NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0460n.06
No. 24-4027
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Oct 10, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE ) JEMAR JERESSE SIMMONS, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION )
Before: KETHLEDGE, LARSEN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Jemar Simmons pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm and ammunition and illegally possessing a machine gun. The district court imposed an
above-Guidelines sentence of 115 months. Simmons appeals, arguing that the sentence imposed
is substantively unreasonable. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.
I.
In April 2024, a woman phoned 911 for help while at a gas station. She reported that she
was in a car with Jemar Simmons and that she did not feel safe with him. The Cuyahoga Falls
Police Department responded by sending officers to the gas station, where they encountered
Simmons and the woman, both inside a car, at a gas pump. Simmons, who was agitated, began
yelling at the officers. The officers ordered Simmons to exit the car, which he did. But when
officers began to pat him down, he pulled away and attempted to flee on foot. He disobeyed the
officers’ commands, resisted arrest, and reached for his waistband several times during the No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
encounter. At one point, he escaped the officer’s control and ran to the passenger side of the
vehicle, where he was apprehended. In the process, a handgun with a large extended magazine
fell to the ground from Simmons’s waistband. Simmons again tried to break free, which caused
one of the officers to hit his head on the concrete. Simmons was eventually arrested.
A subsequent interview with the woman revealed that Simmons had come to her house
earlier that evening and had threatened her with a firearm. Further investigation of the handgun in
Simmons’s possession revealed that it was a Glock 17, 9‑millimeter with a fully loaded 28 round
magazine that had been modified with a switch, making it fully automatic. Police also noted that
Simmons was intoxicated during the incident and in possession of an open container.
Simmons was indicted in Ohio state court. But Simmons failed to appear at his
arraignment, so the court issued a bench warrant. A few days later, officers with the Akron Police
Department observed Simmons driving a vehicle and attempted to stop him. Simmons failed to
comply and, instead, led officers on a vehicle chase. He eventually lost control and crashed into a
tree. Still, the crash did not inhibit him; he exited the vehicle and fled on foot, leading officers on
yet another chase. Officers eventually apprehended him. A subsequent search of the apartment
where Simmons was staying led to the recovery of 12 grams of cocaine, 10 grams of fentanyl, 1
gram of an unknown substance, and a digital scale.
Simmons was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Ohio for being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(8), and for illegally possessing a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o)(1) and
924(a)(2). Simmons pleaded guilty as charged.
-2- No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
Simmons’s Guidelines range was 70 to 87 months. At sentencing, the district court varied
upward and sentenced him to 115 months’ imprisonment. Simmons now appeals, arguing that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable.
II.
“A claim that a sentence is substantively unreasonable is a claim that a sentence is too long
(if a defendant appeals) . . . .” United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). “It’s a
complaint that the court placed too much weight on some of the § 3553(a) factors and too little on
others in sentencing the individual.” Id. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bailey, 931 F.3d 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2019). Though
“[a] sentence falling within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,” one that falls
outside “carries no such presumption.” United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746, 757 (6th Cir. 2013).
We must give “due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,
justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
In light of Simmons’s lengthy criminal history, which included violent crimes; his frequent
firearm possession as a felon; and his repeated failure to comply with the police and the law, the
court believed an upward variance was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense, provide
just punishment, promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the
community. The court explained that Simmons’s lengthy criminal history began in the juvenile
system at sixteen years old. On three separate occasions, he committed disorderly conduct, assault,
and criminal trespass, respectively. Then, at seventeen years old, he was held responsible for
possession of drugs and criminal trespass. At eighteen, he was convicted of kidnapping,
aggravated robbery, robbery, felonious assault, obstructing official business, and possession of
marijuana. Simmons struck a victim in the head with a hammer multiple times, stole his wallet,
-3- No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
and walked away with the victim’s three‑year‑old daughter. While in prison for these crimes,
Simmons had multiple disciplinary infractions.
In 2014, he was convicted of drug trafficking and was placed on community control. He
violated the terms and was sent back to prison. In 2015 and in 2018, Simmons was convicted of
possessing a firearm as a felon. The second offense also included a conviction for failing to comply
with police orders. While in prison, he again committed numerous infractions. And while on
post‑release control, he committed the crimes at issue in this case.
