{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11",
    "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11)",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-10-07",
    "fingerprint": "ewai:se:9dbc3a",
    "proof": "sha256:a2ecac9378dc8e8bce23764840e42c31f3faccf3bc14acf5fc262ad371a9081f",
    "jurisdiction": "se",
    "lang": "en",
    "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal",
    "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"
  },
  "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
  "item": {
    "schema_version": "1.0.0",
    "id": "us:ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11",
    "jurisdiction": "us",
    "lang": "en",
    "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
    "brand": {
      "product": "NovaCopilot",
      "platform": "ExploreWorldAI",
      "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal",
      "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
      "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB",
      "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot",
      "source": "Source: NovaCopilot",
      "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot",
      "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"
    },
    "sections": [
      {
        "title": "RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "File Name: 26a0263p.06",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_6",
          "para_7",
          "para_8",
          "para_9",
          "para_10",
          "para_11",
          "para_12",
          "para_13",
          "para_14",
          "para_15",
          "para_16",
          "para_17",
          "para_18",
          "para_19"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 25-3864",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_21",
          "para_22"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Decided and Filed: September 11, 2026",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_24",
          "para_25"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "COUNSEL",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_27",
          "para_28",
          "para_29"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "OPINION",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_31"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "SUTTON, Chief Judge. When Steve Croom, Jr., crashed his car while driving drunk, he",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_33",
          "para_34",
          "para_35",
          "para_36"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 2",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_38"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Before he conspired to launder money and commit wire fraud, Steve Croom often drank",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_40",
          "para_41",
          "para_42",
          "para_43"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Thirteen months after Croom’s term of supervision began, he was caught drinking and",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_45",
          "para_46",
          "para_47",
          "para_48",
          "para_49",
          "para_50",
          "para_51"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "After Croom finished his prison sentence, another 13 months passed before he had his",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_53",
          "para_54",
          "para_55",
          "para_56",
          "para_57",
          "para_58",
          "para_59",
          "para_60",
          "para_61",
          "para_62",
          "para_63",
          "para_64"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 3",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "Croom declined a breathalyzer test and faulted the victims for the crash. Law",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_67",
          "para_68",
          "para_69"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Back in federal court, Croom faced three new supervised release violations for using",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_71",
          "para_72",
          "para_73",
          "para_74",
          "para_75",
          "para_76",
          "para_77"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Procedural reasonableness. A sentencing court commits procedural error when it",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_79",
          "para_80",
          "para_81",
          "para_82",
          "para_83",
          "para_84",
          "para_85"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Croom contends that the district court failed to explain its sentence adequately. Because",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_87",
          "para_88",
          "para_89",
          "para_90"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 4",
        "paragraphs": []
      },
      {
        "title": "We see no error, plain or otherwise, with the district court’s explanation. The court",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_93",
          "para_94",
          "para_95",
          "para_96",
          "para_97",
          "para_98",
          "para_99",
          "para_100",
          "para_101"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Croom complains that the district court improperly considered Croom’s state court",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_103",
          "para_104",
