United States v. Yankey

• Decision Date: 03 January 2023
• Docket Number: 22-1697
• Parties: United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael G. Yankey, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael G. Yankey, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 22-1697

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

January 3, 2023

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 28, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 4:12-cr-40043-JPG-1 - J. Phil Gilbert, Judge.

Before EASTERBROOK, HAMILTON, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

While on supervised release, appellant Michael Yankey admitted to a probation officer that he had used methamphetamine and cocaine. Yankey's supervised release was revoked, and he was sentenced to 24 months in prison followed by 24 more months of supervision. Yankey appeals this sentence, arguing that the district court disregarded his mitigation arguments and failed to consider

1

relevant sentencing factors, and that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Yankey's underlying convictions occurred in 2013. Yankey pleaded guilty to the class C felony of conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846. The Presentence Investigation Report prepared for Yankey's sentencing erroneously calculated the advisory guideline range as 92-115 months. Before sentencing, the parties notified the court that this calculation was too low and Yankey agreed that the proper advisory guideline range was 151-188 months. The court explained at sentencing that the Presentence Investigation Report had applied the wrong base offense level for the quantity of drugs involved. The court nonetheless considered "varying downward to the original presentence report" and sentenced Yankey to 115 months in prison followed by 48 months of supervised release. This prison term was 36 months below the bottom of the proper advisory guideline range. In other words, Yankey caught a break.

In November 2020, Yankey began his four-year term of supervised release. The probation office's summary of Yankey's violation conduct indicates that he associated with people engaged in criminal activity and had a certain person at his home who his probation officer had specifically and repeatedly warned could not be there. During a March 9, 2022 visit from his probation officer, drugs and paraphernalia were found in Yankey's home, and Yankey admitted that on March 7, 2022, he had used methamphetamine and cocaine. The probation office petitioned the district court to revoke Yankey's supervised release.

2

At the revocation hearing, Yankey pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine and cocaine. The Sentencing Guidelines classify both charges as Grade B Violations. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(2). Yankey has a criminal history category of VI. Under the Guidelines, Yankey faced a recommended range of imprisonment upon revocation of 21 to 27 months. § 7B1.4(a). However, Yankey's statutory maximum sentence upon revocation was 24 months, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), yielding an effective recommended range of 21 to 24 months in prison under the Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(b)(3) (statutory maximum becomes top of guideline range that would otherwise exceed maximum).

The government argued for the statutory maximum of 24 months in prison because Yankey's criminal history showed a sustained pattern of violations of parole and supervised release. For example, Yankey was on state parole when he committed the drug offenses that led to his underlying federal conviction. Another time, Yankey was convicted of driving with a revoked license while on probation for a DUI. Yankey's counsel argued for time served and treatment for drug addiction in lieu of imprisonment, or, in the alternative, the postponement of sentencing pending an opportunity for treatment. The judge who considered revoking supervised release was the same judge who had given Yankey the below-guide-line sentence for his underlying convictions. Based on his prior leniency and his rejection of Yankey's claim that he had used drugs only this one time while on supervised release, the judge imposed a revocation sentence of 24 months in prison followed by 24 more months of supervised release.

3

II. Analysis

A. Mitigation Arguments

Yankey argues first on appeal that the district court ignored the mitigation arguments he raised at the revocation hearing. We review de novo whether the court made a procedural error by failing to consider mitigation arguments. See, e.g., United States v. Dawson, 980 F.3d 1156, 1164 (7th Cir. 2020).

The requirements for addressing mitigation arguments differ between initial sentencing and revocation proceedings because the latter are more informal. Dawson, 980 F.3d at 1165. During an initial sentencing hearing, the district court must "address a defendant's principal arguments in mitigation that have legal merit." United States v. Williams, 887 F.3d 326, 328 (7th Cir. 2018). At a revocation hearing, a defendant has the right to "make a statement and present any information in mitigation." Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(E); see also Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 486-87 (1972). But we have never required district courts to address explicitly those arguments during revocation proceedings. Williams, 887 F.3d at 328. Rather, we require more flexibly that district courts approach revocation hearings "with an open mind and consider the evidence and arguments presented before imposing punishment." United States v. Dill, 799 F.3d 821, 825 (7th Cir. 2015).

Yankey had the opportunity to present mitigation arguments at his revocation proceeding. He declined the judge's invitation to speak about mitigation on his own behalf, but his lawyer did stress the positive aspects of Yankey's life. Yankey had steady employment, a family support system, had paid

4

back child support, had never failed a drug test while on supervision, and had not received addiction treatment.

Yankey contends that the record is "devoid of any indication as to whether the district court rejected or deemed unpersuasive Mr. Yankey's legitimate mitigation arguments." We do not require a sentencing judge to opine about the merits of each argument raised at a revocation hearing. Even in more formal original sentencing proceedings where the requirements for considering mitigation arguments are higher, we "try to take careful note of context and the practical realities of a sentencing hearing. District judges need not belabor the obvious." United States v. Reed, 859 F.3d 468, 472 (7th Cir. 2017), quoting United States v. Castaldi, 743...