Court Opinion

ID: 9961236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-18 15:03:46.399044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:29.624376
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                    File Name: 24a0171n.06

                                        Case No. 23-3578

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                 FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                                 FILED
                                                                                      Apr 18, 2024
                                                                             KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk
                                                        )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                        )
          Plaintiff - Appellee,                         )    ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                        )    UNITED STATES DISTRICT
     v.                                                 )    COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
                                                        )    DISTRICT OF OHIO
ALVIN M. THOMAS,                                        )
                                                        )                         OPINION
          Defendant - Appellant.                        )

Before: BUSH, NALBANDIAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

       NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. After release from federal prison, Alvin Thomas began a

three-year term of supervised release. But after falling behind on restitution payments and refusing

to sign an installment agreement, Thomas was charged with violating his supervised-release

conditions. Thomas admitted to both violations, and the district court sentenced him to one day

imprisonment and extended his supervised-release term by three years.

       On appeal, Thomas claims that the district court erred in finding that he violated his

conditions of release and that his sentence for the violation was unreasonable. Finding no error,

we AFFIRM.

                                                 I.

       In March 2014, Alvin Thomas and six others robbed a jewelry store in St. Thomas, Virgin

Islands. Intimidating employees with firearms, the robbers took hundreds of jewelry items worth
No. 23-3578, United States v. Thomas

around $2 million. But Thomas could not make his escape and was apprehended by Virgin Islands

Police while fleeing the scene.

        In January 2015, Thomas was convicted of robbery and firearm offenses in the District of

Virgin Islands and sentenced to 85 months’ imprisonment. The sentencing court also added three

years of supervised release and ordered Thomas to pay nearly $700,000 in restitution. In June

2020, Thomas was released from federal custody and started his term of supervised release. In

November 2022, Thomas’s supervision was transferred to the Northern District of Ohio.

        In May 2023, Thomas’s probation officer reported that Thomas had violated two of his

supervised-release conditions, failing to pay his full restitution balance or sign an Installment

Agreement for outstanding restitution payments as directed by his probation officer. The probation

officer noted that Thomas had paid slightly more than $18,000, but still owed nearly $660,000 in

restitution.

        The district court held a revocation hearing in June 2023. The district court informed

Thomas of the charges against him and his rights to a hearing, to cross-examine witnesses, and to

testify in his own defense. Represented by counsel, Thomas waived his rights and admitted to both

violations.

        In mitigation, Thomas noted that he had been making monthly restitution payments

throughout his supervised release. He signaled an intent to keep making payments but was

“uncomfortable with the language of the paperwork.” R.17, Hr’g Tr. at 6, PageID 76. The

prosecution replied that the installment agreement was standard procedure to ensure that victims

could still be made whole after Thomas’s term of supervision.

                                                2
No. 23-3578, United States v. Thomas

        Emphasizing the need for restitution to the victims, the district court imposed a within-

Guidelines sentence of one day’s imprisonment and three years (minus a day) of supervised

release.1

        Thomas timely appealed.

                                                 II.

        On appeal, Thomas first claims the district court erred in finding that he violated the terms

of his supervised release.

        A district court may “revoke a term of supervised release” if it “finds by a preponderance

of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3583(e)(3). Generally, we review a district court’s revocation of supervised release for an abuse

of discretion. United States v. Givens, 786 F.3d 470, 471 (6th Cir. 2015).

        But Thomas admitted to the supervised-release violations before the district court. So we

require only that the admission be “knowing and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.”

United States v. Melton, 782 F.3d 306, 311 (6th Cir. 2015).

        Thomas claims that the district court erred in revoking his supervised release because he

was not required to pay restitution in full before the end of his supervision and because the

supervised-release terms did not require him to sign the Installment Agreement. But Thomas does

1
  Thomas’s Guidelines range recommended three to nine months of imprisonment, given his Grade
C violation and Criminal History Category of I. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The Guidelines also
authorized supervised release of up to three years, less any imprisonment imposed on revocation
of supervised release. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(g)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2), (h). So Thomas’s
imprisonment was below the Guidelines range, while the term of his supervised release was within
the Guidelines range.

                                                  3
No. 23-3578, United States v. Thomas

not dispute that his admissions were knowing and voluntary. So his argument that he did not violate

the terms of his supervised release is foreclosed by his own in-court concessions.

                                                III.

       Thomas also claims that, even if he violated his supervised-release conditions, his sentence

was substantively unreasonable.

       We review sentences for “substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion

standard.” United States v. Sears, 32 F.4th 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2022). A within-Guidelines sentence,

such as Thomas’s, is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389–90 (6th

Cir. 2008) (en banc). See also Melton, 782 F.3d at 313 (“The standard is the same regardless of

whether the sentence was imposed following conviction or revocation of supervised release.”). A

sentence is substantively unreasonable when “the district court selects a sentence arbitrarily, bases

the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider relevant sentencing factors, or gives an

unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.” United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508,

520 (6th Cir. 2008).

       Thomas claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it “was greater than

necessary.” Appellant Br. at 17. Thomas points to a litany of facts about his post-release conduct:

he has no other supervised-release violations, has not re-engaged in criminal acts, “maintained a

stable residence . . . and obtained full time employment,” and made more than $18,000 in

restitution payments. Id. at 17–18. But none of these facts show an arbitrary lack of consideration

that would render the district court’s sentence unreasonable.

       Instead, the district court considered all the § 3553(a) factors, concluding that “restitution

to victims” was “most important” here. R.17, Hr’g Tr. at 9, PageID 79. Given that 97% of Thomas’s

                                                 4
No. 23-3578, United States v. Thomas

restitution balance remained outstanding (around $660,000), extending his term of supervision was

a reasonable way to ensure continued payment—particularly when Thomas refused to sign the

Installment Agreement. So we conclude that Thomas’s sentence was substantively reasonable.

                                              IV.

       For these reasons, we AFFIRM.

                                               5