United States v. Louis Smith, Jr.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 13a0894n.06
No. 12-6127
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
LOUIS M. SMITH, JR., ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: SUTTON and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; DOW, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Louis M. Smith Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed
following his guilty plea to two counts of unlawfully transferring stolen monies in interstate
commerce and four counts of wire fraud.
Smith, a former attorney, stole the life savings, over $600,000, of one of his clients, a woman
in her nineties in a nursing home, and over $400,000 from the estates of two other clients. He had
no previous criminal history. The sentencing guidelines range was calculated at 63 to 78 months
of imprisonment. Smith’s counsel argued for a sentence of home incarceration, based on Smith’s
age, 64, and diagnoses of Parkinson’s disease and dementia. The district court imposed a sentence
of 63 months, which Smith now argues is unreasonable.
*
The Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr., United States District Judge for Northern District of
Illinois, sitting by designation.
No. 12-6127
United States v. Smith
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard,
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007), giving considerable deference to the sentencing
judge’s decisions. See United States v. Poynter, 495 F.3d 349, 351-52 (6th Cir. 2007).
Although the guidelines discourage consideration of health issues, see United States v.
Robinson, 669 F.3d 767, 775 (6th Cir. 2012), cert. denied,133 S. Ct. 929 (2013), the district court
in this case considered Smith’s arguments. See United States v. Brooks, 628 F.3d 791, 796 (6th Cir.
2011). After hearing testimony from the Regional Medical Director of the Bureau of Prisons Mid-
Atlantic Region, the district court concluded that the Bureau of Prisons is able to satisfy Smith’s
medical requirements. See United States v. Theunick, 651 F.3d 578, 592 (6th Cir. 2011). The court
concluded that other sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the crimes, the need for
deterrence, and the vulnerability of the victims, called for a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines
range.
A sentence within the guidelines range is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. United
States v. Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007). Smith’s desire for a more lenient
sentence is insufficient to disturb the district court’s judgment. Id. We consider not whether the
district court could have given a lower sentence, but whether it must have. United States v. Smith,
516 F.3d 473, 478 (6th Cir. 2008). Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm
the sentence imposed in this case.
-2-