NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL
I N TH E UN I TED STATES CO UR T

OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 09- 3306 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v . S H A K I R A W I L L I A MS A ppel l ant

O n A pp eal F rom the U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt Fort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C r i m . A ct i on N o. 2- 03- cr - 00776- 2) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . L e g ro m e D . D a v is A r gued M ay28, 2010 B E F O R E : M c K E E , C hi ef Judge , R E N D E L L and S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y20, 2010)

R o b e rt E p ste in K ei t h M . D onoghue ( A r gued) D a v id L . M c C o lg in L ei gh M . Ski pper R o ssm an D . T h o m p so n , Jr.2

D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia Feder al C our tD i vi s i on 601 W al nutSt r eet T he C urt i s C enter- Suit e 54 0 W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant M i chae l L . L evy R ober tA . Z auzmer( A r gued) F ran k R . C o stel lo, Jr . O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet- Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: A fter S h ak ir a W il li am s v iolated c o n d it ion s o f h er su p erv ised release fo r th e third t i m e, t he D i s t r i ctC our tr evoked he rr el eas e and or der ed heri ncar cer at ed forni net een m ont hs , t o be fol l ow ed byt w el ve mont hs of s upervi s ed r el eas e, s i x of the tw el ve mont hs to b e s e rv e d in a h a lf

w a yh o u s e , a n d th e re m a in in g s ix to b e s e rv e d u n d e r h o m e d e te n tio n . W i l l i am s chal l eng es this sent ence, cont end i ng that: (1) the tot al of tw enty -fi ve m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm entand home det ent i on exce eded the maxi m um pr i s on t erm author i zed by
s t atut e fors upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i ons ; and ( 2) the s ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yand
s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le . F o r t h e re a s o n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill a f

f ir m .3 I. W i l l i a m s p l e d g u i l t y t o f o u rc o u n t s o f

b a n k r o b b e r y a n d o n e c o u n to f c o n s p i r a c y, a n d th e D is tr ic t C o u rt im p o s e d a s e n te n c e th a t in c lu d e d th re e y e a rs o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . D u rin g th e f

irst y e a r o f

th is te rm , the P ro b a tio n O f f ice a lleg e d th a t W ill iam s v io late d six condi t i ons of herr el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on t he al l eged vi ol at i ons , but t he hea r i ng w as cont i nued perW i l l i ams’ s r eques tt o fi nd anotherat t orney . W i l l i ams then f a iled to a p p e a r a t th e re sc h e d u led h e a rin g , an d a b e n c h w a rra n t w a s is su e d f o r h e r a rre st. W i l l i ams appe ar ed ata s ubs equenthear i ng, and the D i s t r i ctC our tr evoked the
s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm and s ent ence d hert o fi ve mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow ed b ya n ew term o f th irtyo n e m o n ths’ su p erv ised release . W il li am s serv ed h er p ri so n term and r es um ed herr el eas e, butaft erone mont h, the Pr obat i on O ffi ce a gai n al l eged thats he vi ol at ed s upervi s ed r el eas e condi t i ons . T he D i s t r i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng and then
mo d i f i e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f

