NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 14a0326n.06
No. 13-2606
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
Apr 25, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
v. ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
DEIDRA LUCAS, ) MICHIGAN
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
BEFORE: MERRITT, COOK, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Deidra Lucas, a federal prisoner, appeals the sentence imposed for
violating the terms of her supervised release.
On February 11, 2011, Lucas pleaded guilty to a charge of embezzlement. She was
sentenced to one day of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which she violated
by committing new violations of state law. In September 2012, Ohio law enforcement stopped
Lucas for a traffic offense and discovered that her passenger was carrying quantities of both
Xanax and heroin. Lucas pleaded guilty in an Ohio state court to two charges of permitting drug
use, and served ninety days of imprisonment.
The sentencing guideline range in this case was three to nine months. After hearing
argument from both parties, the district court imposed a sentence of four months of
imprisonment. Lucas argues that her sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable
because the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors.
No. 13-2606
United States v. Lucas
We review a criminal sentence for reasonableness; a sentence within the guideline range
is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Robinson, 503 F.3d 522, 528
(6th Cir. 2007). A sentence may be found to be procedurally and substantively unreasonable
where it appears that the district court failed to consider the relevant sentencing factors. United
States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508, 519-20 (6th Cir. 2008). Here, Lucas argues that the district
court could have continued her supervised release, or imposed a sentence of home confinement
or a shorter sentence, but instead imposed a sentence within the guideline range without
consideration of the other sentencing factors. The sentencing hearing transcript, however, shows
that the district court explicitly addressed 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)’s factors, including the serious
nature of the offense, Lucas’s underlying criminal history, and the need to promote respect for
the law, provide just punishment, provide deterrence, and protect the public. Therefore, the
record does not support the argument that the district court failed to consider the relevant
sentencing factors. A defendant’s desire for a more lenient sentence is insufficient to disturb the
district court’s judgment. United States v. Trejo-Martinez, 481 F.3d 409, 413 (6th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
-2-