Opinion ID: 2978110
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of Powers’s Sentence

Text: Powers argues that his sentence was unreasonable because there was a disparity between his sentence and the sentences of other similar co-defendants. Powers also argues that his age and other facts show that his likelihood of recidivism goes down. Since the district court properly utilized the correct procedures, examined Powers's extensive criminal history, and took note of his inclination to repeat offenses, the sentence was reasonable and the district court did not abuse its discretion. “[W]e review the sentence imposed by a district court for reasonableness utilizing the ‘familiar abuse of discretion standard.’” United States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527, 539 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007)). The reasonableness review is split into two parts: procedural reasonableness and substantive reasonableness. United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805, 808 (6th Cir. 2006). Sentences that are properly calculated and within the applicable Guidelines range are presumptively reasonable. United States v. Williams, 436 F.3d 706, 708 (6th Cir. 2006). “A sentence may be considered substantively unreasonable when the district court ‘select[s] the sentence arbitrarily, bas[es] the sentence on impermissible factors, fail[s] to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors or giv[es] an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.’” Collington, -5- 461 F.3d at 808 (quoting United States v. Webb, 403 F.3d 373, 385 (6th Cir. 2005)) (alterations in original). 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) requires the sentencing court to “avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” However, section “3553(a)(6) is concerned with national disparities among the many defendants with similar criminal backgrounds convicted of similar criminal conduct.” United States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 623 (6th Cir. 2007) (emphasis supplied) (citations omitted). Here, Powers argues that several of his co-defendants received lesser sentences and, accordingly, the district court should have taken this into consideration and imposed a lower sentence. However, the district court stated that it did consider the disparity at sentencing, but ultimately sentenced Powers to the statutory maximum because of his extensive criminal history. Thus, Powers’s co-defendant sentence disparity argument is unpersuasive. Further, sentencing courts are concerned with national disparities of similarly situated defendants and not disparities between co-defendants. See Simmons, 501 F.3d at 623. Likewise, Powers’s argument that his age should have been considered in determining that he was unlikely to commit future crimes is unpersuasive. The district court went over Powers’s PSR and his criminal history, likely taking note of his age, and expressly noting that his criminal activities went as far back as age thirteen. Even if Powers’s age suggested he was unlikely to commit future crimes, the district court noted his criminal history suggested otherwise, stating that he has “certainly been a menace.” -6- Since the district court followed the correct procedural requirements and ultimately sentenced Powers to a term of imprisonment that was within the statutory maximum, it did not abuse its discretion and Powers’s sentence was reasonable.