W i l l i a ms ’ s r e l e a s e t o i n c l u d e f o u rmo n t h s o f

h o me confi nementw i t h el ectr oni c moni t or i ng. T her eaf t er , t he Pr obat i on O ffi ce y etagai n al l eged thatW i l l i ams comm i t t ed
m ul t i pl e vi ol at i ons of hers upervi s ed r el eas e, i ncl udi ng l eavi ng herhom e w i t hout author i zat i on, r emovi ng t he el ectr oni c moni t or i ng br ace l et , and t es t i ng pos i t i ve fordrugs o n three o cc asio n s. T h e D istri ct C o u rth eld a h ea ri n g an d there af ter revo k ed W il li am s’s
s upervi s ed r el eas e and s ent ence d hert o ni net een mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , t o be fol l ow edT he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231, w hi ch gr ant s t o t he 1 “di s t r i ctcour t s of the U ni t ed St at es . . . or i gi nal j ur i s di ct i on, excl us i ve of the court s of the St at es , of al l offe ns es agai ns tt he l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es . ” W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291 and 18 U . S. C . § 3742. 4 byt w el ve mont hs of s upervi s ed r el eas e, s i x m ont hs of w hi ch w er e t o be s erved i n a hal fw ayhous e and the r emai ni ng s i x m onths t o be s erved underhom e det ent i on. W il li am s ap p ea ls from this fina l ord er. 1 II. W i l l i ams ar gues fi r s tt hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i m pos i t i on of a t ot al of tw enty - fi ve m ont hs of i m pr i s onm entand home det ent i on exce eded the maxi m um t erm of im p ri so n m en t auth o ri ze d b ystatu te fo r sup erv ised release v iolati o n s. O rdin aril y , “[ w ]e
exer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overchal l enges t o t he l egal i t yof a s ent ence i m pos ed bya di s tr i ct cour t . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mur r ay , 144 F. 3d 270, 275 n. 6 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed S ta tes v . P ivo ro tto , 986 F. 2d 669, 673 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ) . H ow ever , “w her e a de fenda nthas f a iled to o b

jec t to a p u rp o rte d e rro r b e f o re th e se n ten c in g c o u rt, o u r re v iew o n a p p e a l is onl yt o ens ur e thatpl ai n err orw as notcomm i t t ed. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Knight , 266 F. 3d 203, 206 ( 3d C i r . 2001) . W i l l i ams conc edes thatthi s i s s ue w as notpr es erved i n t he D i stri ctC ou rt , and so t he p l ai n err or st and ard app l i es. Pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 3583, a di s t r i ctcour tm ay , w i t h r egar d t o a t erm of supervi sed rel ease w hich has previ ou sl ycom m enced du e t o an off ense t hat i s a C l ass CW i l l i ams’ s under l y i ng offe ns e w as a C l as s C fel ony , beca us e “the maxi m um t erm of 2 i m pr i s onm entauthor i zed [ fori t ] i s . . . l es s than tw enty - fi ve y ear s butt en orm or e y ear s . ” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 5 9 (a )(3 ); see al so 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 1 1 3 (a). T h e c lassifi ca ti o n o f W il li am s’s under l y i ng offe ns e i s notcont es t ed. 5 fel ony , l i ke W i l l i ams’ s offe ns e her e, ( 1) t erm i nat e the s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm aft erone 2 y earhas pas s ed; ( 2) ext end the s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm t o t he maxi m um t erm perm i t t ed; ( 3) r evoke the s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm and s end the def endantt o pr i s on fora maxi m um t erm of tw enty - fourm ont hs , i f the courtfi nds thatthe def endantvi ol at ed a c ondi t i on of
s upervi s ed r el eas e; or( 4) cont i nue the s upervi s ed r el eas e t erm w hi l e di r ect i ng the defe ndantt o r emai n athom e, “exc eptthatan or derunderthi s par agr aph maybe i m pos ed
o n lyas a n alt ern ati v e to in ca rce rati o n . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 8 3 (e)(1)– (4). In a d d iti o n , “[ w ]h e n a ter m o f su p e rv ise d re lea se is re v o k e d a n d th e d e f e n d a n t is
r equi r ed t o s erve a t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , the courtm ayi ncl ude a r equi r ementthatthe d e f e n d a n t b e p la c e d o n a te rm o f s u p e rv is e d re le a s e a f

te r i m p ri s o n m e n t.” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3583( h) . “The cour tm ayor der , as a . . . condi t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e . . . anycondi t i on s e t f o rt h a s a d is c re tio n a ry c o n d itio n o f p ro b a tio n in [ 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 6 3 (b )] .” 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 ( d ) . On e o f

t h e s e d i s c r e t i o n a r yc o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n i s h o me d e t e n t i o n . 1 8 U. S . C. § 3 5 6 3 (b )(1 9 ). T h is p ro v isio n a lso p ro v id e s, h o w e v e r, th a t “a c o n d iti o n u n d e r th is p a ra g ra p h [ in c lu d in g h o m e d e ten tio n ] m a yb e im p o se d o n lya s a n a ltern a tiv e to i ncar cer at i on. ” I

