United States v. Bohan, 496 F. App'x 95

Defendant-appellant Laurie Bohan received an 18-month sentence above the guideline range following revocation of supervised release.
Appellant challenges two procedural steps: (i) improper consideration of §3553(a)(2)(A) factors, including seriousness and just punishment, under §3583(e); and (ii) failure to adequately account for potential sentencing disparities related to pre- and post-FSA crack offenses.
The First Circuit reviews the sentence for abuse of discretion, applying the Vargas-Davila framework regarding incorporated §3553(a) factors and §3583(e) considerations.
The Probation Office sought a punitive sanction for breach of trust, and the district court emphasized repeated violations and failure to address substance abuse; the court also stressed opportunities given for supervision compliance.
The court acknowledged that changes in law from the FSA could be considered but stated they were not applicable to Bohan’s pre-FSA sentence; nevertheless, the court did not rely on a specific disparity calculation and affirmed the sentence.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding the court did not err in considering §3553(a) factors and did not abuse its discretion in addressing potential disparities.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §3553(a)(2)(A) factors were improperly used	Bohan argues the court relied on §3553(a)(2)(A) for revocation	USA contends §3583(e) allows consideration of related §3553(a) factors	No error; factors properly considered
Whether disparities under the FSA were adequate to consider	Bohan alleges court ignored potential disparities	USA asserts court need not expressly reference every factor	No reversible error; court considered factors and disparities implicitly

Vargas-Davila v. United States, 649 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2011) (permits consideration of §3553(a) factors in revocation context; not limited to enumerated factors)
United States v. Young, 634 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2011) (courts may consider §3553(a)(2)(A) factors in revocation proceedings)
United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2007) (upholds consideration of §3553(a) factors in revocation)
United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2006) (recognizes §3553(a) factors may be considered)
United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (diverges on reliance on §3553(a)(2)(A) in revocation context)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (acknowledges court need not spell out every §3553(a) factor)
United States v. Rodriguez, 525 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2008) (discusses consideration of disparities in sentencing)