United States v. Patrick Seymour

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0101n.06
No. 14-1665
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Feb 03, 2015
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
PATRICK DESHAWN SEYMOUR, ) MICHIGAN
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: COLE, Chief Judge; MOORE and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Patrick Deshawn Seymour appeals his sentence.
Seymour pleaded guilty to possessing with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court determined that Seymour was a career offender and
that, based on his total offense level of 29 and his criminal history category of VI, his guidelines
range of imprisonment was 151 to 188 months. The court sentenced Seymour to 151 months in
prison.
On appeal, Seymour argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the
district court placed undue weight on the need to protect the public from his future crimes.
Seymour contends that the district court should have concluded that he was unlikely to reoffend
based on his non-violent criminal history and his commitment to overcoming his drug addiction.
We review sentences under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reasonableness,
which has both a procedural and a substantive component. United States v. Studabaker,
No. 14-1665
United States v. Seymour
578 F.3d 423, 430 (6th Cir. 2009). A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court
selects the sentence arbitrarily or gives unreasonable weight to any relevant sentencing factor.
United States v. Zobel, 696 F.3d 558, 569 (6th Cir. 2012). We apply a rebuttable presumption of
substantive reasonableness to a within-guidelines sentence. United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d
382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Before imposing the sentence, the district court thoroughly discussed the relevant
sentencing factors, including the seriousness of the offense, Seymour’s difficult upbringing and
personal circumstances, his extensive criminal history and likelihood to recidivate, and the need
to provide just punishment, promote respect for the law, and afford adequate deterrence. The
district court reasonably concluded that Seymour had a significant risk to reoffend based on his
history of criminal activity, and the record does not reflect that the court placed undue weight on
the need to protect the public. Thus, Seymour has not overcome the presumption that his within-
guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm Seymour’s sentence.
-2-