658 F. App'x 375
10th Cir.2016Background
- Randy Branch pleaded guilty in 2010 to multiple federal offenses and was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment plus three years supervised release.
- Branch’s supervised release was previously revoked twice (2014 and March 2015), resulting in short incarcerations and new supervised-release terms.
- In October 2015 Branch was accused of another supervised-release violation: committing a new crime (entering a convenience store and breaking property), using controlled substances, and failing to complete outpatient substance-abuse treatment.
- The district court put revocation in abeyance for six months to allow completion of treatment; an amended petition later added an additional drug-use allegation (admitted by Branch).
- The district court sentenced Branch to 24 months imprisonment and did not impose a new term of supervised release.
- Branch appealed alleging the 24-month sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, but he did not object at sentencing or argue for plain-error review on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Branch's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court’s sentence for supervised-release violation was unreasonable (procedural/substantive) | Sentence was not “reasoned and reasonable” under controlling law | Branch forfeited the challenge by failing to object; in any event sentence was reasonable | Forfeited for appeal; court declines to review because Branch also failed to seek plain-error review; affirmed |
| Whether defendant preserved sentencing challenge for appeal | N/A (Branch failed to object at sentencing) | No preservation; required contemporaneous objection or written objection to PSR | Issue forfeited; appellate review not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2005) (sentences for supervised-release violations must be "reasoned and reasonable")
- United States v. Mendoza, 543 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 2008) (contemporaneous oral objection or written PSR objection required to preserve sentencing issues)
- United States v. Armijo, 651 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2011) (failure to object at sentencing forfeits appellate review of sentencing claims)
- Richison v. Ernest Group, 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (appellant’s failure to raise plain-error review on appeal bars consideration of forfeited issues)
- United States v. Alexander, 802 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2015) (failure to preserve argument below limits appellate review to plain-error, and absent plain-error argument, claim may be abandoned)