The court also considered the nature and circumstances of the offense that led to his
conviction. During the incident, Simmons was intoxicated and became agitated with the officers
on the scene. When the officers attempted to pat Simmons down after ordering him out of the
vehicle, he fled from the officers, refused to comply with their orders, reached for his waistband
multiple times, caused an officer to sustain a concussion, and dropped a Glock model 17,
9‑millimeter firearm that was equipped with an extended magazine and a switch on the ground.
Following the incident, he posted bond and later failed to appear at his arraignment.
When officers later made contact with him to effectuate a traffic stop and execute an active
federal warrant for his arrest, he failed to pull over, led officers on a high-speed chase, lost control
of his vehicle, and crashed into a tree. Then, he fled on foot.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0460n.06
No. 24-4027
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Oct 10, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE ) JEMAR JERESSE SIMMONS, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ) OHIO Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION )
Before: KETHLEDGE, LARSEN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Jemar Simmons pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of
a firearm and ammunition and illegally possessing a machine gun. The district court imposed an
above-Guidelines sentence of 115 months. Simmons appeals, arguing that the sentence imposed
is substantively unreasonable. For the reasons below, we AFFIRM.
I.
In April 2024, a woman phoned 911 for help while at a gas station. She reported that she
was in a car with Jemar Simmons and that she did not feel safe with him. The Cuyahoga Falls
Police Department responded by sending officers to the gas station, where they encountered
Simmons and the woman, both inside a car, at a gas pump. Simmons, who was agitated, began
yelling at the officers. The officers ordered Simmons to exit the car, which he did. But when
officers began to pat him down, he pulled away and attempted to flee on foot. He disobeyed the
officers’ commands, resisted arrest, and reached for his waistband several times during the No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
encounter. At one point, he escaped the officer’s control and ran to the passenger side of the
vehicle, where he was apprehended. In the process, a handgun with a large extended magazine
fell to the ground from Simmons’s waistband. Simmons again tried to break free, which caused
one of the officers to hit his head on the concrete. Simmons was eventually arrested.
A subsequent interview with the woman revealed that Simmons had come to her house
earlier that evening and had threatened her with a firearm. Further investigation of the handgun in
Simmons’s possession revealed that it was a Glock 17, 9‑millimeter with a fully loaded 28 round
magazine that had been modified with a switch, making it fully automatic. Police also noted that
Simmons was intoxicated during the incident and in possession of an open container.
Simmons was indicted in Ohio state court. But Simmons failed to appear at his
arraignment, so the court issued a bench warrant. A few days later, officers with the Akron Police
Department observed Simmons driving a vehicle and attempted to stop him. Simmons failed to
comply and, instead, led officers on a vehicle chase. He eventually lost control and crashed into a
tree. Still, the crash did not inhibit him; he exited the vehicle and fled on foot, leading officers on
yet another chase. Officers eventually apprehended him. A subsequent search of the apartment
where Simmons was staying led to the recovery of 12 grams of cocaine, 10 grams of fentanyl, 1
gram of an unknown substance, and a digital scale.
Simmons was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Ohio for being a
felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and
924(a)(8), and for illegally possessing a machine gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(o)(1) and
924(a)(2). Simmons pleaded guilty as charged.
-2- No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
Simmons’s Guidelines range was 70 to 87 months. At sentencing, the district court varied
upward and sentenced him to 115 months’ imprisonment. Simmons now appeals, arguing that his
sentence is substantively unreasonable.
II.
“A claim that a sentence is substantively unreasonable is a claim that a sentence is too long
(if a defendant appeals) . . . .” United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 442 (6th Cir. 2018). “It’s a
complaint that the court placed too much weight on some of the § 3553(a) factors and too little on
others in sentencing the individual.” Id. We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bailey, 931 F.3d 558, 562 (6th Cir. 2019). Though
“[a] sentence falling within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable,” one that falls
outside “carries no such presumption.” United States v. Jeter, 721 F.3d 746, 757 (6th Cir. 2013).
We must give “due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole,
justify the extent of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).
