Opinion ID: 1211774
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration of Polihonki's employment status

Text: Polihonki also claims that the district court erred by not addressing the fact that he had a job available to him. This argument suggests that the court's failure to directly address his employment status indicates that the court did not consider it in sentencing him. But the record makes clear that this factor was within the court's contemplation. Both defense counsel and Polihonki referenced his employment status several times during the colloquy with the court, and each of them expressly asked that it be considered in imposing a sentence. Furthermore, [d]istrict courts may exercise discretion in determining how much of an explanation of the sentence is required because the amount of reasoning required varies according to context. United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 582-83 (6th Cir.2008). This court has made it clear that a district court need not explain its reasons for rejecting each argument made by a defendant. United States v. Smith, 510 F.3d 603, 608 (6th Cir.2007). Thus the district court in the present case was not required to respond directly to Polihonki's employment-status argument. See id. After hearing defense counsel on this point, the court discussed Polihonki's history of repeated supervised-release violations and ongoing alcohol abuse, and stated that the sentence was being imposed due to the high risk of continued behavior, [his] inability to address the characteristics of alcohol abuse, and [his] refusal to comply with these conditions. Sentencing Polihonki to prison time, the court explained, was intended to stop this cycle for good. In light of the district court's discussion of the relevant sentencing considerations, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to explain its consideration of Polihonki's employment status. We therefore conclude that Polihonki's sentence is procedurally reasonable.