United States v. Chatburn, 505 F. App'x 713

Chatburn, an attorney disbarred in 2002, pled guilty in 2009 to bank fraud involving forging client signatures and diverting funds.
Advisory Guidelines for the underlying offense would have been 10–16 months plus supervised release; he received a downward variant of 3 months and 5 years of supervised release.
Special conditions restricted access to others’ financial records and required prior approval for employment and for reporting duties.
Chatburn moved to Boulder, Colorado, and began supervised release on August 14, 2009.
He worked at Paycheck Loans (Aug 2009–Sept 2010), later preparing tax returns for customers without approval.
He registered Rapidtax, Inc. in Nov 2010, began tax-return work Feb 2011, and continued despite instructions to cease; he also failed to inform or seek approval about employment and did not submit required monthly job-search reports.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by considering the seriousness of the offense under §3553(a)(2)(A)	Chatburn argues the factor is not in §3583(e)	Chatburn contends this factor should not govern revocation sentence	Not plain error; the consideration did not affect substantial rights; no reversible error
Whether the sentence was substantively reasonable given the nature of violations	Chatburn argues violations were not criminal and deterrence should not drive sentencing	Court properly considered deterrence and public protection within §3583(e) range	The five-month sentence within the 3–9 month range is reasonable; presumption of reasonableness stands and not rebutted
Whether the actual sentence was unreasonably harsh compared to underlying conviction	Chatburn notes longer imprisonment than underlying offense and argues mitigation	Court weighed mitigating factors but within policy range	No, sentence within range is reasonable; burden on Chatburn not met
Whether the district court properly applied §3583(e) factors and §3553(a) in revocation	Chatburn contends misapplication of factors	Court properly considered §3553(a)(1)-(7) and policy statements	Yes; within rationally available choices; presumption of reasonableness retained

United States v. Handley, 678 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for revocation sentences; reasonableness inquiry)
United States v. McBride, 633 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2011) (requires consideration of §3553(a) factors; within range presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Mendiola, 696 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for improper consideration of factors)
United States v. Uscanga-Mora, 562 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for procedural issues in revocation cases)
United States v. Story, 635 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (cross-circuit discussion on whether error is plain when circuit split exists)
United States v. Penn, 601 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 2010) (plain-error/harmless-error considerations in revocation context)