d. H er e, t he D i s t r i ctC our t , pur s uantt o § 3583( e) ( 3) , found thatW i l l i ams vi ol at ed6

c o n d iti o n s o f

h e r su p e rv ise d re lea se , rev o k e d th a t su p e rv ise d re lea se , an d se n ten c e d h e r to ni net een mont hs ’ i m pr i s onm ent , w hi ch i s l es s than the maxi m um tw enty - fourm ont hs author i zed byt hatpr ovi s i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our tthen, pur s uantt o § 3583( h) , fol l ow ed th a t p riso n ter m w ith a n e w tw e lv e -m o n th ter m o f su p e rv ise d re lea se . F in a lly , p u rsu a n t to §§ 3583( d) and 3563( b) ( 19) , t he D i s t r i ctC our tes t abl i s hed as a condi t i on of that
s upervi s ed r el eas ed thats i x m ont hs of i tw as t o be s erved underhom e det ent i on. W i l l i ams cont ends t hatt hi s t w enty - fi ve- m ont h combi ned s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entand home det ent i on vi ol at ed 18 U . S. C . § 3583( e) ( 3) , beca us e i texce eded t h a tp r o v i s i o n ’ s ma x i mu m p r i s o n t e r m o f twe n t y - f o u rmo n t h s . Es s e n t i a l l y , W i l l i a ms ar gues t hatanyt erm of hom e det ent i on i m pos ed under§ 3583( e) ( 4) count s t ow ar d t he
m axi m um pr i s on t erm pr es cr i bed by§ 3583( e) ( 3) , beca us e § 3583( e) ( 4) s t at es that“an
or derundert hi s par agr aph [or der i ng hom e det ent i on] m aybe i m pos ed onl yas an al t ernat i ve to i ncarcerat i on . ” W i l l i am s notes al so t hat 18 U . S . C . § 3 56 3(b)( 19 ) “l i kew i se p ro v id e s th a t h o m e c o n f in e m e n t ‘m a yb e im p o se d o n lya s a n a ltern a tiv e to i ncar cer at i on. ’ ” A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . at5. W i l l i ams i nt erpr et s thi s phr as e t o m ean that h o m e d e ten tio n is a su b stitu te f o r in c a rc e ra tio n , su c h th a t a d e f e n d a n t m a yb e se n ten c e d to t he maxi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm ent , ors om e of thatm axi m um t erm of i m pr i s onm entcan be r epl ace d w i t h hom e det ent i on. W e h av e n o t add resse d the issu e ra ised in this ap p ea l, n o r, itap p ea rs, h as a n yco u rt in th is C irc u it. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F if

th C irc u it, h o w e v e r, ag re e d w ithT w o ot herC our t s of A ppeal s have i ndi cat ed agr eementw i t h t he Fer gus on C our t , but 3 t heyhave nots peci fi cal l ys o hel d. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. B oecker , 2 8 0 F . 3 d 8 2 4 (8th C ir . 2002) , t he C our ts i m pl yas s um ed, w i t h no anal y s i s of the i s s ue, that“the courtw as ent i t l ed t o s ent ence B oecke rt o up t o 21 m ont hs i n pr i s on ( not[the maxi m um ] 24 m ont hs [under§ 3583( e) ( 3) ] beca us e B oecke rhad s pent3 m onths i n hom e det ent i on) , ” i n rul i ng on another , r el at ed i s s ue – w hethera fourt een- m ont h pr i s on t erm w as pr operupon re v o c a tio n o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . I

d. at825- 26. I n U

ni t ed Stat es v. Mar cano , 525 F. 3d 72 ( 1s tC i r . 2008) , t he C our tfound thatthe def endant“made a col or abl e ar gum entthat t he d i stri ctcou rtcou l d n ot have i m po sed a pe ri od of incarcer at i on and supervi sed rel ease inv o lving h o m e c o n fin em en t i n ex ce ss o f tw o y ea rs, the s tatu torym ax im u m [u n d er § 3583( e) ( 3) ] , ” buti tdi d nots o hol d, beca us e, unl i ke her e, the combi ned t erm s of im p ri s o n m e n t a n d h o m e d e te n tio n d id n o t e x c e e d th e § 3 5 8 3 m a x im u m . I d. a t 7 4 . 7 W i l l i ams’ s i nt erpr et at i on i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Fer

