NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0272n.06
No. 24-5063
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 04, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY MATTHEW THOMAS, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) )
Before: MOORE, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Matthew Thomas, a federal prisoner, was
sentenced to 114 months of imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). This sentence is nearly one and a half times the top end of
Thomas’s 63- to 78-month guidelines range. Thomas challenges the substantive reasonableness
of this upward variance. Because the district court adequately explained why an upward variance
was warranted, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2021, Thomas was arrested for possessing a stolen handgun. R. 72 (PSR ¶¶ 7–
10) (Page ID #221–22). He had stolen the firearm from his mother. Id. Thomas “had been seen
waving a gun around and acting very manic before leaving his girlfriend’s house.” Id. ¶ 9 (Page No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
ID #222). After local police confronted Thomas, he admitted to possessing the weapon and
complied with their instructions. Id. ¶ 10 (Page ID #222).
On August 25, 2022, a grand jury indicted Thomas on two counts—one under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) and the other under § 922(j). R. 1 (Indictment at 1) (Page ID #1). On October 27,
2022, the Government filed a superseding indictment, charging the same two counts, but adding
additional allegations asserting that Thomas was eligible for an enhanced penalty under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). R. 17 (Superseding Indictment at 1–2) (Page
ID #37–38). Following an assessment of his competency, Thomas stipulated to a psychological
evaluation that he suffers from: “(1) Schizotypal Personality Disorder, (2) Alcohol Use Disorder,
severe, in a controlled environment, and (3) Stimulant Use Disorder (methamphetamine), severe,
in a controlled environment.” R. 48 (Order Adopting Competency Finding at 2–3) (Page ID #111–
12).
Thomas pleaded guilty on July 25, 2023, to the § 922(g)(1) count. R. 81 (Re-Arraignment
Tr. at 28) (Page ID #357). At the January 9, 2024 sentencing, and although the Government argued
that the district court should apply the ACCA sentencing enhancement, the district court found
that Thomas’s prior convictions did not qualify as predicate offenses. R. 79 (Sent’g Tr. at 24–38)
(Page ID #279–93). Consequently, Thomas’s guideline range decreased from 180- to 210-months
of imprisonment, R. 72 (PSR ¶ 73) (Page ID #237), to 63- to 78-months of imprisonment, R. 79
(Sent’g Tr. at 42) (Page ID #297). The district court adopted the government’s specific
recommendation, and sentenced Thomas to 114 months of imprisonment to run concurrent with a
related state-court matter. Id. at 46, 58–60 (Page ID #301, 313–15).
2 No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
In varying upward from Thomas’s guidelines range, the district court principally noted his
violent criminal history. Id. at 52, 57–58 (Page ID #307, 312–13) This history included Thomas’s
three convictions for sexual assault, one of which involved a minor under twelve-years-old. Id. at
53 (Page ID #308). Thomas also had a history of resisting arrest and fleeing the police, often
armed with a knife. Id. at 53–54 (Page ID #308–09). Based on Thomas’s lengthy criminal history,
the district court determined that his prior five-year sentences had not deterred him, and that his
current sentence would have to be sufficient to deter him from future criminal conduct. Id. at 54
(Page ID #309).
Although the district court noted that “there may be some small mitigating factors related
to [Thomas’s] mental health,” those mitigating factors were outweighed by “a really aggravating
factor involving [his] criminal history.” Id. at 53 (Page ID #308). In declining to sentence Thomas
within the guideline range, the district court noted the need for specific deterrence, that Thomas
did not receive the ACCA sentencing enhancement despite his violent criminal history, and his
“violent recidivist, persistent and troubling criminal history.” Id. at 57 (Page ID #312). Thomas’s
114-month sentence “is about a 45 percent upward variance from the high end of the guideline
range.” Id. at 58 (Page ID #313).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Thomas challenges the substantive reasonableness of his above-guidelines sentence. We
review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
3 No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
III. ANALYSIS
Thomas challenges only the district court’s reliance on his extensive criminal history in
varying upward. Because the district court adequately explained why an upward variance was
warranted in these circumstances, we affirm.
