UNITED STATES of AMERICA v. Misty Angel

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0029n.06
CASE NO. 15-5178
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES of AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MISTY ANGEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Before: MERRITT, BATCHELDER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Misty Angel appeals a below-guideline
criminal sentence, claiming that it is substantively unreasonable. We AFFIRM.
On October 16, 2013, the police arrived at Angel’s residence (a single-wide trailer home)
inside of which Angel was manufacturing methamphetamine. Five minor children were also
inside the trailer at the time and police took them to a hospital for decontamination. Angel
admitted to smoking methamphetamine in the trailer and to cooking methamphetamine there on
at least six prior occasions. Some of the children relayed that they had on prior occasions had to
leave the residence because of strong chemical odors that hurt their eyes. Angel was using a
“one-pot” method (i.e., mixing certain toxic, flammable, and explosive chemicals into a single
container; here, a Coke bottle) and adding additional heat to facilitate the chemical reaction.
Angel entered a guilty plea to attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C) and 846, and proceeded to sentencing. Angel’s presentence report
revealed three prior methamphetamine-related convictions, including two felonies for exactly the

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 15-5178
United States of America v. Misty Angel
2
same conduct: manufacturing methamphetamine in her home in the presence of children. In fact,
she was on probation for her second felony at the time she committed the present offense.
Those prior convictions qualified Angel as a career offender, with a resulting total
offense level of 29 and criminal history category of VI. This produced an advisory guideline
range of 151 to 188 months in prison. Angel moved the district court for a below-guidelines
sentence due to her personal history—specifically, that she had been sexually abused as a child,
had been physically and emotionally abused in her adult relationships (and had five children
from five different men), is chemically dependent, and has documented mental health issues.
At sentencing, the district court thoroughly considered Angel’s arguments and each of the
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and imposed a sentence of 138 months in prison. This sentence is 13
months below the bottom of the advisory guideline range. The court expressed its particular
concern that Angel had endangered children (her own and her neighbors’) by cooking
methamphetamine in the trailer home while the children were also present, and had done so
repeatedly, this being her third conviction for that same inherently dangerous act. But the court
also held that 138 months was sufficient.
On appeal, Angel argues only that the sentence was substantively unreasonable because
the district court did not give sufficient weight to her mitigating personal history, a claim we
review for abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Merely
claiming “[t]hat the court did not weigh the factors . . . in the manner that [s]he would have liked
to have had them weighed does not indicate that the court acted improperly or disregarded [her]
arguments.” United States v. Hogan, 458 F. App’x 498, 504 (6th Cir. 2012). We find no abuse
of discretion here.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

-- 2 of 2 --