United States v. Michael Devon Mitchell

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 24-3699
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0441n.06

No. 24-3699

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Sep 29, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MICHAEL DEVON MITCHELL, ) OHIO Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION )

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Michael Mitchell pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession

of a firearm. The district court sentenced him to an above-Guidelines sentence. Mitchell now

challenges the reasonableness of his sentence. Seeing no error, we AFFIRM.

I.

Police found Michael Mitchell with a firearm during a traffic stop. A grand jury later

indicted him on one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Mitchell pleaded guilty as

charged. Before sentencing, the district court notified the parties that it was considering an upward

variance. At sentencing, the court calculated the Guidelines range as 24-to-30 months; neither

party objected. Relying heavily on Mitchell’s lengthy criminal record and his numerous violations

of prison rules while previously incarcerated, the court sentenced Mitchell to an above-Guidelines

sentence of 37-months’ imprisonment. Mitchell now appeals. No. 24-3699, United States v. Mitchell

II.

Procedural Reasonableness. Mitchell argues that his sentence was procedurally

unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the sentencing factors listed in

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). To fashion a procedurally reasonable sentence, the district court “must

properly calculate the guidelines range, treat that range as advisory, consider the sentencing factors

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), refrain from considering impermissible factors, select the sentence based

on facts that are not clearly erroneous, and adequately explain why it chose the sentence.” United

States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir. 2018). But Mitchell didn’t raise his procedural-

reasonableness challenge in the district court; so we review for plain error. United States v.

Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385–86 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

We see no error, plain or otherwise. The court considered Mitchell’s lengthy criminal

history, which included aggravated robbery and began when he was a juvenile. The court

explained that Mitchell had adjusted poorly to supervision and incarceration and had affiliated

with gangs while incarcerated. During his various incarcerations, Mitchell racked up many prison

violations, and once released, he routinely violated his probation and supervised release. The court

acknowledged that the average sentence for defendants with Mitchell’s Guidelines range was 27

months, and that varying upward might result in a sentencing disparity. But the court deemed the

37-month sentence appropriate based on Mitchell’s prior criminal history and numerous prison

violations. And the court considered the need for the sentence imposed, noting that during the

instant offense, Mitchell had lied to the police; and it also considered the need to protect the public,

given that Mitchell continued to carry a firearm despite his felon status. Finally, the court

considered the mitigating evidence, including Mitchell’s family history, his tough upbringing, his

employment history, and his substance-abuse issues. In the end, the court explained why

-2- No. 24-3699, United States v. Mitchell

Mitchell’s criminal history trumped any mitigating evidence and weighed in favor of an upward

variance. The district court thus properly considered the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a

procedurally reasonable sentence. See United States v. Richardson, 437 F.3d 550, 554 (6th Cir.

2005).

Substantive Reasonableness. Mitchell also argues that his above-Guidelines sentence was

substantively unreasonable. In short, “[a] claim that a sentence is substantively unreasonable is a

claim that a sentence is too long.” Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 442. “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. Even when a district court varies upward, a defendant “still must surmount a high

bar to succeed on a substantive-reasonableness challenge.” United States v. Thomas, 933 F.3d

605, 613 (6th Cir. 2019). Our review is for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 51 (2007).

Mitchell has not met the high bar required to show an abuse of discretion. In fashioning

the sentence, the district court considered Mitchell’s lengthy criminal history, his prior probation

violations, and his countless violations while previously incarcerated. The court weighed those

negatives against the mitigation evidence and ultimately determined that a modest variance was

necessary to deter Mitchell from further dangerous conduct. Nothing precluded the court from

putting more weight on Mitchell’s criminal history, even if already accounted for in the Guidelines

calculation. See Rayyan, 883 F.3d at 443; see also United States v. Dunnican, 961 F.3d 859, 881

(6th Cir. 2020) (“We 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.”). In sum, the court “properly considered all of

-3- No. 24-3699, United States v. Mitchell

the factors, balanced them, and imposed a reasonable sentence. We see no basis for second

guessing that judgment.” Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 443.

***

We AFFIRM.

-4-