gus on , 3 6 9 F .3 d 8 4 7 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ), in
w hi ch the C our tci t ed the di ct i onarydefi ni t i on of “a l t ernat i ve” a s “a pr opos i t i on or situ a tio n o f

f e rin g a c h o ice b e tw e e n tw o th in g s w h e re in if o n e th in g is c h o se n th e o th e r is
re jec ted ,” a n d h e ld th a t “th e p lain m e a n in g o f ‘a ltern a tiv e ’ le a d s to th e c o n c lu sio n th a t a cour tcoul d noti m pos e both a t erm of i ncar cer at i on ( upon r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed rel ease) and subsequ ent hom e detent i on du ri ng a rei m po sed t erm of sup ervi sed rel ease th a t, w h e n c o m b in e d , e x c e e d s th e a llo w a b le m a x im u m in c a rc e ra tio n te rm .” I d. at851. 3 O n t he otherhand, t he C our tof A ppeal s forthe Four t h C i r cui ti n U ni t ed Stat es v. H ager , 288 F. 3d 136 ( 4t h C i r . 2002) , came t o t he oppos i t e conc l us i on, ci t i ng a def i ni t i on of “a l t ernat i ve” a l m os ti dent i cal t o t he one c i t ed i n Fer gus on ( “a pr opos i t i on ors i tuat i on offe r i ng a choi ce be t w een tw o orm or e thi ngs onl yone of w hi ch maybe chos en”) , but
rul i ng t hatbeca us e thi s defi ni t i on i n the cont extof § 3583( e) ( 4) m eans thati m pr i s onm ent and home det ent i on ar e “mutual l yexcl us i ve, theycannotbe the s ame. ” I d. a t 1 3 7 -3 8 . Th u s , “ t h e p l a i n me a n i n g o f § 3 5 8 3 ( e ) ( 4 ) i n d i c a t e s th a tHa g e r ’ s t e r m o f h o me8

c o n f in e m e n t w a s n o t th e e q u iv a len t o f in c a rc e ra tio n a n d th a t h o m e c o n f in e m e n t sh o u ld notr ece i ve cr edi tas i ncar cer at i on underthe s t atut e. ” I d. a t 1 3 8 . A s not ed ea r l i er , w e r evi ew the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on underthe pl ai n err or s t andar d. T hus , as s um i ng t hatW i l l i ams i s corr ectthatthe s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i stri ctC ou rtexcee ded t he m axim um pri son term authori zed b ythe sup ervi sed rel ease s t atut e, forW i l l i ams t o pr evai l “w e mustfi nd that. . . the err orw as pl ai n, i . e. , cl earor obvi ous , and . . . t he err oraff ect ed the def

endant ’ s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s . ” Knight , 266 F. 3d at206. “I n addi t i on, even w her e pl ai n err orexi s t s [and s ubs t ant i al r i ght s of the def endant
ar e af fec t ed] , ourdi s cr et i onaryauthor i t yt o or dercorr ect i on i s t o be gui ded byw hether t he err ors er i ous l yaff

ect s t he fa i r nes s , i nt egr i t yorpubl i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs . ” I

d. “A n err oraff

ect s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s w hen i ti s ‘ pr ej udi ci al : I tm us thave a ffe ct ed t he out come of t he di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs . ’ ” U ni t ed Stat es v. V

az quez - Lebr on , 582 F. 3d 443, 446 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S . 7 2 5 , 7 3 4 (1 9 9 3 )) . A ss u m in g th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d h e re , the e rro r a f f e c ted th e o u tco m e b e c a u se , in its
a b s e n c e , W illia m s w o u ld h a v e re c e iv e d a d if f e re n t s e n te n c e . See Knight , 266 F. 3d at 206- 07. H ow ever , t he al l eged e r r orher e, i f err or , w as not“pl ai n. ” The i s s ue r ai s ed by W i l l i ams i s one of f

