United States v. Cardell Brown
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9030
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2012 Cardell Brown pled guilty to failing to register as a sex offender under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) and received 18 months custody plus 60 months supervised release.
- Shortly after release he was arrested in Illinois for violating the state sex-offender registration law, pled guilty, and received 18 months in state prison.
- Brown’s federal probation officer petitioned to revoke federal supervised release for the state conviction and five late supervision reports; Brown admitted the violations.
- The district court revoked supervised release, imposed 12 months’ federal reimprisonment consecutive to the state sentence, and imposed a 10-year term of supervised release.
- Brown appealed; appointed counsel moved to withdraw under Anders, asserting the appeal is frivolous. The court reviewed potential issues identified by counsel and invited Brown to respond; he did not.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown can challenge calculation of reimprisonment range | Brown could object to Guidelines application or calculation | District court correctly applied Chapter 7 policy statements and Grade B violation, yielding 8–14 months range | Calculation was correct; plain-error review would apply and no error found |
| Whether 12-month reimprisonment term was substantively unreasonable | Brown might argue excessiveness | Court considered §3553(a) factors, Brown’s history of sex-offense convictions and violations, and seriousness of failing to register | Not plainly unreasonable; within statutory and discretionary bounds |
| Lawfulness/reasonableness of 10-year supervised-release term | Brown could claim term unlawful or unreasonable | Statute permits up to lifetime; §3583(k) and Guidelines allow 10 years on revocation | Term lawful and not plainly unreasonable |
| Vagueness of two standard supervised-release conditions (employment notice; travel restriction) | Brown might argue conditions are vague or impose strict liability | Court observed prior circuit criticism but noted Brown did not advance these issues on appeal | Conditions potentially vague, but Brown did not raise them; he may seek modification later under §3583(e)(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (no automatic right to counsel in revocation proceedings in some circumstances)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (limits on Anders-type safeguards where no constitutional right to counsel)
- United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir. 2015) (counsel-right principles in supervised-release revocation context)
- United States v. Wheeler, 814 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2016) (Anders/Finley application and critique of travel-condition scienter)
- United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review of Guidelines application when no objection)
- United States v. Jones, 774 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2014) (reasonableness standard for reimprisonment on revocation)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (criticism of supervised-release travel restriction lacking scienter)