          "para_105",
          "para_106",
          "para_107",
          "para_108",
          "para_109",
          "para_110",
          "para_111",
          "para_112",
          "para_113"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "To Croom’s eyes, the district court improperly treated his revocation proceeding as an",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_115",
          "para_116",
          "para_117",
          "para_118",
          "para_119",
          "para_120"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 5",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_122",
          "para_123"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Croom claims that the district court based its sentence on erroneous facts, insisting that",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_125",
          "para_126",
          "para_127",
          "para_128",
          "para_129",
          "para_130",
          "para_131",
          "para_132"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Croom falls back on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. He argues that the court",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_134",
          "para_135",
          "para_136",
          "para_137",
          "para_138",
          "para_139"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Substantive reasonableness. Croom separately maintains that his 24-month sentence is",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_141",
          "para_142",
          "para_143",
          "para_144",
          "para_145",
          "para_146"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "The district court’s firm but reasonable sentence did not exceed its discretion. Croom",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_148",
          "para_149"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 6",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_151",
          "para_152",
          "para_153",
          "para_154",
          "para_155",
          "para_156"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "Croom resists this conclusion on the ground that the court placed too much weight on his",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_158",
          "para_159",
          "para_160",
          "para_161",
          "para_162",
          "para_163",
          "para_164",
          "para_165",
          "para_166",
          "para_167",
          "para_168",
          "para_169",
          "para_170",
          "para_171"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "As for the other sentencing considerations, Croom concedes that the main purpose of",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_173",
          "para_174",
          "para_175",
          "para_176",
          "para_177",
          "para_178",
          "para_179"
        ]
      },
      {
        "title": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 7",
        "paragraphs": [
          "para_181",
          "para_182",
          "para_183"
        ]
      }
    ],
    "paragraphs": [
      {
        "text": "RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION",
        "paragraph_id": "para_1"
      },
      {
        "text": "Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)",
        "paragraph_id": "para_2"
      },
      {
        "text": "File Name: 26a0263p.06",
        "paragraph_id": "para_3"
      },
      {
        "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS",
        "paragraph_id": "para_4"
      },
      {
        "text": "FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT",
        "paragraph_id": "para_5"
      },
      {
        "text": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_6"
      },
      {
        "text": "Plaintiff-Appellee,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_7"
      },
      {
        "text": "v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_8"
      },
      {
        "text": "STEVE CROOM, JR.,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_9"
      },
      {
        "text": "Defendant-Appellant.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_10"
      },
      {
        "text": "┐",
        "paragraph_id": "para_11"
      },
      {
        "text": "│",
        "paragraph_id": "para_12"
      },
      {
        "text": "│",
        "paragraph_id": "para_13"
      },
      {
        "text": "│",
        "paragraph_id": "para_14"
      },
      {
        "text": "│",
        "paragraph_id": "para_15"
      },
      {
        "text": "│",
        "paragraph_id": "para_16"
      },
      {
        "text": "│",
        "paragraph_id": "para_17"
      },
      {
        "text": "│",
        "paragraph_id": "para_18"
      },
      {
        "text": "┘",
        "paragraph_id": "para_19"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 25-3864",
        "paragraph_id": "para_20"
      },
      {
        "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_21"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 4:17-cr-00328-13—John R. Adams, District Judge.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_22"
      },
      {
        "text": "Decided and Filed: September 11, 2026",
        "paragraph_id": "para_23"
      },
      {
        "text": "Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; GIBBONS and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_24"
      },
      {
        "text": "_________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_25"