i r s ti m pr es s i on i n t hi s C i r cui t , and ours i s t erC our t s of A ppeal s have
s pl i tr egar di ng t hi s i s s ue. D ue t o t he l ack of author i t yfr om cour t s i n t hi s C i r cui tand theT h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e F ifth C ir cu ith as h eld th at w h il e a “d ef en d an t’ s fa il u re 4 to c o n te m p o ra n e o u s ly o b je c t to a n a lle g e d e rr o r g e n e ra lly re s u lts in p la in e rr o r r e v ie w . . . w e r evi ew de novo a s ent ence t hatal l egedl yexce eds the s t atut orym axi m um t erm . ” Fer gus on , 369 F. 3d at849 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Si as , 227 F. 3d 244, 246 ( 5th C i r . 2000) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“bec aus e a s ent ence w hi ch exc eeds the s t atut orym axi m um i s an i l l egal se n ten c e a n d th e re f

o re c o n stitu tes p lain e rro r, o u r re v iew o f th e iss u e p re se n ted in th is appea l w i l l be de novo” ) ) . W e have nots o hel d and, i n ourvi ew , coul d not , cons i s t ent w i t h t he t eac hi ngs of the Supr eme C our ti n U ni t ed Stat es v. O l ano , 507 U . S. 725, 734 ( 1993) ( “‘ Pl ai n’ i s s ynonym ous w i t h ‘ cl ear ’ or , equi val ent l y , ‘ obvi ous . ’ ”) . W i l l i ams ci t es U ni t ed Stat es v. G unt er , 527 F. 3d 282 ( 3d C i r . 2008) , forthe pr opos i t i on that“[a ] se n ten c e e x c e e d in g th e sta tu to rym a x im u m is p lain e rro r,” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 2 3 , b u t in G unt er , w e c o n clud ed o n lythat the p arti cu lar sen tenc e a t i ssu e c o n sti tuted p lai n erro r, b e c a u s e th e s e n te n c e o b v io u s ly ex c e e d e d th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m f o r t h e c ri m e . G unt er , 527 F. 3d at288. 9 s pl i tamong t he otherC our t s of A ppeal s , w e ca nnotconcl ude thatthe al l eged e r r orw as “cl earorobvi ous . ” S e e U n itedS ta tes v . B a ldw in , 563 F. 3d 490, 492 ( D . C . C i r . 2009) (re ly in g o n c irc u it sp litin f in d in g n o p lain e rro r); Un i t e d S ta t e s v . An dr e ws , 532 F. 3d 900, 9 0 9 (D . C . C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) (sam e). 4 A ccordi ng l y , w e m ustdecli ne to r eview the fir sti ssue that W i l l i am s t end ers . III . W i l l i am s next contends that hersent ence o f t hirt y -one m on t hs’ confinem ent w as: (1 ) p ro c e d u ra llyu n re a so n a b le b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt re lied o n a n im p ro p e r f a c to r in det erm i ni ng t he s ent ence , and fa i l ed t o cons i derW i l l i ams’ s m edi cal condi t i on m i t i gat i ng hercul pabi l i t y ; and ( 2) s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e bec aus e i t“exc eeds the s ent ence t hat anyr eas onabl e j udge coul d r egar d as m i ni m al l ys uffi ci entfori nfr act i ons obvi ous l yand
u n if o rm lyste m m in g f

ro m d ru g a d d ictio n .” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 2 8 . “[ I]t is n o w w e ll
u n d e rsto o d th a t an a p p e llate c o u rt re v iew s a se n ten c e f o r re a so n a b len e ss w ith re g a rd to10

