Sixth Circuit Affirms District Courts’ Discretion to Treat Unscored Misdemeanor Conduct and Related Firearms as Aggravating Factors Under § 3553(a)
Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Jabraelyn Antonio Bunn (6th Cir., July 22 2025)

Introduction

The decision in United States v. Jabraelyn Antonio Bunn, No. 24-3816 (6th Cir. July 22 2025) (unpublished), addresses the perennial appellate issue of substantive reasonableness in federal sentencing. Although designated “Not Recommended for Publication,” the opinion is noteworthy for three reasons:

• It reiterates that district judges enjoy broad latitude under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to weigh aggravating and mitigating facts, even when those facts do not affect the arithmetic calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines.
• It clarifies that the underlying conduct of misdemeanor convictions which do not generate criminal-history points may nevertheless be treated as indicative of violent tendencies.
• It confirms that the simultaneous presence of multiple firearms, currency, scales, and drug paraphernalia can justify the inference of a “large-scale” drug operation, even where the controlled-buy quantities are relatively small.

The appellant, Jabraelyn Antonio Bunn, challenged a 121-month sentence (the high end of the advisory range) imposed by the Northern District of Ohio after he pleaded guilty to twelve narcotics counts. Bunn contended that the district court overemphasised the gravity of the offense and failed adequately to credit his traumatic upbringing, recent substance-abuse treatment, and limited criminal-history score. The Sixth Circuit, applying abuse-of-discretion review, affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

Chief Judge Sutton and Circuit Judges Stranch (author of the opinion) and Ritz concluded as follows:

1. The district court properly treated the Sentencing Guidelines range (97–121 months) as advisory and selected a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” within that range.
2. No procedural error was alleged; only substantive reasonableness was at issue.
3. The district court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the offense—supported by the quantity of drugs seized, the number of firearms in the residence, and evidence of scales and currency—was not an abuse of discretion.
4. The court permissibly considered the conduct underlying Bunn’s prior misdemeanor convictions (threats to a police officer, domestic assault, breaking into relatives’ home) when evaluating his history and characteristics.
5. The court acknowledged Bunn’s difficult childhood and recent trauma but concluded that deterrence and public-safety concerns outweighed mitigation.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) – sets out bifurcated review for procedural and substantive reasonableness. The panel cited Bolds for the overarching framework.
• United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) – enumerates the procedural duties of the sentencing court. Although no procedural error was claimed, the opinion references Rayyan to show the district court met these duties.
• United States v. Perez-Rodriguez, 960 F.3d 748 (6th Cir. 2020) – restates the “sufficient but not greater than necessary” standard and confirms the rebuttable presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences.
• United States v. Conatser, 514 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2008) – lists the circumstances in which a sentence may be substantively unreasonable; cited to define the appellant’s burden.
• United States v. Zabel, 35 F.4th 493 (6th Cir. 2022) – emphasises appellate deference; quoted for the “definite and firm conviction” abuse-of-discretion standard.

Collectively, these cases underscore two themes: (1) a within-Guidelines sentence enjoys a presumption of reasonableness; and (2) the appellate court will not re-weigh § 3553(a) factors absent clear error of judgment. The panel applied those rules verbatim, making Bunn’s task on appeal nearly insurmountable.

B. Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Standard of Review. Substantive reasonableness—abuse of discretion. The court reiterated that it must uncover a “clear error of judgment” to disturb the sentence.
2. Weight Assigned to Firearms and Drug Paraphernalia. The district court described the five firearms as “an arsenal,” inferentially linking them to drug trafficking. Even though Bunn’s half-brother claimed ownership of three weapons, the court reasoned that the guns were accessible to both men. The appellate panel found no error in treating the combined presence of drugs, weapons, scales, cash, and a kilo press as evidence of a larger operation.
3. Misdemeanor Conduct without Criminal-History Points. Bunn argued that unscored misdemeanours (disorderly conduct) were improperly used to label him violent. The panel countered that § 3553(a) allows a court to consider a defendant’s “history and characteristics” broadly, irrespective of Guidelines scoring. Thus, conduct such as death threats to a police officer and domestic violence, though technically misdemeanours, legitimately informed the court’s assessment.
4. Mitigation Evidence. The panel acknowledged the district court’s express recognition of Bunn’s childhood neglect and the trauma of witnessing his half-brother’s murder. However, the sentencing judge concluded that prior opportunities for rehabilitation and the need for deterrence outweighed sympathy. The appellate court declined to second-guess that balancing.
5. Presumption of Reasonableness. Because the 121-month sentence sat at the top of, yet still within, the 97–121 month range, the appellate presumption applied. Bunn failed to rebut it.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

• Sentencing Practice – District courts within the Sixth Circuit may feel fortified in citing the underlying facts of misdemeanor or juvenile adjudications, even when those facts do not affect the Guidelines calculation, to support harsher sentences under § 3553(a).
• Firearm-Drug Nexus – The opinion reinforces that multiple firearms in proximity to drugs and paraphernalia can justify characterising a defendant as engaged in “large-scale” trafficking, irrespective of quantities sold in controlled buys.
• Appellate Litigation Strategy – Defense counsel contemplating substantive reasonableness appeals should note the difficulty of overturning a within-Guidelines sentence absent procedural error or extraordinary facts.
• Youth and Trauma as Mitigation – While courts must consider such factors, Bunn shows they will not necessarily outweigh public-safety considerations, especially where violence is involved.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Substantive Reasonableness – Whether the length of the sentence is fair and proportionate, given the statutory goals in § 3553(a). Think of it as asking: “Is the punishment too much or too little?”
• Procedural Reasonableness – Whether the sentencing judge followed the correct legal steps (calculating the Guidelines, allowing both sides to argue, explaining the decision, etc.). A sentence can be reversed if either procedural or substantive review fails.
• Within-Guidelines Sentence – A term of imprisonment that falls inside the advisory range produced by the Sentencing Guidelines. It triggers a presumption that the sentence is reasonable on appeal.
• Abuse of Discretion – A deferential standard; the appellate court will reverse only if convinced the lower court made a clear, obvious error in judgment.
• § 3553(a) Factors – Seven statutory considerations guiding federal sentencing, including the nature of the offense, the defendant’s history, deterrence, protection of the public, and the need to avoid unwarranted disparities.
• Criminal-History Points – Numerical system under the Guidelines measuring past convictions. Some misdemeanours do not add points yet remain relevant under § 3553(a).
• Converted Drug Weight – Method of translating different drug types into a single measure (grams of marijuana equivalent) for Guidelines purposes.

Conclusion

United States v. Bunn reinforces a familiar, but potent, principle: appellate courts will rarely disturb a district court’s within-Guidelines sentence, especially when the sentencing judge has created a detailed record tying aggravating facts to the statutory factors. The Sixth Circuit’s decision affirms that:

• District courts may look beyond the formal scoring of criminal history and consider the underlying conduct of misdemeanours when assessing dangerousness.
• Firearms discovered in connection with narcotics, even those claimed by co-occupants, can elevate perceived offense seriousness.
• Mitigation based on childhood adversity and recent trauma, while relevant, does not compel a lower sentence where violence and public-safety concerns loom large.

Although unpublished, the opinion will doubtless be cited in future sentencing memoranda and appellate briefs within the Sixth Circuit whenever parties debate the permissible scope of § 3553(a) considerations. For practitioners, Bunn is a reminder to develop robust factual records at sentencing and to recognise the steep uphill battle of challenging a within-range sentence on substantive grounds alone.