Opinion ID: 2975525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appropriateness of sentence

Text: The Sixth Circuit has not yet determined whether sentences for violation of supervised release are to be reviewed under the “plainly unreasonable” standard the Circuit employed for these sentences before the Supreme Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), or the “unreasonableness” standard applicable to sentences under the Guidelines post-Booker. See United States v. Yopp, 453 F.3d 770, 772-73 (6th Cir. 2006); United States v. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621, 625 n.3 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Johnson, 403 F.3d 813, 817 (6th Cir. 2005). Instead, the court has held in particular cases that “[w]hether we apply a ‘reasonableness’ standard of review or a ‘plainly unreasonable’ standard, no error occurred.” See, e.g., Johnson, 403 F.3d at 817. Under the pre-Booker standard for revocation sentences, “[a] district court’s sentence of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release should be affirmed ‘if it shows consideration of the relevant statutory factors and is not plainly unreasonable.’” Carr, 421 F.3d at 429 (quoting United States v. McClellan, 164 F.3d 308, 309 (6th Cir. 1999)). Under the post-Booker standard for Guidelines-based (non-revocation) sentences, sentences must be both procedurally and substantively reasonable. Procedural reasonableness requires the sentencing court to consider “the applicable Guidelines range” and “the other factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” United States v. Esteppe, 483 F.3d 447, 450 (6th Cir. 2007). “A sentence is substantively unreasonable if the district court ‘selects the sentence arbitrarily, bases the sentence on impermissible factors, fails to consider pertinent § 3553(a) factors or gives an unreasonable amount of weight to any pertinent factor.’” United States v. Husein, 478 F.3d 318, 332 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Caver, 470 F.3d 220, 248 (6th Cir. 2006)). In this case, as in Johnson, we do not reach the question of which standard applies to review of revocation sentences, as the district court did not err under either standard. Defendant challenges the district court’s sentence of six months of home detention and twenty-four months of supervised release following revocation of his supervised release. As the government notes, Defendant received a far lighter sentence than he might have under the advisory policy statements for violation of supervised release. Based on his criminal history, Defendant’s policy statement range was five to eleven months of incarceration. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a). The district court chose an imprisonment term at the low end of the policy statement range, and elected in its discretion under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(c)(1) to allow Defendant to serve the entire incarceration sentence No. 06-6011 United States v. Lewis Page 5 on home detention rather than in a correctional facility. Defendant argues, however, that the district court arrived at the sentence improperly because the court based its sentence in part on the goal of promoting respect for the law, and this is not one of the statutory factors to be considered. The statute governing supervised release provides, “The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553 (a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7), . . . revoke a term of supervised release, and require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The factors cited are “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant”; “the need for the sentence imposed . . . to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct,” “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” and “to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner”; the sentence ranges in the policy statements for violation of supervised release; other relevant policy statements regarding sentencing; “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities”; and “the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.” Id. § 3553(a). The only factors in § 3553(a) which § 3583(e) does not require to be considered upon violation of supervised release are (a)(3), “the kinds of sentences available,” and (a)(2)(A), “the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.” In its written statement of reasons for imposing the sentence, the district court explained, The reasons for the sentence imposed are as follows: to reflect the seriousness of the offense; to promote respect for the law; to provide just punishment; to provide an adequate deterrence to this Defendant and others from criminal conduct; and to protect the public from future crimes of this Defendant and of others who may participate in similar offenses. Judgment of May 1, 2006, at 3. Of these five reasons, the first three clearly come from § 3553(a)(2)(A), which is not a factor listed for consideration in § 3583(e). Defendant contends that because this factor is not included in § 3583(e), a sentencing court “is prohibited from acting with [a] purpose” listed in § 3553(a)(2)(A). Appellant’s Brief at 21. The question is therefore whether the consideration of a factor other than those enumerated in § 3583(e) renders a sentence unreasonable or plainly unreasonable. This question has been previously raised in the Sixth Circuit in three unpublished cases. While these opinions have implicitly credited the argument that § 3553(a)(2)(A) may not be considered when sentencing a defendant for violation of supervised release, none of them have squarely held that consideration of that factor is unreasonable. In United States v. Jiles, No. 065832, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8270, at  (6th Cir. Apr. 6, 2007), the court stated, “Omitted from the list of permissible factors [in § 3583(e)] is the need ‘to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense’” enumerated in § 3553(a)(2)(A). The court simply held, however, that “the [district] court mentioned the seriousness of the offense one time in the midst of considering the permissible