t he fa ct or s s etfor t h i n 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) , ” U ni t ed Stat es v. B ungar , 478 F. 3d 540, 542 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . 2 2 0 , 2 6 1 -6 2 (2 0 0 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 437 F. 3d 324, 326 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ) , and thatthi s s t andar d appl i es t o “a
s ent ence i m pos ed upon a r evoca t i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” I d. W e f u rth e r e x p lain e d in B ungarth a t: I n or derfora s ent ence t o be r eas onabl e, t he r ecor d m us t demonstr at e t hatt he sen tenc ing co u rtg av e m ea n ing fu l con side rati o n to the se f ac tors. T h e c o u rt need no t , ho w ever, dis cuss a de fend ant’ s cl earl yno nm eri t ori ou s ar gu m ents , o r o th e rw ise d isc u ss a n d m a k e f in d in g s a s to e a c h o f th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs if t he r ecor d m akes cl eart he courtt ook t he fa ct or s i nt o acc ounti n s ent enci ng. I n addi t i on t o demonstr at i ng thati tgave meani ngful cons i der at i on t o t he § 3553( a) fac t or s , a s ent enci ng cour tm us tdemonstr at e thati t r eas onabl yappl i ed th o se f a c to rs to th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th e c a se . O u r re v ie w in th is re g a rd is hi ghl ydefe r ent i al . W e maynots ubs t i tute o u r j udgm entforthe s ent enci ng cour t ’ s , butw i l l aff

i r m i f w e ar e convi nced t hat t he fi nal s ent ence , w her ever i tm ay li e w i t hi n t he perm i s s i bl e s t atut oryr ange, w as pr emi s ed upon appr opr i at e and j udi ci ous cons i der at i on of t he r el evant fac t or s i n l i ghtof the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. Id
. at543 ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . W e not ed, how ever , that§ 3583( e)

“ o m its § 3 5 5 3 (a )(2 )(A ) . . . a n d § 3 5 5 3 (a )(3 ) . . . f ro m a m o n g th e § 3 5 5 3 (a ) f a c to rs th a t a cour tm us tcons i derw hen s ent enci ng a def endantfora vi ol at i on of s upervi s ed r el eas e. ” I d. at544 n. 2. Sect i on 3553( a) ( 2) ( A ) or di nar i l yr equi r es a s ent enci ng courtt o cons i der

“ th e n e e d f

o r th e se n ten c e im p o se d to re f lec t th e se rio u sn e ss o f

th e o f f e n se , to p ro m o te
r es pectfort he l aw , and t o pr ovi de j us tpuni s hm entforthe off ens e, ” and § 3553( a) ( 3)
or di nar i l yr equi r es a s ent enci ng cour tt o cons i der“the ki nds of s ent ence s avai l abl e. ” 18 U . S. C . § 3553( a) . B utpur s uantt o § 3583( e) , thes e fa ct or s m aynotbe cons i der ed w hen11

s ent enci ng fora vi ol at i on of a s upervi s ed r el eas e condi t i on. W i l l i ams ar gues t hathers ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our tr el i ed upon one of t he § 3553( a) ( 2) ( A ) fac t or s , a fa ct ors peci fi cal l yom i t t ed by§ 3583( e) fr om among t he § 3553( a) fac t or s thata courtcons i der s w hen s ent enci ng a defe ndantfora s upervi s ed r el eas e vi ol at i on, w hen i tengage d i n t he fol l ow i ng di al ogue w i t h defe ns e couns el and w i t h W i l l i ams her s el f: T H E C O U R T : [Y ] ou can t el l m e i f y ou s ee i t di ffe r ent l y , but I t hi nk that

I have ext ended m y s el f w i t h y our cl i enta l otfart herthan

- - w i t h thi s par t i cularcl i ent , a l otfart hert han I have ext ended my s el f w i t h m any other peopl e. A m I r i ghtor w r ong? M R . T H O M P S O N : I w o u ld ag ree w ith that, Y o u r H o n o r. T H E C O U R T : A n d w e h av e h ad co n v ersa ti o n s w h ere I h av e u sed ev ery

devi ce t hat I knew t o m ot i vat e y our cl i ent t o do t he r i ght t hi ng, beca us e I do t hi nk s he i s s al vage ab le and r e d e e m a b le a n d is n o t to o f a r g o n e . An d I j u s tw onder h o w m a ny la s tc h a n c e s a p e rs o n c a n h a v e b e f o r e my w or d, w hi ch is the w o rd o f the law , has any value w h a ts o e v e r . A ll righ t?

