United States v. Donald Blakley, 708 F. App'x 265

In 2005 Blakley was convicted of possessing child pornography, sentenced to 87 months imprisonment and a life term of supervised release; he was released and supervised beginning in 2011.
Blakley previously violated supervised-release conditions on two occasions (resulting in weekend confinement and a four-month revocation sentence in 2014).
A December 2016 probation visit revealed Blakley possessed an HTC phone with a working front-facing camera, Wi‑Fi connection, email account, and 676 web-history entries; a forensic exam showed internet access and downloaded images.
Probation policy permitted internet access only via a monitored computer; Blakley had not obtained permission to possess a smartphone with internet access.
The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Blakley violated two supervised‑release conditions (possession of a device capable of taking pictures and of accessing the internet) and revoked supervised release.
The court sentenced Blakley to 18 months’ imprisonment (above the recommended Guidelines range) citing deterrence, public protection, prior violations, and the §3553(a) factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking supervised release	Evidence (phone with camera, Wi‑Fi, web history, conflicting statements) shows violation; revocation appropriate	Blakley argued he lacked knowledge the phone had a front camera and did not access the internet	Court: No abuse; preponderance supported violations and credibility findings were not clearly erroneous
Whether the 18‑month sentence was procedurally unreasonable	District court asked for objections; it relied on credible facts and considered §3553(a) factors	Blakley argued court relied on a clearly erroneous factual finding about his technical familiarity	Court: Plain‑error standard applied; no clear procedural error—credibility finding supported by record
Whether the 18‑month sentence was substantively unreasonable	Government: sentence justified by deterrence, protection, prior violations, and avoiding disparities	Blakley: above‑Guidelines term excessive given circumstances	Court: Sentence reasonable—district court considered §3553(a) factors and prior violations warranted above‑Guidelines sentence
Standard of review for revocation and sentencing	N/A	N/A	Court applied abuse‑of‑discretion to revocation, clear‑error to findings, de‑novo to legal conclusions; Gall standard for sentence review

United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir.) (standards for review of supervised‑release revocation)
United States v. Hilliard, 11 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 1993) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (factfinder’s choice between permissible views is not clearly erroneous)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reasonableness review of sentence)
United States v. Houston, 529 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2008) (examples of significant procedural sentencing errors)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir.) (plain‑error framework for preserved/unpreserved sentencing objections)
United States v. Wallace, 597 F.3d 794 (6th Cir.) (plain‑error elements)
United States v. Wendlandt, 714 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2013) (deference when district court considers §3553(a) factors before deviating from Guidelines)
United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 2006) (substantive‑reasonableness principles)