United States v. Cortez Barefield
714 F. App'x 237
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Cortez L. Barefield appealed a 60-month sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release.
- The sentence was the statutory maximum within the advisory policy statement range.
- District court found Barefield repeatedly and quickly violated supervised release, including heroin trafficking; some state heroin charges were dismissed.
- Barefield argued procedural error (insufficient explanation for maximum within-range sentence) and substantive unreasonableness (court failed to account for his original longer sentence and overrelied on dismissed heroin charge).
- District court explained sentence by emphasizing breaches of trust, public protection, deterrence, and need for psychological testing; court relied on Barefield’s admitted involvement with heroin.
- District court declined to credit state custody time; appellate note explained BOP—not the sentencing court—computes credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of revocation sentence | Barefield: court failed to provide sufficient reasoning for imposing statutory-maximum within-range sentence | Government: court adequately considered Chapter 7 policy statements and §3553(a) factors and explained breaches of trust | Affirmed — no reversible procedural error; explanation sufficient given deferential standard for revocation sentences |
| Reliance on dismissed state heroin charge | Barefield: court improperly relied on a dismissed charge to justify sentence | Government: Barefield admitted heroin trafficking and acknowledged community involvement; court discussed the charge in context of continued misconduct | Affirmed — use of the heroin conduct was appropriate; dismissal did not negate admissions and relevance |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence length | Barefield: court failed to account for his original (longer) sentence and overweighed heroin involvement | Government: repeated and serious violations justified maximum revocation term to protect public and deter | Affirmed — substantive sentence reasonable based on repeated, serious violations and breaches of trust |
| Credit for time in state custody | Barefield: district court should have credited state custody toward federal sentence | Government: BOP computes sentence commencement and credits; sentencing court lacks authority to order credit | Affirmed in substance — district court lacked authority; credit issue for BOP per Wilson |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir.) (explains interplay of §3583 and §3553(a) factors in revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir.) (standard for reasonableness review of revocation sentences)
- United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir.) (appellate deference in revocation-sentence review)
- United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir.) (less detailed reasons required for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Boulware, 604 F.3d 832 (4th Cir.) (harmless error where court rejects weak mitigation in light of strong justification)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (Sup. Ct.) (BOP, not sentencing court, computes federal sentence credits)