Revocation sentence vacated for failure to address mitigation argument

A supervised release sentence was procedurally unreasonable where the U.S. District Court failed to address the defendant’s non-frivolous argument that he had effectively served an additional 19 months of supervision while the revocation petition remained pending.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of supervised release but vacated the 24-month sentence and remanded for resentencing.

The defendant had been convicted in 2008 of drug trafficking and firearm offenses and later released to supervision. The revocation proceeding arose from allegations that he assaulted and strangled his former girlfriend in 2021. Although he was acquitted of related state charges, the U.S. District Court found by a preponderance of the evidence that he had committed new crimes and violated a mandatory condition of supervised release.

The 4th Circuit upheld that finding. The court emphasized the deferential standard of review and noted that credibility findings are virtually unreviewable absent extreme circumstances. The alleged victim’s testimony was corroborated by text messages, witness testimony and photographs of injuries, supporting the finding that the defendant more likely than not committed the offenses.

But the court reached a different result on sentencing. The defendant argued that delays in resolving the revocation petition caused him to remain on supervision for 19 months longer than he otherwise would have. The 4th Circuit found that the argument was a principal, non-frivolous mitigation point that required some meaningful response.

Although revocation sentencing is reviewed more deferentially than an original sentence, the court said a sentencing judge still must provide enough explanation to show that key arguments were considered. Because the record did not show that the U.S. District Court addressed the extended-supervision argument, the sentence was procedurally unreasonable and plainly unreasonable.

The 17 page opinion is U.S. v. Mills, Lawyers Weekly No. 001-139-26.