United States v. Dalen King
914 F.3d 1021
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- Dalen King previously pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of ammunition and received 46 months imprisonment plus three years supervised release beginning Sept. 25, 2015.
- While on supervised release, probation reported multiple violations including drug use, failure to complete treatment, unreported residence change, and suspected drug distribution; a September 2017 search led to discovery of cocaine on King during a strip search at a federal facility.
- King was indicted and pled guilty to three drug-related counts; probation updated the violation report to include the new offenses and King admitted the violations.
- At a combined sentencing and supervised-release-violation hearing, the Guidelines recommended 30–37 months for the drug convictions and 24–30 months for the supervised-release violation, though 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) caps revocation at 24 months.
- The district court sentenced King to an aggregate 36 months: 30 months for the drug convictions and a consecutive 6 months for the supervised-release violation; defense counsel raised no objection at sentencing.
- On appeal King argued procedural unreasonableness, claiming the judge failed adequately to explain why the revocation term was consecutive rather than concurrent; the Sixth Circuit reviewed for plain error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court procedurally erred by not adequately explaining why the supervised-release revocation term ran consecutively | King: judge failed to explain why 6-month revocation term was consecutive rather than concurrent; thus sentence procedurally unreasonable | Government: district court considered applicable Guidelines/policy (including U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) and § 3553(a) factors) and adequately explained aggregate sentence; no objection at sentencing so review is plain error | Sixth Circuit: No plain error; record shows judge considered policy statements and § 3553(a) factors and adequately explained that a 36‑month aggregate sentence satisfied sentencing goals; affirmed |
| Whether explicit citation to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) or separate analysis was required | King: court’s failure to reference § 7B1.3(f) and to perform a distinct analysis rendered the consecutive sentence unexplained | Government: explicit citation not required if record shows consideration; judge’s remarks and the violation report demonstrate consideration | Held: Explicit reference unnecessary where record shows consideration and rationale for aggregate sentence; no error |
| Whether failure to address an argument in King’s sentencing memorandum (about criminal-history points) was reversible | King: contemporaneous guideline effect justified concurrent term since CH points increased guideline for drug count | Government: sentencing judge need not address every passing argument, particularly those raised only in memorandum and not at hearing | Held: Not plain error; judge need not expressly respond to every brief mitigating argument |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for sentencing; plain-error framework for unobjected-to procedural defects)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (plain-error review described; definition of plain error)
- United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (policy statement §7B1.3(f) not binding but must be considered when applicable)
- United States v. Hall, 632 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 2011) (explicit citation to policy statement not required where record otherwise shows consideration)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (sentencing judges not required to address every argument explicitly)
- United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2008) (district court need not explicitly address every mitigating argument)
- United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2009) (no separate Section 3553(a) analysis required for consecutive vs concurrent determination)
- United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2012) (distinguishing policy provisions applicable to convictions occurring while on supervised release from those governing supervised-release revocations)