United States v. Carlton Davis, 685 F. App'x 483

Carlton Davis pleaded guilty in federal court to a misdemeanor for attending an animal fighting venture and was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment, $40,000+ restitution, and one year of supervised release. A condition of release prohibited him from possessing any dogs.
Davis has a long history of dogfighting: a 2006 Indiana conviction for promoting animal fighting contests and cruelty to an animal (resulting in six years’ imprisonment) and earlier police encounters showing involvement with dogfighting. See state conviction discussed in Davis v. State.
In November 2014 Davis was arrested at a dogfight in Akron, Ohio; he later pleaded guilty in federal court to attending the venture.
While on supervised release in July 2016 Davis kept two pit bulls at his home; he admitted the violation, claiming he was temporarily caring for the dogs for a friend. A veterinary exam suggested recent wounds inconsistent with his explanation.
The probation officer moved to revoke supervised release. At the revocation hearing the Government asked for 4–10 months (Guidelines range); the district court imposed ten months, describing Davis as having an "addiction" to dogfighting and noting the seriousness of the offense.
Davis moved for reconsideration under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a), submitted a psychological evaluation, and objected to comparisons with the Michael Vick case; the district court denied relief. Davis appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Government)	Defendant's Argument (Davis)	Held
Whether the district court impermissibly found Davis had a medical "addiction" to dogfighting without medical evidence	Court treated "addiction" colloquially and relied on Davis’s extensive history to justify sentence	Davis argued the court improperly made a medical diagnosis and lacked evidence of likelihood to recidivate	Affirmed: court may use colloquial terms and rely on criminal history to assess recidivism risk (no medical diagnosis required)
Whether referencing Michael Vick was improper	Government relied on historical/contextual discussion of dogfighting harms	Davis argued the Vick comparison was prejudicial and irrelevant	Affirmed: citing or comparing landmark dogfighting cases is permissible; court did not attribute Vick’s conduct to Davis
Whether the court lacked an open mind or prejudged the case	Government argued the court considered evidence and reached a reasoned sentence	Davis argued references showed the court was not impartial	Affirmed: judges may have preliminary views; no showing of prejudgment or lack of open mind
Whether the district court erred in denying a continuance to respond to Vick references	Government: no continuance necessary	Davis: trial counsel needed more time to prepare response	Waived: Davis did not request a continuance below and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal

United States v. Courtland, 642 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2011) (district court may discuss history of a species of crime and need not relay all background to defendant so long as it does not attribute those evils to the defendant)
United States v. Gajdik, 292 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2002) (criminal history is relevant to assessing likelihood of recidivism at sentencing)
United States v. Thomas, 815 F.3d 344 (7th Cir. 2016) (judges need not arrive at sentencing with an ‘‘empty head’’; preliminary impressions are permissible)
Davis v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (describing Davis’s prior convictions and factual record of dogfighting activity)