      },
      {
        "text": "COUNSEL",
        "paragraph_id": "para_26"
      },
      {
        "text": "ON BRIEF: Thomas W. Kidd, Jr., KIDD & URLING LLC, Harveysburg, Ohio, for Appellant.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_27"
      },
      {
        "text": "Colleen Egan, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_28"
      },
      {
        "text": "_________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_29"
      },
      {
        "text": "OPINION",
        "paragraph_id": "para_30"
      },
      {
        "text": "_________________",
        "paragraph_id": "para_31"
      },
      {
        "text": "SUTTON, Chief Judge. When Steve Croom, Jr., crashed his car while driving drunk, he",
        "paragraph_id": "para_32"
      },
      {
        "text": "violated—for the third time—a supervised release condition that forbade him from using or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_33"
      },
      {
        "text": "possessing alcohol. The district court varied upward from the guidelines range by ten months,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_34"
      },
      {
        "text": "imposing a 24-month prison sentence. Seeing no error, we affirm.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_35"
      },
      {
        "text": ">",
        "paragraph_id": "para_36"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 2",
        "paragraph_id": "para_37"
      },
      {
        "text": "I.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_38"
      },
      {
        "text": "Before he conspired to launder money and commit wire fraud, Steve Croom often drank",
        "paragraph_id": "para_39"
      },
      {
        "text": "more than he should and drove when he shouldn’t. When Croom pleaded guilty to two federal",
        "paragraph_id": "para_40"
      },
      {
        "text": "conspiracy charges in 2017, the district court sentenced him to 30 months in prison followed by",
        "paragraph_id": "para_41"
      },
      {
        "text": "five years of supervised release. Aware of Croom’s history of drinking and driving, the district",
        "paragraph_id": "para_42"
      },
      {
        "text": "court forbade him from using or possessing alcohol during his term of supervision.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_43"
      },
      {
        "text": "Thirteen months after Croom’s term of supervision began, he was caught drinking and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_44"
      },
      {
        "text": "driving. Sitting behind the wheel of his black Cadillac while speaking with police, Croom",
        "paragraph_id": "para_45"
      },
      {
        "text": "admitted that he was “a little tipsy.” R.612 at 2. Croom proceeded to resist officers’ efforts to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_46"
      },
      {
        "text": "remove him from the vehicle and place him under arrest—then licked the police cruiser’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_47"
      },
      {
        "text": "windows for good measure. During his subsequent revocation hearing, Croom confessed to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_48"
      },
      {
        "text": "three violations of his federal supervised release conditions. The district court sentenced him to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_49"
      },
      {
        "text": "eight months in prison (the low end of the 8-to-14-month guidelines range), followed by four",
        "paragraph_id": "para_50"
      },
      {
        "text": "years of supervised release with the same conditions as before.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_51"
      },
      {
        "text": "After Croom finished his prison sentence, another 13 months passed before he had his",
        "paragraph_id": "para_52"
      },
      {
        "text": "second alcohol-related supervised release violation, this time testing positive for alcohol during a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_53"
      },
      {
        "text": "random test. The supervising officer informed the court of the violation but urged lenience. The",
        "paragraph_id": "para_54"
      },
      {
        "text": "officer believed that Croom would benefit from another opportunity “to continue to work on his",
        "paragraph_id": "para_55"
      },
      {
        "text": "sobriety.” R.748 at 3. The court honored that request and took no action.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_56"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom did not take advantage of this opportunity to fix matters. Roughly two years later,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_57"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom drank alcohol, got behind the wheel of his silver sedan, ignored a stop sign, and struck a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_58"
      },
      {
        "text": "passing car. Both vehicles crashed into a nearby utility pole. When officers arrived at the scene,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_59"
      },
      {
        "text": "they found a mother and her two children, an 11-year-old and a 3-year-old. Speaking with a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_60"
      },
      {
        "text": "bloody lip, the mother told the police that she and her youngest child were “okay,” but that her",