“Substantive reasonableness focuses on whether a sentence is too long (if a defendant
appeals) or too short (if the government appeals).” United States v. Mitchell, 107 F.4th 534, 544
(6th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019)). The
question is whether “the court placed too much weight on some of the [sentencing] factors and too
little on others in sentencing the individual.” Id. (quoting United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436,
442 (6th Cir. 2018)). “If the court failed to give ‘reasonable weight to each relevant factor,’ the
sentence that results is substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d
748, 754 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Boucher, 937 F.3d 702, 707 (6th Cir. 2019)).
“[A] sentence above the guidelines range ‘requires the district court to consider the extent
of the deviation to ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of
variance.’” United States v. Johnson, 26 F.4th 726, 736 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Perez-Rodriguez,
960 F.3d at 754). “In doing so, the district court must explain ‘how the present case is different
from the typical or mine-run case’ within the ‘heartland to which the Commission intends
individual Guidelines to apply.’” Id. (quoting Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d at 754). “Relevant here,
‘[t]he greater the variance, the more compelling the justification must be.’” Id. (alteration in
original) (quoting Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d at 754). “And when a sentence ‘departs from the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0272n.06
No. 24-5063
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 04, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY MATTHEW THOMAS, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) )
Before: MOORE, BUSH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Matthew Thomas, a federal prisoner, was
sentenced to 114 months of imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). This sentence is nearly one and a half times the top end of
Thomas’s 63- to 78-month guidelines range. Thomas challenges the substantive reasonableness
of this upward variance. Because the district court adequately explained why an upward variance
was warranted, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we
AFFIRM.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2021, Thomas was arrested for possessing a stolen handgun. R. 72 (PSR ¶¶ 7–
10) (Page ID #221–22). He had stolen the firearm from his mother. Id. Thomas “had been seen
waving a gun around and acting very manic before leaving his girlfriend’s house.” Id. ¶ 9 (Page No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
ID #222). After local police confronted Thomas, he admitted to possessing the weapon and
complied with their instructions. Id. ¶ 10 (Page ID #222).
On August 25, 2022, a grand jury indicted Thomas on two counts—one under 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) and the other under § 922(j). R. 1 (Indictment at 1) (Page ID #1). On October 27,
2022, the Government filed a superseding indictment, charging the same two counts, but adding
additional allegations asserting that Thomas was eligible for an enhanced penalty under the Armed
Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). R. 17 (Superseding Indictment at 1–2) (Page
ID #37–38). Following an assessment of his competency, Thomas stipulated to a psychological
evaluation that he suffers from: “(1) Schizotypal Personality Disorder, (2) Alcohol Use Disorder,
severe, in a controlled environment, and (3) Stimulant Use Disorder (methamphetamine), severe,
in a controlled environment.” R. 48 (Order Adopting Competency Finding at 2–3) (Page ID #111–
12).
Thomas pleaded guilty on July 25, 2023, to the § 922(g)(1) count. R. 81 (Re-Arraignment
Tr. at 28) (Page ID #357). At the January 9, 2024 sentencing, and although the Government argued
that the district court should apply the ACCA sentencing enhancement, the district court found
that Thomas’s prior convictions did not qualify as predicate offenses. R. 79 (Sent’g Tr. at 24–38)
(Page ID #279–93). Consequently, Thomas’s guideline range decreased from 180- to 210-months
of imprisonment, R. 72 (PSR ¶ 73) (Page ID #237), to 63- to 78-months of imprisonment, R. 79
(Sent’g Tr. at 42) (Page ID #297). The district court adopted the government’s specific
recommendation, and sentenced Thomas to 114 months of imprisonment to run concurrent with a
related state-court matter. Id. at 46, 58–60 (Page ID #301, 313–15).
2 No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
In varying upward from Thomas’s guidelines range, the district court principally noted his
violent criminal history. Id. at 52, 57–58 (Page ID #307, 312–13) This history included Thomas’s
three convictions for sexual assault, one of which involved a minor under twelve-years-old. Id. at
53 (Page ID #308). Thomas also had a history of resisting arrest and fleeing the police, often
armed with a knife. Id. at 53–54 (Page ID #308–09). Based on Thomas’s lengthy criminal history,
the district court determined that his prior five-year sentences had not deterred him, and that his
current sentence would have to be sufficient to deter him from future criminal conduct. Id. at 54
(Page ID #309).
