United States Sixth Circuit

In a conviction of defendant for three counts of sex crimes against children, district court's imposition of a 295-month sentence for count 1, the same sentence for count 2, and 240-month sentence for count 3, all to run concurrently, is affirmed where: 1) the record reflects, contrary to defendant's contention, that the district court did in fact adequately address defendant's drug problem, depression, sexual addiction, and the abuse that he suffered as a child; 2) defendant's claim that the district court failed to consider all of the section 3553(a) factors and did not adequately explain the sentence reached is without merit; 3) the application of U.S.S.G. sections 2G2.1 and 2G2.2 did not make defendant's sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable; and 4) defendant's argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable because the district court gave an excessive amount of weight to the nature and seriousness of the offenses involved, fails to overcome the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness that the sentence enjoys because it falls within the applicable Guidelines range.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/10/2010
• Decided 01/06/2011
• Published 01/06/2011

Judges

• GILMAN

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Kristina W. Supler, Laura McMullen Ford