        "paragraph_id": "para_61"
      },
      {
        "text": "11-year-old daughter’s leg had been hurt in the crash. R.826 at 2. All three victims received",
        "paragraph_id": "para_62"
      },
      {
        "text": "medical care at the scene, and an ambulance took the 11-year-old to a hospital for further",
        "paragraph_id": "para_63"
      },
      {
        "text": "treatment of her leg.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_64"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 3",
        "paragraph_id": "para_65"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom declined a breathalyzer test and faulted the victims for the crash. Law",
        "paragraph_id": "para_66"
      },
      {
        "text": "enforcement charged him with operating a vehicle while impaired and failing to yield the right of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_67"
      },
      {
        "text": "way. A state court found Croom guilty of both offenses and sentenced him to 180 days in jail,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_68"
      },
      {
        "text": "with 177 of them suspended.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_69"
      },
      {
        "text": "Back in federal court, Croom faced three new supervised release violations for using",
        "paragraph_id": "para_70"
      },
      {
        "text": "alcohol, violating traffic-safety laws, and failing to pay court-ordered restitution to the victims of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_71"
      },
      {
        "text": "his original federal offenses. Croom waived his right to a hearing and admitted all three",
        "paragraph_id": "para_72"
      },
      {
        "text": "violations. Based on the charged conduct and Croom’s criminal history category, the court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_73"
      },
      {
        "text": "calculated his sentencing guidelines range as 8 to 14 months. The court imposed a sentence of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_74"
      },
      {
        "text": "24 months.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_75"
      },
      {
        "text": "II.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_76"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom challenges his 24-month sentence as procedurally and substantively unreasonable.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_77"
      },
      {
        "text": "Procedural reasonableness. A sentencing court commits procedural error when it",
        "paragraph_id": "para_78"
      },
      {
        "text": "miscalculates the guidelines range, treats the guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_79"
      },
      {
        "text": "applicable § 3553(a) sentencing factors, relies on impermissible factors, selects a sentence based",
        "paragraph_id": "para_80"
      },
      {
        "text": "on clearly erroneous facts, or fails to adequately explain why it chose the sentence. Gall v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_81"
      },
      {
        "text": "United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436, 440 (6th Cir.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_82"
      },
      {
        "text": "2018). We normally review claims of procedural error for abuse of discretion. Rayyan, 885 F.3d",
        "paragraph_id": "para_83"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 440. Objections raised for the first time on appeal, however, receive plain error review.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_84"
      },
      {
        "text": "United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382, 385 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_85"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom contends that the district court failed to explain its sentence adequately. Because",
        "paragraph_id": "para_86"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom did not raise this objection below, even after the district court gave him a chance to do so",
        "paragraph_id": "para_87"
      },
      {
        "text": "at the end of the hearing, United States v. Bostic, 371 F.3d 865, 872–73 (6th Cir. 2004), we",
        "paragraph_id": "para_88"
      },
      {
        "text": "review the district court’s work for plain error, see United States v. Simmons, 587 F.3d 348, 358",
        "paragraph_id": "para_89"
      },
      {
        "text": "(6th Cir. 2009).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_90"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 4",
        "paragraph_id": "para_91"
      },
      {
        "text": "We see no error, plain or otherwise, with the district court’s explanation. The court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_92"
      },
      {
        "text": "accurately calculated the guidelines range. It treated the guidelines as advisory. It touched upon",
        "paragraph_id": "para_93"
      },
      {
        "text": "the relevant § 3553(a) factors while avoiding irrelevant ones. It did not rely on any clearly",
        "paragraph_id": "para_94"
      },
      {
        "text": "erroneous facts. And it adequately explained the sentence it chose. As the court put it, Croom’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_95"
      },
      {
        "text": "most recent drinking-and-driving excursion, along with his long history of “abus[ing] alcohol",
