United States v. Brian Ford
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14616
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Brian Ford pleaded guilty in 2001 to conspiracy to distribute crack and powder cocaine; sentenced to 97 months imprisonment and five years supervised release.
- After release he twice had supervised release revoked (2013 and 2014); following the 2014 revocation he was charged with committing a substantial battery on August 4, 2014.
- Revocation hearing: victim (Rahoi) identified Ford in court as his assailant; Officer Emmons and Detective Matthews testified; a police report (including statements by tenant Jasmine Smith) was admitted into evidence over no objection from Ford’s counsel.
- District court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ford committed substantial battery, revoked supervised release, and sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment and restitution, with no further supervised release.
- Ford appealed alleging (1) improper admission of Smith’s statements (Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and due process), (2) sentence exceeded statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)/(h), and (3) procedural sentencing error for inadequate consideration of § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Smith’s out-of-court statements at revocation | Admission violated Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) and Due Process; statements were hearsay and prejudicial | Ford waived/forfeited objection by eliciting and affirmatively declining to object to the report at trial | Waiver; even if forfeited, no plain error — substantial evidence supported revocation without the report |
| Statutory maximum for post-revocation imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) | “Offense that resulted in the term of supervised release” refers to the offense that produced the most recent supervised-release term (the prior revocation offense), limiting maximum to 1 year | “Offense” refers to the original offense that produced the supervised release; classification scheme and statute context support looking to original conviction | Court adopts original-offense reading; Ford’s 2001 conviction was class A, so up to 5 years was permissible; 36-month sentence lawful |
| Procedural error at sentencing (failure to consider § 3553(a) factors) | District court failed to adequately address required § 3553(a) factors | Court sufficiently addressed required factors (nature of offense, history, deterrence, protection, guidelines, restitution); need not recite each factor checklist-style | No procedural error; statements show the court considered relevant § 3583(e)/§ 3553(a) factors |
| Use of factor § 3553(a)(2)(A) (seriousness/just punishment) when revoking | Court may not rely on (a)(2)(A) when revoking supervised release | Circuit permits discussion of (a)(2)(A) if court relies primarily on § 3583(e) factors | Even if court referenced (a)(2)(A), it relied mainly on permissible § 3583(e) factors; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (discusses waiver vs. forfeiture of rights)
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (defines waiver as intentional relinquishment)
- United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (distinguishes waiver and forfeiture; plain-error framework)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (plain-error review for forfeited objections)
- United States v. Goad, 44 F.3d 580 (preponderance standard for supervised-release revocation)
- United States v. Marvin, 135 F.3d 1129 (noncriminal supervised-release violations discussed)
- United States v. Thornton, 539 F.3d 741 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Jones, 774 F.3d 399 (deferential review of revocation sentences)
- United States v. Robertson, 648 F.3d 858 (appellate inference required that district court considered Guidelines and § 3553)
- United States v. Clay, 752 F.3d 1106 (courts may consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) when revoking if primary reliance is on § 3583(e) factors)
- United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683 (defendant’s substantial-rights standard for showing prejudice)