United States v. Betts, 886 F.3d 198

Jeffrey Betts was on supervised release for a prior conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud (original prison term followed by five years supervised release beginning Aug. 2, 2013).
While on supervision Betts failed to make required restitution payments, was arrested twice for driving without a license, and absconded from supervision for two months after a July 29, 2016 arrest.
On Nov. 28, 2016 Betts admitted (pleaded guilty) to violating the condition requiring notification to his probation officer within 72 hours of arrest; plea anticipated an advisory Guidelines range of 4–10 months.
District Court sentenced Betts to 10 months’ imprisonment and a new four-year term of supervised release (within the Guidelines), and added special conditions: a total ban on alcohol use and mandatory substance-abuse testing with a “zero tolerance” drug policy.
Betts appealed, arguing the four-year supervised-release term was substantively unreasonable and that the special conditions (total alcohol ban and zero-tolerance drug testing) were erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive reasonableness of additional 4-year supervised release	N/A (Government sought enforcement of sentence)	Betts: 4-year term is substantively unreasonable given the violation's nature and mitigation	Affirmed: within Guidelines; sentence not an abuse of discretion
Whether district court erred in imposing sentence at upper end of Guidelines	N/A	Betts: upper-end placement was abuse of discretion	Rejected: within presumptively reasonable Guidelines range
Whether district court improperly discredited mitigation evidence	N/A	Betts: Court improperly discounted evidence of reform	Rejected: court reasonably weighed contradictions between counsel’s claims and Betts’s conduct
Validity of special condition banning all alcohol use	N/A	Betts: total alcohol ban not reasonably related to offense or violation and overly burdensome	Vacated: no record evidence of alcohol problem; standard condition limiting excessive use suffices
Validity of "zero tolerance" drug-testing condition	N/A	Betts: wording bans lawful, prescribed drugs and is overbroad	Affirmed (as clarified): read with standard condition allowing prescribed drugs, zero-tolerance applies to nonprescribed controlled substances

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review uses deferential abuse-of-discretion standard)
United States v. Broxmeyer, 699 F.3d 265 (2d Cir. standard of review for reasonableness)
United States v. Bonilla, 618 F.3d 102 (sentence unreasonable only if outside permissible range)
United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19 (Guidelines sentences typically reasonable)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (context on appellate review of Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Myers, 426 F.3d 117 (scrutiny of unusual or severe supervised-release conditions)
United States v. Balon, 384 F.3d 38 (requirement for individualized on-the-record explanation for special conditions)
United States v. Reeves, 591 F.3d 77 (vacatur of special condition not reasonably related to sentencing objectives)