        "paragraph_id": "para_96"
      },
      {
        "text": "and operat[ing] motor vehicles,” made it “clear” that Croom still did not grasp “the severity of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_97"
      },
      {
        "text": "his drinking and driving problem.” R.835 at 8–9. Based on Croom’s recalcitrant drinking and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_98"
      },
      {
        "text": "driving and the danger his conduct posed to others, the court concluded that a within-guidelines",
        "paragraph_id": "para_99"
      },
      {
        "text": "sentence would be “insufficient” to deter similar conduct in the future. R.835 at 10. This fair-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_100"
      },
      {
        "text": "minded explanation sufficed.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_101"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom complains that the district court improperly considered Croom’s state court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_102"
      },
      {
        "text": "sentence in deciding to vary upward. Because Croom failed to lodge this complaint below, it",
        "paragraph_id": "para_103"
      },
      {
        "text": "receives plain error review. No error, one way or the other, occurred. In fashioning a sentence",
        "paragraph_id": "para_104"
      },
      {
        "text": "for a violation of supervised release, a court must consider, among other things, the need to deter",
        "paragraph_id": "para_105"
      },
      {
        "text": "the defendant’s criminal conduct and protect the public from his future crimes. See 18 U.S.C.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_106"
      },
      {
        "text": "§ 3583(e); id. § 3553(a)(2)(B)–(C). That’s just what the district court did. Croom’s repeated",
        "paragraph_id": "para_107"
      },
      {
        "text": "threats to public safety resulted in the no-alcohol condition. Croom knew the consequences of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_108"
      },
      {
        "text": "flouting that condition. He did so anyway—once, twice, then a third time. Based on Croom’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_109"
      },
      {
        "text": "“continued pattern and history” of driving drunk, the court concluded that a three-day stint in",
        "paragraph_id": "para_110"
      },
      {
        "text": "county jail would “not suffic[e]” to deter his next drunken turn behind the wheel. R.835 at 9–10.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_111"
      },
      {
        "text": "After a previous eight-month sentence did little to prevent this most recent violation, the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_112"
      },
      {
        "text": "inference was fair and warranted.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_113"
      },
      {
        "text": "To Croom’s eyes, the district court improperly treated his revocation proceeding as an",
        "paragraph_id": "para_114"
      },
      {
        "text": "opportunity to impose more punishment for his state drunk driving offense. True, the court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_115"
      },
      {
        "text": "described Croom’s state sentence as “inadequate” and expressed a desire to “rectify that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_116"
      },
      {
        "text": "problem.” R.835 at 9. But a sentencing court does not commit reversible error simply by",
        "paragraph_id": "para_117"
      },
      {
        "text": "considering how a federal sentence “would interact with its state counterpart.” United States v.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_118"
      },
      {
        "text": "Sims, 161 F.4th 455, 459 (6th Cir. 2025). That is especially so when the same conduct “formed",
        "paragraph_id": "para_119"
      },
      {
        "text": "the basis of” the state offense and the federal supervised release violation. Id. This was not",
        "paragraph_id": "para_120"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 5",
        "paragraph_id": "para_121"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom’s first drinking-and-driving offense. And the court did not err in trying to make it his",
        "paragraph_id": "para_122"
      },
      {
        "text": "last.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_123"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom claims that the district court based its sentence on erroneous facts, insisting that",
        "paragraph_id": "para_124"
      },
      {
        "text": "the evidence was unreliable or too thin to support the court’s finding that Croom’s victims",
        "paragraph_id": "para_125"
      },
      {
        "text": "suffered physical injury in the crash. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_126"
      },
      {
        "text": "mother and her two children were injured when Croom struck their car. It based its factual",
        "paragraph_id": "para_127"
      },
      {
        "text": "findings on two legitimate sources of information: the probation office’s October 10 violation",
        "paragraph_id": "para_128"
      },
      {
        "text": "report and the body cam footage from the scene of the crash. As the report details and the videos",
        "paragraph_id": "para_129"
      },
      {