factors. Further, the nature and circumstances of the offense are factors the court may consider . . . .” Id. at -8. Thus, the court found no error because the information the district court considered could have been considered under § 3553(a)(1), which is listed in § 3583(e). In United States v. Henley, 191 F. App’x 377, 381 (6th Cir. 2006), the “defendant argue[d] that the district court relied on § 3553(a)(2)(A), an unauthorized factor pursuant to § 3583(e).” However, the court did not address the question of whether § 3553(a)(2)(A) could be considered, and simply held that there was no error because the facts considered by the district court could also appropriately be considered under § 3553(a)(1) or § 3553(a)(2)(C). Id. at 381-82. In United States No. 06-6011 United States v. Lewis Page 6 v. Morrow, 207 F. App’x 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2006), the defendant also argued that the district court had “erroneously considered an impermissible factor,” which there also was § 3553(a)(2)(A). Again, the court did not determine whether § 3553(a)(2)(A) could be considered, and held that the district court’s explanation for the sentence “reflected appropriate rehabilitative considerations, not punitive ones.” Id. Of the other circuits which have addressed the question of whether factors not included in § 3583(e) can be considered, the Second has “interpret[ed] § 3583(e) simply as requiring consideration of the enumerated subsections of § 3553(a), without forbidding consideration of other pertinent factors,” including § 3553(a)(2)(A). United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35, 47 (2d Cir. 2006). The Third Circuit referred to the Williams decision in a footnote without rejecting or adopting it. United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540, 543 n.2 (3d Cir. 2007). By contrast, the Fourth Circuit has held that “in devising a revocation sentence the district court is not authorized to consider” § 3553(a)(2)(A). United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439 (4th Cir. 2006). Likewise, the Ninth Circuit held that “a sentence would be unreasonable if the court based it primarily on an omitted factor, such as a factor provided for in § 3553(a)(2)(A).” United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). We now adopt the Second Circuit’s position. That is, we hold that it does not constitute reversible error to consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing a sentence for violation of supervised release, even though this factor is not enumerated in § 3583(e). First of all, § 3583(e) provides merely that the court “may, after considering the [specified] factors . . . revoke a term of supervised release.” It does not state that a court may revoke supervised release after “only considering” the enumerated factors. Second, the three considerations in § 3553(a)(2)(A), namely the need “to reflect the seriousness of the offense,” “to promote respect for the law,” and “to provide just punishment for the offense,” are essentially redundant with matters courts are already permitted to take into consideration when imposing sentences for violation of supervised release. First, as several cases have recognized, courts are already authorized to consider the seriousness of the offense under § 3553(a)(1), which requires consideration of “the nature and circumstances of the offense.” See, e.g., Jiles, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8270, at -8; Henley, 191 F. App’x at 381-82; United States v. Johnson, 190 F. App’x 724, 726 (10th Cir. 2006). Second, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court observed that “[a] violation of the terms of supervised release tends to confirm the judgment that help was necessary, and if any prisoner might profit from the decompression stage of supervised release, no prisoner needs it more than one who has already tried liberty and failed.” 529 U.S. at 709 (holding that further supervised release may be ordered as a sentence for violation of supervised release). The “help” a further supervised release sentence provides to a defendant who has once violated supervised release is that he learn to obey the conditions of his supervised release – in other words, that he learn to respect the law. Finally, in the official introduction to the policy statements regarding supervised release, the Sentencing Commission explains that “the sentence imposed upon revocation . . . [is] intended to sanction the violator for failing to abide by the conditions of the court-ordered supervision.” 18 U.S.C. App’x § 3(b). Thus, although violations of supervised release generally do not entail conduct as serious as crimes punishable under the § 3553(a) regime, revocation sentences are similarly intended to “sanction,” or, analogously, to “provide just punishment for the offense” of violating supervised release. Given that the three considerations in § 3553(a)(2)(A) are consistent with considerations already permissible for revocation sentences, the fact that § 3583(e) does not require that courts consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) does not mean that courts are forbidden to consider that factor, and the fact that a sentencing court does consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) is not error. The sentence in this case was thus neither unreasonable nor plainly unreasonable. The district court sentenced Defendant toward the bottom of the policy statement range, exercised its No. 06-6011 United States v. Lewis Page 7 discretion to permit him to serve his incarceration sentence in home confinement so he could keep his job and continue to see his children, and based its sentence of further supervised release on the need for Defendant to learn to adjust to and abide by the terms of supervision. The district court took into consideration the policy statement range, Defendant’s situation, including his work and family responsibilities, the nature of his violations and his behavior under supervision, and the need for him to learn to cooperate with supervision, and rendered a sentence that was carefully considered and commensurate with his violations.