United States v. Butler-Acevedo
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18176
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Butler pleaded guilty in 2000 to two drug-related conspiracies.
- At sentencing, the district court imposed two concurrent 10-year sentences with concurrent 5-year supervised release terms.
- In 2008 Butler was released and began supervised release, which soon failed.
- USPO filed multiple violations; at revocation Butler admitted to ten violations ranging from failing to report to associating with drug traffickers.
- Although the Guidelines recommended 3–9 months, the court sentenced Butler to 60 months in each case, the statutory maximum for Class A felonies.
- Butler appeals arguing procedural error for failure to consider §3553(a) factors and ambiguity as to the sentence imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3553(a) factors were properly considered | Butler argues the court failed to consider §3553(a) factors. | Butler asserts the factors were not weighed as required. | Court implicitly considered §3553(a) factors. |
| Whether history and characteristics were adequately addressed | Butler claims the district court did not adequately consider his history and characteristics. | Butler contends the court inadequately weighed these factors. | Record supports implicit consideration of history/characteristics. |
| Whether the court considered §3553(a)(2)(D) and potential disparities | Butler argues the court ignored training/treatment and disparities concerns. | Butler asserts the court failed to weigh these factors. | Court did not err; factors weighed within overall decision. |
| Whether the court's statement of the sentence was clear | Butler contends the record was ambiguous about 60 months of incarceration vs supervised release. | Butler argues there was a misstatement requiring remand. | Record clear; no remand necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McInnis, 429 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (revocation sentences reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Santiago-Rivera, 594 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2010) (review of procedural/substantive propriety in revocation sentences)
- United States v. Franquiz-Ortiz, 607 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2010) (record must provide basis for evaluating district court's exercise of broad authority)
- United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194 (1st Cir. 2006) (no rote requirement to address every §3553(a) factor individually)