        "text": "confirm, officers heard “a little girl screaming and crying” as they approached the victims’",
        "paragraph_id": "para_130"
      },
      {
        "text": "vehicle. R.826 at 2. The driver’s 11-year-old daughter, complaining of leg pain, was taken by",
        "paragraph_id": "para_131"
      },
      {
        "text": "ambulance to a hospital for treatment. That suffices to support the court’s finding.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_132"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom falls back on a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge. He argues that the court",
        "paragraph_id": "para_133"
      },
      {
        "text": "erred in crediting the violation report and videos when “no vehicular-assault charges had been",
        "paragraph_id": "para_134"
      },
      {
        "text": "filed” and “[n]o medical records, witness testimony, or formal findings were introduced” at the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_135"
      },
      {
        "text": "hearing. Appellant’s Br. 8–9. But the court had no obligation to consult Croom’s preferred",
        "paragraph_id": "para_136"
      },
      {
        "text": "sources before finding a fact based on a violation report and video recording of the incident’s",
        "paragraph_id": "para_137"
      },
      {
        "text": "aftermath. The court reasonably relied on this evidence to support its finding. No procedural",
        "paragraph_id": "para_138"
      },
      {
        "text": "error occurred.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_139"
      },
      {
        "text": "Substantive reasonableness. Croom separately maintains that his 24-month sentence is",
        "paragraph_id": "para_140"
      },
      {
        "text": "“too long”—that the court relied too heavily on some § 3553(a) factors at the expense of others",
        "paragraph_id": "para_141"
      },
      {
        "text": "in imposing this two-year sentence. Rayyan, 885 F.3d at 442. Because weighing sentencing",
        "paragraph_id": "para_142"
      },
      {
        "text": "factors against each other “is a matter of reasoned discretion, not math,” we give the district",
        "paragraph_id": "para_143"
      },
      {
        "text": "court’s decision considerable deference. Id. At stake is whether the trial judge exceeded his",
        "paragraph_id": "para_144"
      },
      {
        "text": "discretion in sentencing Croom to 24 months. The question is not what we would have done had",
        "paragraph_id": "para_145"
      },
      {
        "text": "we sentenced the defendant, an approach that might create risks of its own for Croom.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_146"
      },
      {
        "text": "The district court’s firm but reasonable sentence did not exceed its discretion. Croom",
        "paragraph_id": "para_147"
      },
      {
        "text": "repeatedly violated his supervised release conditions and showed no signs of changing his ways.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_148"
      },
      {
        "text": "This was Croom’s third alcohol-related breach since his original term of supervised release",
        "paragraph_id": "para_149"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 6",
        "paragraph_id": "para_150"
      },
      {
        "text": "began, his second involving drunk driving, and his fifth DUI offense overall. The court observed",
        "paragraph_id": "para_151"
      },
      {
        "text": "that Croom “showed little remorse for his actions,” even after injuring young children in what",
        "paragraph_id": "para_152"
      },
      {
        "text": "could have been a tragic accident. R.835 at 9–10. Despite “numerous opportunities at",
        "paragraph_id": "para_153"
      },
      {
        "text": "treatment” and the “negative outcomes he ha[d] faced in the past,” Croom by then had made",
        "paragraph_id": "para_154"
      },
      {
        "text": "scant progress toward “understand[ing] the severity of his drinking and driving problem.” R.835",
        "paragraph_id": "para_155"
      },
      {
        "text": "at 6, 8, 9. No abuse of discretion occurred in imposing this upward variance.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_156"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom resists this conclusion on the ground that the court placed too much weight on his",
        "paragraph_id": "para_157"
      },
      {
        "text": "recidivist DUI offenses. Because the guidelines already accounted for that history, he insists, the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_158"
      },
      {
        "text": "district court could not use his repeat offenses to justify a significant upward variance. We have",
        "paragraph_id": "para_159"
      },
      {
        "text": "“consistently rejected” these sorts of double-counting arguments when assessing the substantive",
        "paragraph_id": "para_160"
      },
      {
        "text": "validity of a sentence. United States v. Dunnican, 961 F.3d 859, 881 (6th Cir. 2020) (collecting",
        "paragraph_id": "para_161"
      },
      {
        "text": "examples). As in these cases, so here: A district court is free to sentence a defendant below or",
        "paragraph_id": "para_162"
      },
      {
        "text": "above the advisory guidelines based on its independent and reasoned assessment of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_163"
