United States v. Calvin Coleman
706 F. App'x 618
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Coleman completed a prison term for a drug offense and began a four-year term of supervised release that prohibited use/possession of controlled substances.
- During supervised release, Coleman was previously revoked twice for drug-related violations; this appeal arises from his third revocation after selling Xanax to a confidential informant.
- At the revocation hearing the district court found Coleman violated the supervised release; revocation was mandatory under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(1) because he possessed a controlled substance.
- The Sentencing Guidelines range was 33–41 months; the government requested 36 months (statutory maximum for the revocation), Coleman sought 20 months citing employment and family ties.
- The district court imposed 36 months, stating it was within the guidelines and “sufficient but not more than necessary.” Coleman appealed, arguing procedural and substantive unreasonableness based on alleged failure to consider 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to consider § 3553(a) when revocation was mandatory | Coleman: court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors, so sentence procedurally unreasonable | Gov: when revocation is mandatory under § 3583(g), court need not consider § 3553(a); alternatively, record shows § 3553(a) was considered | No error; under Eleventh Circuit precedent court is not required to consider § 3553(a) when revocation is mandatory (affirmed) |
| Whether the 36-month sentence is substantively unreasonable | Coleman: 36 months is greater than necessary given ties and rehabilitation efforts | Gov: sentence is within guidelines, justified by repeated drug transactions during supervision | Not an abuse of discretion; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.) (reasonableness requirement on supervised-release revocation)
- United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir.) (standards for revocation sentencing)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (plain-error review on appeal)
- United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir.) (when § 3583(g) mandates revocation, court need not consider § 3553(a))
- United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.) (binding effect of circuit precedent)
- United States v. Sarras, 575 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir.) (reliance on § 3553(a) factors in sentencing analysis)
- United States v. Thornhill, 759 F.3d 299 (3d Cir.) (counterholding: § 3553(a) must be considered even if revocation is mandatory)
- Molina-Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (plain-error review standards)