Opinion ID: 782364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentence for Violation of Supervised Release

Text: Lavigne likewise challenges the reasonableness of his sentence for violating his supervised release. That sentence is 30 months’ imprisonment, at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range. Lavigne appeals not its duration but the District Court’s decision to apply it consecutively to, not concurrently with, his 108-month sentence. A consecutive sentence, he suggests, is “disproportionate to the crime that he committed in violation of his release . . . , in view of his serious addictions, to the point of unreasonableness.” With exceptions not applicable, “if a term of imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a). The District Court must consider the § 3553(a) factors in making this decision, id. § 3584(b), but otherwise, 6 it lies in the discretion of the Court. See United States v. Dees, 467 F.3d 847, 852 (3d Cir. 2006). The Sentencing Guidelines recommend that sentences for violations of supervised release be consecutive. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f). As we have recognized, this is so because “[a] district court’s primary consideration in handing down a revocation sentence is the defendant’s breach of trust.” Dees, 467 F.3d at 853. Here, the District Court exercised its discretion, in light of the factors listed in § 3553(a), to have the sentences run consecutively. At his supervised release revocation hearing, Lavigne “incorporate[d] the majority of [his] arguments” made at his primary sentencing hearing “relative to his ongoing extensive drug abuse, as well as the fact that he did not receive any inpatient counseling for that addiction.” He also observed that he had cooperated with authorities. The District Court fully considered these arguments as it again addressed each of the § 3553(a) factors. It found that they were outweighed by the fact that, despite his option to seek treatment, “Mr. Lavigne chose to engage in use of illegal drugs once again.” The Court added that “incarceration is required to ensure prevention of further crimes committed by him.” Had the sentence been concurrent, there would have been no punishment for Lavigne’s breach of trust. Hence, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion by its consecutive sentence of Lavigne at the lowest end of the Guidelines range.