* * * TH E CO U RT : S o di d y ou , at any po i nt, t hink about all t ho se

conver s at i ons w e’ ve had i n t he per i od of t i m e w e’ve k n o w n ea ch o ther? DEF ENDANT: Oh , d e f i n i t e l y , I r e c i t e d t o myg i r l f r i e n d s , y o u k n o w, my frien d s -- i t do esn ’t-- T H E C O U R T : D i d anyof them know m e? D E FE N D A N T : E xcus e me?12

T H E C O U R T : D i d anyof them know m e? D E F E N D A N T : Y ea h , a -- o n e -- T H E C O U R T : A nd w hat ’ d t heys ayt o y ou aboutm e? D E FE N D A N T : T hey j us t bas i cal l y r eal l y s peec hl es s ; t hey j us tsh ook

t hei rhead. T H E C O U R T : R igh t, b e c a u s e I m e a n w h a t I sa y , rig h t? T hey t el l y ou th a t? D E FE N D A N T : W el l , buti n s o m anyw or ds , bas i cal l yy ou’ r e t ough. THE C OU RT: T

ha t I’ m t ou gh ? R ig h t? Y ou di dn’ t m eet anybodyout t her e thatI ’ d expende d as m uch ene r gyon w i t h t hem as I ’ ve expe nded w i t h y ou, di d y ou? Y ou’ r e s haki ng y our head. D E FE N D A N T : N o. N o. A pp. at86- 88 ( emphasi s added) . W i l l i ams cont ends thatthes e comm ent s s how thatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed “the pr om ot i on of r es pectforthe l aw , ” a f act orthe D i s t r i ct C o u rt s h o u ld n o t c o n s id e r w h e n s e n te n c in g f o r a v io la tio n o f

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at26. U n li k e W il li am s, w e interp ret th is ex ch an g e to m ea n that the D istri ct C o u rt c o n sid e re d “ th e n e e d f

o r th e se n ten c e im p o se d . . . to a f f o rd a d e q u a te d e ter re n c e to c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t , ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) , a c o n s i d e r a t i o n e x p l i c i t l y a l l o w e d b y § 3 5 8 3 (e ). See 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 8 3 (e ) (“ T h e c o u rt m a y , af ter c o n sid e rin g th e f

a c to rs s e t f

o rth i n s ect i on 3553( a) ( 1) , ( a) ( 2) ( B ) . . . . ”) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as obvi ous l yfrus t r at ed that i t s pr i ors ent ence s di d notdet erW i l l i ams fr om cont i nui ng t o vi ol at e the t erm s of her13

s u p e rv is e d re le a s e . T h e s ta te m e n ts a b o u t th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s w o rd h a v in g “ v a lu e ,” appea r i ng “t ough, ” and “ m ean[ i ng] w hatI s ay ” r efl ectthatthe D i s t r i ctC our tw as s eeki ng to af fo rd “ ad eq u ate d eterren ce ” to W il li am s’s crim inal co n d u ct. In a d d it ion , the re co rd
r evea l s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tcons i der ed: ( 1) the natur e, fr equenc y , and s er i ous nes s of W i l l i am s’ s vi olat i on s of sup ervi sed rel ease; (2) W i l l i am s’ s hi st oryand charact eri st i cs; a n d (3 ) th e a d v iso ryG u id e lin e s ra n g e o f th re e to n in e m o n th s, sp e c if ica llyf in d in g th a t a se n ten c e in th is ra n g e w a s in a d e q u a te to a c h iev e th e g o a ls o f se n ten c in g , p a rticu lar ly det err ence , and conc l udi ng t hata l ongers ent ence w as appr opr i at e. I n s hor t , the D i s t r i ct C ou rtcon si dered t he p roper § 35 53 (a) fact ors i n sentenci ng W i l l i am s. W i l l i ams nextar gues t hathers ent ence w as pr ocedur al l yunr eas onabl e bec aus e the D i s t r i ctC our t“fa i l ed t o m eani ngful l ycons i derthe medi cal condi t i on and depr es s i on m i t i gat i ng [her ] cul pabi l i t y . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at27. T he r ecor d i ndi cat es ot herw i s e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tl i s t ened t o W i l l i ams’ s ar gum entconce r ni ng herthyr oi d condi t i on and d e c i d e d t h a ti twa s n o ta l e g i t i ma t e mi t i g a t i n g f a c t o r , p r i ma r i l yb e c a u s e Wi l l i a ms l e f tt wo di ffe r enthos pi t al s w i t houtbei ng t r eat ed on the ni ghts he l eftherhom e det ent i on w i t hout author i zat i on and then, i ns t ead of goi ng hom e, w entt o vi s i tw i t h a fr i end. I n addi t i on, W i l l i ams admi t t ed thatherm edi cal i s s ues w er e notthe ca us e of he rvi ol at i ons of the
su p erv ised release co n d it ion s. T h e re co rd c learlyd em o n str ates tha t th e D istri ct C o u rt
m eani ngful l ycons i der ed W i l l i ams’ s ar gum entr egar di ng herm edi cal condi t i on. Fi nal l y , W i l l i ams cont ends t hathers ent ence w as s ubs t ant i vel yunr eas onabl e,14

