United States v. Andre Price, 901 F.3d 746

Background

Andre Price pleaded guilty to bank robbery, received 60 months’ imprisonment and 3 years supervised release; violations began shortly after release for cocaine use.
First supervised-release revocation (admitted Grade B violation) resulted in 2 months’ imprisonment and a 34-month supervised-release term (below the Guidelines range).
Price violated release again two weeks after beginning the new term (halfway-house absence, possession and use of crack); he admitted violations and requested inpatient substance-abuse treatment instead of incarceration.
At the second revocation, the Guidelines range (Grade B, CHC VI) was 21–24 months; the district court imposed 24 months’ imprisonment and a 12-month supervised-release term, with the possibility to substitute residential treatment for halfway-house time.
Price appealed, arguing (1) the 12-month supervised-release term exceeded the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) because the court failed to subtract his earlier 2-month post-revocation imprisonment, and (2) the 24-month custodial sentence was substantively unreasonable because treatment would have been appropriate.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the 24-month prison term, held the supervised-release term was procedurally erroneous (vacated it), and remanded for imposition of a term not exceeding the § 3583(h) maximum.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 3583(h) require subtracting all post-revocation imprisonment for the same underlying offense when calculating the maximum supervised-release term?	Price: § 3583(h)’s "any term of imprisonment" means all such post-revocation terms, so the earlier 2 months must be subtracted.	Gov’t/district court: Subtracted only the most-recent term; earlier post-revocation imprisonment need not be aggregated.	The court held "any" means all; subtract all post-revocation terms related to the same underlying offense. The 12-month term exceeded the statutory maximum and must be reduced on remand.
Was the district court’s failure to subtract the earlier 2-month term plain error on appellate review?	Price: Yes; the statutory text and circuit precedent support the interpretation, making the error obvious.	Government: Conceded plain error in this case.	The court found the error plain, affected substantial rights, and warranted correction.
Was the 24-month custodial sentence substantively unreasonable because Price should have been allowed inpatient treatment instead?	Price: Residential treatment would better address substance-abuse issues and was appropriate in lieu of incarceration.	Gov’t/district court: Court considered treatment but found public safety, accountability, and breach of trust outweighed treatment; statutory provisions and Guidelines support imprisonment.	The court affirmed the custodial sentence as within-Guidelines and not an abuse of discretion.
Did the district court procedurally err in sentencing in other ways (Guidelines calculation, consideration of § 3553(a), etc.)?	Price: Alleged procedural unreasonableness only as to the supervised-release calculation.	Gov’t: No other procedural errors; district court considered alternatives and relevant factors.	No other procedural errors found; only the supervised-release term was vacated for exceeding § 3583(h).

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Brown, 639 F.3d 735 (6th Cir.) (interpreting § 3583(h) to subtract newly imposed imprisonment when calculating supervised-release maximum)
United States v. Rodriguez, 775 F.3d 533 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding § 3583(h) requires subtracting all post-revocation imprisonment for same underlying offense)
United States v. Maxwell, 285 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2002) (reading "any" to mean all in § 3583(h))
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard requires error that is clear or obvious)
Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (discussing effect of procedural errors on substantial rights and judicial integrity)
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for review of revocation sentences)