      },
      {
        "text": "defendant’s criminal history. See, e.g., United States v. Lanning, 633 F.3d 469, 478 (6th Cir.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_164"
      },
      {
        "text": "2011); United States v. Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568, 589–90 (6th Cir. 2009).",
        "paragraph_id": "para_165"
      },
      {
        "text": "Croom worries that the district court gave short shrift to other sentencing factors, such as",
        "paragraph_id": "para_166"
      },
      {
        "text": "rehabilitation, treatment considerations, proportionality, and the goals of supervised release. But",
        "paragraph_id": "para_167"
      },
      {
        "text": "the court did entertain Croom’s request for treatment. In truth, the court did more than entertain",
        "paragraph_id": "para_168"
      },
      {
        "text": "the idea; it granted the request by requiring alcohol treatment as part of Croom’s post-",
        "paragraph_id": "para_169"
      },
      {
        "text": "incarceration sentence. Sentencing is not an à la carte affair in which the defendant gets to",
        "paragraph_id": "para_170"
      },
      {
        "text": "decide what blend of deterrence and rehabilitation to accept.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_171"
      },
      {
        "text": "As for the other sentencing considerations, Croom concedes that the main purpose of",
        "paragraph_id": "para_172"
      },
      {
        "text": "revoking a defendant’s term of supervised release is to “sanction a defendant’s breach of the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_173"
      },
      {
        "text": "court’s trust.” Appellant’s Br. 8; see U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b) (Nov.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_174"
      },
      {
        "text": "2024). That sanction may also reflect “the seriousness of the underlying violation” and the",
        "paragraph_id": "para_175"
      },
      {
        "text": "violator’s criminal history. Guidelines Manual ch. 7, pt. A(3)(b); see United States v. Williams,",
        "paragraph_id": "para_176"
      },
      {
        "text": "169 F.4th 727, 731–32 (6th Cir. 2026). Given the nature and extent of Croom’s breach of trust, a",
        "paragraph_id": "para_177"
      },
      {
        "text": "24-month sentence was not disproportionate, and it did not fail to account for any other relevant",
        "paragraph_id": "para_178"
      },
      {
        "text": "factors. As the district court noted, Croom’s violation was “sever[e]” and “[un]acceptable,”",
        "paragraph_id": "para_179"
      },
      {
        "text": "No. 25-3864 United States v. Croom Page 7",
        "paragraph_id": "para_180"
      },
      {
        "text": "especially given his history and the harm he had already caused victims of his drinking and",
        "paragraph_id": "para_181"
      },
      {
        "text": "driving. R.835 at 7, 8. That explanation suffices.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_182"
      },
      {
        "text": "We affirm.",
        "paragraph_id": "para_183"
      }
    ],
    "word_count": 2128,
    "cites": [
      "552 U.S. 38",
      "885 F.3d 436",
      "516 F.3d 382",
      "371 F.3d 865",
      "587 F.3d 348",
      "161 F.4th 455",
      "961 F.3d 859",
      "633 F.3d 469",
      "571 F.3d 568",
      "169 F.4th 727"
    ],
    "cited_by": [],
    "sha256": "bffdd828b4666dd0679700ba607dd8e73783b6be3f4e0fc92456d8ead734a631",
    "source_url": "http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0263p-06.pdf",
    "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T10:42:29.987+00:00",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11",
    "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11",
    "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11",
    "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes",
    "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11",
    "verification": {
      "stored_sha256": "bffdd828b4666dd0679700ba607dd8e73783b6be3f4e0fc92456d8ead734a631",
      "recomputed_sha256": "bffdd828b4666dd0679700ba607dd8e73783b6be3f4e0fc92456d8ead734a631",
      "intact": true,
      "checked_at": "2026-10-08T04:41:02.764Z"
    }
  },
  "hash": "sha256:a2ecac9378dc8e8bce23764840e42c31f3faccf3bc14acf5fc262ad371a9081f",
  "version": "legal-2026-10-07",
  "expires": "2026-10-09T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-10-07+legal-2026-10-07+2026-10-07T16:38:30",
    "content_hash": "sha256:a2ecac9378dc8e8bce23764840e42c31f3faccf3bc14acf5fc262ad371a9081f",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-10-08T05:41:02.927Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-3864-2026-09-11",
  "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.",
  "content_notice": {
    "legal_advice": false,
    "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.",
    "kinds": {
      "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted",
      "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text",
      "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"
    },
    "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.",
    "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections",
    "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"
  },
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}