b e c a u se it “e x c e e d s th e se n ten c e th a t an yre a so n a b le ju d g e c o u ld re g a rd a s m in im a lly
s uffi ci entfori nfr act i ons obvi ous l yand uni form l ys t emm i ng fr om drug addi ct i on, ” and “mar ks a dr amat i c devi at i on fr om t he G ui del i nes ” s ent ence “forC l as s C vi ol at i ons on the p a rt o f a d e f e n d a n t w ith a C a te g o ry I c ri m in a l h is to ry.” A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 8 -3 0 . H ow ever , i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. D ees , 467 F. 3d 847 ( 3d C i r . 2006) , w e s peci fi cal l ynot ed t hat“the theorybehi nd s anct i oni ng vi ol at i ons of s upervi s ed r el eas e i s t o s anct i on pr i m ar i l yt he def

endant ’ s br eac h of trus t , w hi l e t aki ng i nt o acc ount , t o a l i m i t ed degr ee, t he s er i ous nes s of the under l y i ng [s upervi s ed r el eas e] vi ol at i on and the cr i m i nal hi s t or yof t he vi ol at or . ” Id
. at853 ( i nt ernal quot at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e dec l i ned i n D ees “t o fi nd a s ent ence i m pos ed upon r evoca t i on unr eas onabl e s i m pl ybeca us e i texce eds t he i ni t i al s ent ence of i m pr i s onm entw hen the D i s t r i ctC our thas abl yi dent i fi ed the r eas ons w arr ant i ng s uch puni s hm ent . ” I d. H e re , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt id e n tif ie d th e re a s o n s w a rr a n tin g th e s e n te n c e it im p o s e d . T he D i s t r i ctC our texpl i ci t l ycons i der ed the advi s oryG ui del i nes r ange of thr ee t o ni ne m ont hs and det erm i ned that“the gui del i nes s i m pl ycoul d not , i n t hei rm echa ni cal , abs tr act
m an n er, m ea su re the relati o n sh ip, th e d yn am ic th at ex ist s b etw ee n m e a n d [W il li am s],
a n d th e f a ilu re o f tru s t. A n d s o w e ’r e a t th e e n d o f th e ro a d is w h e re w e a re .” A p p . a t 9 6 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tt i m e and a gai n not ed W i l l i ams’ s r epea t ed vi ol at i ons of the s upervi s ed
r el eas e condi t i ons and the fa i l ur e of the pr evi ous l yi m pos ed s ent ence s t o det ers uch conduct . G i ven the r ecor d, and W i l l i ams’ s r epea t ed vi ol at i on of the t erm s of her15

s upervi s ed r el eas e, w e conc l ude thatthe s ent ence i m pos ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our tw as

“‘ pr emi s ed upon appr opr i at e and j udi ci ous cons i der at i on of the r el evantfac t or s ’ i n l i ght of the ci r cumst ance s of the ca s e. ” B ungar , 478 F. 3d at543 ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Schw ei t z er , 4 5 4 F . 3 d 1 9 7 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )). I V. In lig h t o f

th e f o re g o in g , w e w ill a f

f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .