United States of America v. Leonta Demon Epps

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0204n.06
No. 14-6082
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LEONTA DEMON EPPS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________/
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
On Appeal from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee
OPINION
Before: GUY, COOK, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. While on supervised release following his conviction for violating
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), defendant Leonta Epps committed several violations of the conditions of
his supervised release including the commission of a crime. The probation officer petitioned the
district court to revoke his supervised release. After a hearing, the district court revoked
defendant’s supervised release and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 10 months of
imprisonment. The only issue raised on appeal is the defendant’s contention that the district
court failed to give adequate explanation or justification for the sentence imposed. Finding no
merit to this argument, we affirm.
This court reviews the district court’s sentencing determination for reasonableness under
an abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). To satisfy

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 14-6082 2
United States of America v. Leonta Epps
procedural reasonableness, “[t]he sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the
appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for
exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356
(2007); see also United States v. Jeross, 521 F.3d 562, 583 (6th Cir. 2008). Also, we apply a
rebuttable presumption of substantive reasonableness to a within-Guidelines sentence. United
States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Defendant violated the terms of his supervised release multiple times by unlawfully using
drugs, committing theft and trespass offenses, and concealing his criminal activity from his
probation officer. Defendant also failed to take advantage of the opportunities afforded to him
when the district court granted a supervised release modification to place defendant in a
residential reentry center before his most recent arrest. Defense counsel objected to the
classification of his latest criminal offense—charged as a burglary but resolved by a guilty plea
to aggravated criminal trespass—as a Class B violation of supervised release. After testimony
from the probation officer, the district court gave Epps the benefit of the doubt and classified the
conduct as a Class C violation that resulted in a lower Guidelines range of 5 to 11 months of
imprisonment. The within-Guidelines sentence of 10 months of imprisonment is entitled to a
presumption of reasonableness, and defendant has not identified any non-frivolous arguments
that were not considered. The district judge’s sentencing determination provides more than
adequate explanation and justification for the sentence imposed.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --