open court with a judge’s 2 We note that the record does not support Dumphord’s assertion that his conduct on September 1, 2012, involved alcohol. Although the government mentioned during sentencing that “both [violations] involve[d] alcohol,” R. 274 (Revocation & Sent. Hr’g at 30) (Page ID #634), no evidence was produced to support this claim with respect to Dumphord’s arrest on September 1, 2012. In particular, no witness testified to the presence of alcohol in the events that transpired on that date, and Dumphord was not charged with any alcohol-related crimes. 4 No. 12-6222 United States v. Dumphord proposed course of conduct and then charge the court with error in following that course.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Given the presumption of substantive reasonableness for a withinGuidelines sentence, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in granting Dumphord a sentence within the range sought by his counsel.