22 F.4th 1258
11th Cir.2022Background
- Anthony Moore was convicted in 2007 of possessing unregistered destructive devices and sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment followed by 36 months’ supervised release.
- After release he had three supervised-release revocations: Oct 2017 (6 months prison + 24 months supervision), Dec 2018 (18 months + 18 months supervision), and March 2020 (18 months + 18 months supervision). The district court also imposed a consecutive 6-month sentence for direct criminal contempt during the third revocation hearing.
- The third revocation involved eight alleged violations (mostly drug/alcohol-related); Moore admitted most but disputed a failure-to-notify allegation; victim testimony (father of a 5-year-old) and officers’ reports supported revocation.
- At sentencing the court imposed an 18-month upward-variance prison term (revocation) + 18 months’ supervised release and then found Moore in direct contempt for repeated interruptions, adding 6 months consecutive.
- Moore appealed, raising five principal challenges: (1) plain error in imposing post-revocation supervised release, (2) § 3583(e)(3) unconstitutional under Apprendi/Alleyne as applied, (3) revocation sentence substantively unreasonable, (4) plain error in conviction for contempt because no allocution, and (5) request to modify contempt sentence under supervisory authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plain error: imposition of additional supervised release after multiple revocations | Moore: court erred by imposing 18 months’ supervised release without accounting for prior revocation prison time that exhausted statutory supervised-release cap | Government: conceded district court erred | Vacated the supervised-release portion — error was plain under § 3583(h) and Mazarky; vacatur warranted |
| Constitutionality of § 3583(e)(3) under Apprendi/Alleyne (as-applied) | Moore: judge-found facts at revocation increased his aggregate sentence beyond statutory maximum (prison + supervised release), violating Fifth/Sixth Amendments | Government: § 3583(e)(3) is constitutional in revocation context; Cunningham controls; Haymond limited to § 3583(k) | Rejected on plain-error review: no controlling Supreme Court/Eleventh Circuit authority showing plain error; § 3583(e)(3) not held unconstitutional as applied |
| Substantive reasonableness of revocation prison term (18 months; 4-month upward variance) | Moore: upward variance unjustified / court over-weighted victim testimony | Government: variance within district court discretion given repeated violations, addiction, and serious conduct | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; sentence within permissible variance given § 3553(a) factors |
| Contempt conviction & sentence without allocution; request to reduce contempt term | Moore: court plainly erred in finding criminal contempt without giving opportunity to allocute and six-month punishment excessive | Government: summary contempt permitted where misconduct occurred in court; punishment within contempt authority | Affirmed contempt conviction and 6-month consecutive sentence; no plain error and no abuse of discretion in contempt sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing maximum penalty must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (judge-found facts that increase mandatory minimums violate Sixth Amendment)
- United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) (plurality struck down § 3583(k); limited to that subsection and Alleyne concern)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (revocation proceedings are not part of criminal prosecution; only limited due-process protections required)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (supervised-release revocation need not be decided by jury; judge may find violations by preponderance)
- United States v. R. Scott Cunningham, 607 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2010) (Eleventh Circuit held Apprendi does not apply to § 3583(e)(3) revocation proceedings)
- United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir. 2007) (§ 3583(h) requires reducing post-revocation supervised-release term by aggregate prior revocation imprisonment)
- Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (plain-error framework and when an error undermines fairness/integrity of proceedings)
- Cheff v. Shnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373 (1966) (limitations on contempt punishment absent jury trial)
- Ex parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289 (1888) (courts may impose summary contempt punishment for misbehavior in presence of the court)