United States v. Booker, 63 F.4th 1254

Booker (convicted in 2010 of being a felon in possession) began supervised release in 2020; jurisdiction transferred to the Eastern District of Oklahoma in 2021.
Probation alleged numerous supervised-release violations: repeated methamphetamine use/possession, multiple failures to report or test, unauthorized travel, traffic violations, and failing to notify probation about law-enforcement contacts.
At the revocation hearing (Dec. 16, 2021) Booker admitted the violations; the guideline revocation range was 5–11 months but the statutory maximum was 24 months.
The district court revoked supervised release and imposed the 24‑month statutory maximum, explaining that a sentence "[to] promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense" was necessary (quoting § 3553(a)(2)(A)).
On appeal Booker argued § 3583(e) (which enumerates the § 3553(a) factors applicable to revocation proceedings) implicitly prohibits consideration of the retribution factor in § 3553(a)(2)(A); the Tenth Circuit agreed that reliance on that factor is forbidden but affirmed because Booker did not show the error affected his substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether courts may base a supervised‑release revocation sentence on § 3553(a)(2)(A) (retribution)	§ 3583(e) omits § 3553(a)(2)(A); omission means retribution may not be considered	The court may consider punishment tied to the violation; referencing punishment for original offense does not automatically render revocation unreasonable	Omission of § 3553(a)(2)(A) from § 3583(e) precludes reliance on retribution when modifying or revoking supervised release (procedural error to rely on it)
Whether the district court erred by quoting § 3553(a)(2)(A) in justifying Booker's 24‑month term	The explicit quotation shows the court relied on an impermissible retributive rationale	The court’s broader reasoning relied on permissible factors; a fleeting reference was harmless	The district court erred by quoting the prohibited factor
Whether the error was plain and affected Booker’s substantial rights (plain‑error review)	The error was obvious and likely changed the outcome	Any error was harmless because the record shows extensive permissible bases for the sentence; no reasonable probability of a lower sentence	Even if the error was plain, Booker failed to show a reasonable probability the sentence would have been different; affirmed

Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011) (courts may not impose or lengthen a prison term to promote rehabilitation; discussed retribution in supervised‑release context)
United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800 (10th Cir. 2008) (statute that mandates consideration of enumerated factors implicitly forbids consideration of unenumerated factors)
United States v. McBride, 633 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2011) (§ 3583(e) requires consideration of the listed § 3553(a) factors before revocation)
United States v. Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2004) (district courts must consider the § 3553(a) factors enumerated in § 3583(e) when revoking supervised release)
United States v. Benvie, 18 F.4th 665 (10th Cir. 2021) (quoting Tapia and remanding where justifications for supervised‑release conditions may have been impermissibly punitive)
United States v. Penn, 601 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 2010) (single reference to "just punishment" in revocation context did not show the error affected substantial rights)
United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (courts may consider the conduct underlying violations when deciding revocation and sentence)
United States v. Cordery, 656 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2011) (reversal where district court improperly relied on an impermissible rationale that likely affected sentence)
United States v. Farley, 36 F.4th 1245 (10th Cir. 2022) (error affecting guideline interpretation that was integral to the court’s reasoning required reversal)