United States v. Clement Hope, 701 F. App'x 273

Clement J. Hope appealed a 60‑month sentence imposed on revocation of his supervised release after the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Hope argued the revocation sentence was procedurally and substantively plainly unreasonable.
The district court explained the sentence aimed to protect the public, deter future violence against women, and punish Hope’s significant breach of trust.
The applicable legal framework gives district courts broad discretion on revocation sentences and requires consideration of Chapter 7 policy statements and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors (with a less detailed reasons requirement than initial sentencing).
The Fourth Circuit reviews revocation sentences for procedural and substantive reasonableness, applying a deferential standard and will affirm sentences within the statutory range that are not plainly unreasonable.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the 60‑month revocation judgment, finding the district court identified proper and persuasive reasons for the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 60‑month revocation sentence is procedurally unreasonable	Hope: court failed to properly consider factors and provide adequate reasons	Gov: court considered Chapter 7 policy statements and § 3553(a) factors and gave sufficient reasons for revocation	Not procedurally unreasonable; court provided adequate, if not extensive, reasons
Whether the sentence is substantively unreasonable	Hope: sentence is excessive relative to breach and underlying conduct	Gov: sentence justified by need to protect public, deter future violence, and breach of trust	Not substantively unreasonable; reasons supported sentence up to statutory max
Whether appellate review should be deferential or strict	Hope: urged closer scrutiny to find plain unreasonableness	Gov: urged deferential review for revocation sentencing	Court applied deferential standard for revocation and declined to find plain unreasonableness
Whether remand-required proceedings produced a reversible error	Hope: remand did not cure alleged sentencing error	Gov: remand proceedings and amended judgment were proper	No reversible error; amended judgment affirmed

United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir.) (district court has broad discretion on revocation sentencing)
United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202 (4th Cir.) (discretion in sentencing context)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.) (standards for procedural and substantive reasonableness on revocation)
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir.) (deferential appellate posture for fact and discretion in revocation review)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir.) (less detailed explanation required for revocation sentences)