United States v. Calvin Coston, 964 F.3d 289

Calvin T. Coston was on federal supervised release after prior federal convictions; he had repeated compliance problems and prior revocations, including an 18-month revocation in 2017.
After release he again violated conditions; the court continued disposition on several violations and gave him another chance.
During that supervised-release "third chance," Coston had three positive drug tests within one year, triggering 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)’s mandatory-revocation rule for drug-test failures.
At the March 2019 hearing the district court declined the § 3583(d) inpatient-treatment exception, revoked supervised release, and imposed an above-Guidelines revocation sentence of 36 months (within the original statutory maximum), with no additional supervised release.
Coston appealed after the Supreme Court’s decision in Haymond, arguing § 3583(g) violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and that his sentence was plainly unreasonable.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed: any constitutional error was not plain at the time of appeal, and the 36-month revocation sentence was not plainly unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 3583(g) violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by mandating revocation and prison based on judge-found facts	Coston: § 3583(g) is unconstitutional under Haymond/Apprendi–Alleyne logic because a judge, not a jury, finds facts that mandate imprisonment	Government: Haymond does not control; Justice Breyer's concurrence is the controlling narrow ground; § 3583(g) materially differs from § 3583(k) and Alleyne/Apprendi do not apply to supervised-release revocation; any error is not plain	Court: Any constitutional error was not plain under plain-error review; affirmed revocation under § 3583(g)
Whether the 36-month revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable	Coston: Sentence is plainly unreasonable—court overemphasized deterrence, insufficiently weighed mitigation, ignored marijuana-sentencing disparities	Government: Sentence is within statutory bounds; district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors and Coston’s long history of noncompliance warrants longer revocation	Court: Sentence is not procedurally or substantively unreasonable and thus not plainly unreasonable; affirmed sentence

United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) (Supreme Court decision holding § 3583(k) unconstitutional; fractured opinion with controlling concurrence)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (principle that judicial factfinding that increases punishment beyond statutory maximum must satisfy jury trial protections)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (extends Apprendi to mandatory minimums and jury findings)
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (formulation for identifying the controlling opinion in fractured Supreme Court decisions)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review framework)
United States v. Ward, 770 F.3d 1090 (4th Cir. 2014) (Alleyne does not apply to supervised-release revocation proceedings)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing revocation sentences)
United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2017) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standards for revocation sentences)