In light of Simmons’s lengthy criminal history, which included violent crimes; his frequent
firearm possession as a felon; and his repeated failure to comply with the police and the law, the
court believed an upward variance was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense, provide
just punishment, promote respect for the law, afford adequate deterrence, and protect the
community. The court explained that Simmons’s lengthy criminal history began in the juvenile
system at sixteen years old. On three separate occasions, he committed disorderly conduct, assault,
and criminal trespass, respectively. Then, at seventeen years old, he was held responsible for
possession of drugs and criminal trespass. At eighteen, he was convicted of kidnapping,
aggravated robbery, robbery, felonious assault, obstructing official business, and possession of
marijuana. Simmons struck a victim in the head with a hammer multiple times, stole his wallet,
-3- No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
and walked away with the victim’s three‑year‑old daughter. While in prison for these crimes,
Simmons had multiple disciplinary infractions.
In 2014, he was convicted of drug trafficking and was placed on community control. He
violated the terms and was sent back to prison. In 2015 and in 2018, Simmons was convicted of
possessing a firearm as a felon. The second offense also included a conviction for failing to comply
with police orders. While in prison, he again committed numerous infractions. And while on
post‑release control, he committed the crimes at issue in this case.
The court also considered the nature and circumstances of the offense that led to his
conviction. During the incident, Simmons was intoxicated and became agitated with the officers
on the scene. When the officers attempted to pat Simmons down after ordering him out of the
vehicle, he fled from the officers, refused to comply with their orders, reached for his waistband
multiple times, caused an officer to sustain a concussion, and dropped a Glock model 17,
9‑millimeter firearm that was equipped with an extended magazine and a switch on the ground.
Following the incident, he posted bond and later failed to appear at his arraignment.
When officers later made contact with him to effectuate a traffic stop and execute an active
federal warrant for his arrest, he failed to pull over, led officers on a high-speed chase, lost control
of his vehicle, and crashed into a tree. Then, he fled on foot. Officers located a firearm on the
road, but Simmons denied it was his. He was ultimately arrested, and a search of the apartment
where he was staying led to the discovery of fentanyl, cocaine, and a digital scale. Based on this
history, the district court reasonably determined that a 28‑month upward variance was warranted.
Simmons argues that the court placed too much weight on his criminal history and not
enough on mitigating factors. He also argues that the court improperly afforded extra weight to
certain factors, like his criminal record and the fact that he had a tendency to flee from the police,
-4- No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
because, he says, these factors were already accounted for within the Guidelines. But the court
was well within its discretion to put extra weight on Simmons’s criminal history and tendencies.
We have repeatedly held that a district court may vary upward based on a defendant’s criminal
history. See, e.g., United States v. Dunnican, 961 F.3d 859, 880–81 (6th Cir. 2020); United States
v. Williams, 807 F. App’x 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2020); United States v. Trejo, 729 F. App’x 396, 399–
400 (6th Cir. 2018). And “[w]e have consistently rejected defendants’ arguments that a district
court cannot impose upward variances based on criminal history, simply because the Guidelines
calculation already accounts for criminal history as a factor.” Dunnican, 961 F.3d at 881
(collecting cases).
What’s more, the court considered the mitigating factors. For example, the court
considered the fact that Simmons’s mother was an alcoholic and was physically abusive to him
and his siblings. It considered that his father had a criminal history and was allegedly addicted to
cocaine. The court also considered that Simmons’s adopted father passed away in 2021, that
Simmons was a victim of sexual abuse, that his sister primarily took care of him, and that he
suffered a gunshot wound in 2016 and again in 2023. The court explained that Simmons also
reportedly has a history of mental health problems and was prescribed a medical marijuana card.
He was identified as a member of the Heartless Felons gang, but claimed he is no longer involved.
He has three children with three different mothers. He and his youngest son’s mother have been
together for two years. He has limited support from his sister and his girlfriend. But in the end,
the court determined that these mitigating factors were outweighed by Simmons’s lengthy criminal
history; his continued pattern of possessing firearms and refusing to comply with conditions of
supervision or conditions while released into the community; and his unwillingness to obey the
-5- No. 24-4027, United States v. Simmons
law. That was a reasonable exercise of the court’s discretion, see Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 442, and
we see no reason to disturb it.
***
We AFFIRM the district court.
-6-