United States v. Christa Policare, 670 F. App'x 46

Policare pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute A-PVP ("bath salts") in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; Guidelines range was 57–60 months but the district court varied down and sentenced her to 20 months due to her minor role, psychological circumstances, age, and lack of criminal history.
After release, Policare served a two-year supervised release term with a condition prohibiting unlawful use/possession of controlled substances.
Probation reported at least eight supervised-release violations for using various controlled substances (marijuana, cocaine, A-PVP, Xanax, Suboxone); the court initially favored treatment but later detained her after the eighth violation.
Policare pleaded guilty to violating supervised release; statutory maximum exposure was 2 years, and the Guidelines range for revocation was 3–9 months.
The Government recommended a within-Guidelines sentence; the district court imposed an upward variance to a sentence of 1 year and 1 day.
Policare appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable because the court overemphasized relapses, failed to account for addiction-related relapse risk, and ignored the Government’s Guidelines recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the upward variance on supervised-release revocation was substantively unreasonable	Policare: court overemphasized relapses, should have expected relapse given addiction, her candor and treatment desire, and Government’s within-Guidelines recommendation	Government/District Court: judge considered addiction, candor, history, prior downward variance, number of violations, and need for deterrence and protection of the public	Affirmed: appellate court found the district court acted within its broad discretion and the sentence was not substantively unreasonable

Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (articulates the highly deferential standard for reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence on appeal)