Although the district court noted that “there may be some small mitigating factors related
to [Thomas’s] mental health,” those mitigating factors were outweighed by “a really aggravating
factor involving [his] criminal history.” Id. at 53 (Page ID #308). In declining to sentence Thomas
within the guideline range, the district court noted the need for specific deterrence, that Thomas
did not receive the ACCA sentencing enhancement despite his violent criminal history, and his
“violent recidivist, persistent and troubling criminal history.” Id. at 57 (Page ID #312). Thomas’s
114-month sentence “is about a 45 percent upward variance from the high end of the guideline
range.” Id. at 58 (Page ID #313).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Thomas challenges the substantive reasonableness of his above-guidelines sentence. We
review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the abuse-of-discretion standard. See
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).
3 No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
III. ANALYSIS
Thomas challenges only the district court’s reliance on his extensive criminal history in
varying upward. Because the district court adequately explained why an upward variance was
warranted in these circumstances, we affirm.
“Substantive reasonableness focuses on whether a sentence is too long (if a defendant
appeals) or too short (if the government appeals).” United States v. Mitchell, 107 F.4th 534, 544
(6th Cir. 2024) (quoting United States v. Parrish, 915 F.3d 1043, 1047 (6th Cir. 2019)). The
question is whether “the court placed too much weight on some of the [sentencing] factors and too
little on others in sentencing the individual.” Id. (quoting United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436,
442 (6th Cir. 2018)). “If the court failed to give ‘reasonable weight to each relevant factor,’ the
sentence that results is substantively unreasonable.” United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d
748, 754 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Boucher, 937 F.3d 702, 707 (6th Cir. 2019)).
“[A] sentence above the guidelines range ‘requires the district court to consider the extent
of the deviation to ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of
variance.’” United States v. Johnson, 26 F.4th 726, 736 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Perez-Rodriguez,
960 F.3d at 754). “In doing so, the district court must explain ‘how the present case is different
from the typical or mine-run case’ within the ‘heartland to which the Commission intends
individual Guidelines to apply.’” Id. (quoting Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d at 754). “Relevant here,
‘[t]he greater the variance, the more compelling the justification must be.’” Id. (alteration in
original) (quoting Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d at 754). “And when a sentence ‘departs from the
advisory range in a mine-run case,’ variance justifications warrant closer review by this Court.”
Id. (quoting Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d at 754).
4 No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
Here, the district court adequately explained why an upward variance was justified under
the sentencing factors. Thomas has three sexual assault convictions, including one involving a
minor under twelve-years-old. R. 79 (Sent’g Tr. at 53) (Page ID #308). Each time Thomas was
given the opportunity to serve his sentence outside of the carceral setting, he would commit another
violent offense, and often flee the police while resisting arrest with a knife in hand. See id. at 53–
54 (Page ID #308–09). In the instant matter, Thomas was caught in a manic state while
brandishing a stolen firearm in an area where two women had then-active domestic-violence-
protection orders against Thomas. Id. at 47–48 (Page ID #302–03). Thomas had twice received
lengthy sentences, neither of which deterred his criminal conduct. See id. at 54 (Page ID #309).
Against this backdrop, the district court considered the letter written by Thomas’s mother, his
being raised by a single mother, and his mental-health and addiction issues. Id. at 50–52 (Page ID
#305–07). The district court also considered that the average and median sentence (62 months and
63 months, respectively) for someone with Thomas’s guideline range is roughly half the length of
the sentence imposed. Id. at 55 (Page ID #310). Nevertheless, the district court found that an
upward variance of about 45% from the high end of the guidelines was warranted in Thomas’s
case.
Based on the record established below, we conclude that the district court adequately
explained why an upward variance was sufficient but not greater than necessary. The district court
did not abuse its discretion when it varied upward in light of Thomas’s background, his
characteristics, the need to deter Thomas, and the need to protect the public. On appeal, Thomas
asks for little more than that we re-weigh the sentencing factors. That is not the scope of our
review. See United States v. Frei, 995 F.3d 561, 567–68 (6th Cir. 2021). Although Thomas’s
5 No. 24-5063, United States v. Thomas
sentence is a significant variance, the district court adequately explained why this variance was
warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, we AFFIRM the sentence and judgment of the district court.