United States v. Chapell Dain Cissell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: January 16, 2026
• Docket: 25-5379
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0031n.06

No. 25-5379

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 16, 2026 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF CHAPELL DAIN CISSELL, ) TENNESSEE Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION

Before: COLE, MATHIS, and HERMANDORFER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Chapell Dain Cissell challenges the procedural and substantive

reasonableness of his 120-month sentence for firearm offenses. As set forth below, we AFFIRM

his sentence.

While investigating an alleged assault with a firearm, law enforcement officers located

Cissell, a felon, who was wearing a ballistic vest and carrying three firearms. He also had with

him multiple magazines and nearly two hundred rounds of ammunition. A search of Cissell’s

residence and associated property uncovered three more firearms. Cissell subsequently pleaded

guilty without a plea agreement to a superseding indictment charging him with six counts of being

a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

Cissell filed a position statement with respect to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors,

attaching (a) a psychological evaluation diagnosing him with personality and substance use

disorders, (b) letters from his family members and friends, and (c) certificates of completion for No. 25-5379, United States v. Cissell

classes that he had taken while in detention. At sentencing, Cissell’s mother and sister testified on

his behalf, and he submitted additional letters in his support.

The district court calculated Cissell’s Guidelines range as 151 to 188 months of

imprisonment based on a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category of VI. Because

that range exceeded the ten-year statutory maximum penalty, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), his

recommended Guidelines sentence became 120 months of imprisonment, see USSG § 5G1.1(a).

The government recommended a 120-month sentence, while Cissell requested a sentence below

the statutory maximum penalty. After considering the § 3553(a) factors, the district court

sentenced him to 120 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. The

district court also recommended Cissell’s participation in the residential drug abuse program and

his placement at a medical facility to receive treatment for his mental health issues.

In this timely appeal, Cissell challenges the procedural and substantive reasonableness of

his 120-month sentence. We review a district court’s sentencing determination for procedural and

substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Fugate,

964 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2020).

We first consider whether the district court committed any “significant procedural error,

such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the

Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on

clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Cissell argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable

because the district court failed to consider all § 3553(a) factors.

According to Cissell, the district court failed to consider his mental health issues and

psychological evaluation. But the district court specifically stated that it had reviewed the

-2- No. 25-5379, United States v. Cissell

psychological evaluation. And in discussing Cissell’s placement in the Bureau of Prisons, the

district court emphasized that his access to mental health treatment was an “urgent and . . .

imperative . . . priority.” Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 117 PageID 491-92. The district court ultimately

recommended that Cissell be placed in a medical facility to receive such treatment. In addition,

the terms of Cissell’s supervised release included his participation in mental health evaluations

and cognitive behavioral therapy as directed by his probation officer.

Cissell further contends that the district court failed to mention the letters from his family

members and friends. But the district court specifically stated that it had reviewed those letters.

The district court also recognized that Cissell had a number of family members present at

sentencing and that it had heard testimony from his mother and sister, acknowledging that “they

are concerned about [Cissell] and they want [him] to succeed.” Id., PageID 494-95.

The record shows that the district court considered the § 3553(a) factors and expressly

addressed Cissell’s mental health issues as well as his support from family members and friends.

Cissell has failed to show that the district court procedurally erred in making its sentencing

determination.

We next consider the substantive reasonableness of Cissell’s sentence. “The essence of a

substantive-reasonableness claim is whether the length of the sentence is ‘greater than necessary’

to achieve the sentencing goals set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v.

Tristan-Madrigal, 601 F.3d 629, 632-33 (6th Cir. 2010). “Simply put, a defendant’s sentence is

substantively unreasonable if it is too long.” United States v. Lee, 974 F.3d 670, 676 (6th Cir.

2020). We afford a presumption of substantive reasonableness to Cissell’s Guidelines sentence.

See United States v. Miller, 73 F.4th 427, 431 (6th Cir. 2023). Cissell has failed to overcome that

presumption.

-3- No. 25-5379, United States v. Cissell

“One way to gauge the substantive reasonableness of a sentence is to ask whether ‘the court

placed too much weight on some of the § 3553(a) factors and too little on others’ in reaching its

sentencing decision.” United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d 748, 753-54 (6th Cir. 2020)

(quoting United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019)). Cissell argues that the

district court gave too much weight to his criminal history while failing to give any weight to his

mental health issues and his support from family members and friends.

The district court properly considered Cissell’s criminal history, noting that he had “a

number of previous convictions, which include[d] several drug convictions, facilitation to commit

aggravated robbery, theft, and aggravated assault,” and that he fell within the highest criminal

history category based on those convictions. Sentencing Hr’g Tr., R. 117, PageID 490. The district

court also discussed the nature and circumstances of Cissell’s offense, which involved pointing a

firearm at persons while wearing a bulletproof vest and possessing additional firearms. The district

court observed that Cissell had engaged in “a very dangerous type of activity that could have,

unfortunately, resulted in much greater harm than [it] actually did.” Id., PageID 491. But, as

addressed above, the district court considered the need to provide Cissell with access to mental

health treatment, ultimately recommending his placement in a medical facility and imposing

conditions on his supervised release related to mental health treatment. And the district court

acknowledged Cissell’s support from family members and friends.

“[A] sentence is not necessarily substantively unreasonable because a court place[d] greater

weight on some factors than others.” United States v. Gates, 48 F.4th 463, 478 (6th Cir. 2022).

The district court acted within its discretion in balancing all of these factors and reasonably

imposed the within-Guidelines, statutory-maximum sentence of 120 months.

For these reasons, we AFFIRM Cissell’s 120-month sentence.

-4-