USA v. Olufemi Young, No. 14-4158 (6th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0413n.06 No. 14-4158 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. OLUFEMI YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Jun 05, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO BEFORE: GUY, GIBBONS, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Olufemi Young, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his term of supervised release. Young entered a guilty plea in 2001 in the Western District of Pennsylvania to charges of carrying a firearm in relation to a drug-trafficking crime and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to 157 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. His supervised release term commenced in December 2011. Beginning in March 2013, Young repeatedly tested positive for marijuana. He admitted that his drug use violated the terms of his supervised release. A sentencing hearing was held in November 2014. The guidelines range for the violation was calculated at six to twelve months of imprisonment. The government argued for a sentence within the range. Young argued that he had successfully started his own business and asked to be allowed to continue his final month of supervised release. The district court No. 14-4158 United States v. Young discussed the seriousness of the violation and the needs to promote respect for the law, to punish, and for deterrence in imposing a term of imprisonment of twelve months with no additional supervised release to follow. Young now argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. He states that he required drug treatment rather than incarceration. We review a sentence imposed on the revocation of supervised release for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 575 (6th Cir. 2007). A sentence within the guidelines range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness. United States v. Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Morris, 448 F.3d 929, 932 (6th Cir. 2006). Young presents nothing that indicates an abuse of discretion by the district court or rebuts the presumption of reasonableness of his within-guidelines sentence. He was given the opportunity to complete drug treatment on supervised release and squandered that opportunity. Young’s wish for a more lenient sentence is insufficient to disturb the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed below. -2- See Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d at 413.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
