United States v. Daoust, 888 F.3d 571

Defendant Robert Daoust pleaded guilty in 2010 to possession with intent to distribute heroin; original term followed by three years supervised release that began September 29, 2016.
After release he obtained employment and treatment but soon moved in with a convicted-felon companion and, while intoxicated, committed a domestic-violence incident (striking and threatening the companion and assaulting an intervenor).
State authorities charged him with misdemeanor domestic-violence assault; U.S. Probation alleged four supervised-release violations (one later dismissed); Daoust admitted three violations.
The advisory revocation guideline range was 8–14 months (Grade C); the statutory maximum for revocation was two years.
The district court imposed a two-year prison term (above the guideline range) followed by 34 months supervised release; Daoust appealed claiming sentencing error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) required advance notice before an above-guidelines sentence on supervised-release revocation	Government: Rule 32(h) does not apply to revocations governed by Rule 32.1; no notice required	Daoust: Court should have given notice under Rule 32(h) before imposing sentence above guideline range	Court: No error — Rule 32(h) does not apply to supervised-release revocations; sentence was a variance (not a departure) and not a surprise
Whether the district court adequately considered 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)/§ 3553(a) sentencing factors	Government: Court considered relevant factors and identified those driving the sentence	Daoust: Court failed to properly assess or weigh the required factors	Court: No error — the court explicitly considered the factors and identified main factors (dangerousness, deterrence, protection of public)
Whether the two-year revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable (and whether state misdemeanor max limits revocation exposure)	Daoust: Two-year sentence is excessive and cannot exceed Maine misdemeanor max (364 days)	Government: Supervised-release violation is independent; statutory two-year max for revocations of class D felony governs; sentence justified by dangerous conduct and deterrence	Court: Sentence substantively reasonable — plausible rationale, within the broad range of reasonable outcomes; state misdemeanor max does not limit federal revocation maximum

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing review standards; abuse-of-discretion framework)
Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708 (rule distinguishing variances from departures; Rule 32(h) notice not required for variances)
United States v. Santini-Santiago, 846 F.3d 487 (distinguishing variances from departures in revocation context)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (substantive-reasonableness standard; universe of reasonable sentences)
United States v. Work, 409 F.3d 484 (supervised-release revocation exposure not circumscribed by state/substantive sentence)
United States v. Márquez-García, 862 F.3d 143 (revocation sentencing factors and reasonableness)
United States v. Alejandro-Rosado, 878 F.3d 435 (upward variance in revocation context found substantively reasonable)