United States v. Eric Sears, 32 F.4th 569

Sears was convicted in 2016 of cocaine conspiracy and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment followed by 3 years supervised release; that supervised release was revoked in 2017 (8 months custody, 28 months supervised release).
In July 2020 Sears was arrested in Ohio on multiple drug and firearm charges; he pled guilty in the Northern District of Ohio with a combined Guidelines range of 111–123 months.
A supervised-release violation warrant was transferred to the Northern District of Ohio; probation identified a new-law violation and a failure to notify change of address.
The Guidelines range for revocation was 18–24 months; the district court revoked supervised release and imposed 18 months consecutive to the 111-month sentence (total 129 months).
On appeal Sears argued (1) the court miscalculated the statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) by failing to credit 8 months previously served, and (2) the consecutive supervised-release revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prior post-revocation imprisonment must be credited against the § 3583(e)(3) 2‑year statutory maximum for a subsequent revocation	Sears: prior 8 months served for an earlier supervised‑release revocation should reduce the 24‑month statutory cap to 16 months	Gov’t: § 3583(e)(3) authorizes up to 2 years for each revocation and contains no aggregation/crediting requirement	Court: Rejects Sears; after the 2003 amendment (§ 3583(e)(3) “on any such revocation”) prior revocation prison time is not credited and each revocation has its own 2‑year cap
Whether ordering the 18‑month revocation term consecutive to the federal sentence was substantively unreasonable	Sears: consecutive time is greater than necessary given hardships, prompt admissions, caregiver status, and age	Gov’t: consecutive sentence is supported by § 3553(a) factors, defendant’s repeated violations, and the Guidelines policy favoring consecutive service	Court: Sentence substantively reasonable; judge adequately explained rationale, imposed low‑end Guidelines sentence, and did not abuse discretion

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for procedural and substantive reasonableness review of sentences)
Holguin‑Hernandez v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 762 (2020) (district court must give adequate consideration to § 3553(a) factors)
United States v. Price, 901 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2018) (§ 3583(h) requires reducing supervised‑release term by aggregate post‑revocation imprisonment; does not mandate credit against § 3583(e)(3) revocation cap)
United States v. Perry, 743 F.3d 238 (7th Cir. 2014) (post‑2003 interpretation: amendment eliminated aggregation/credit for prior revocation prison time)
United States v. Epstein, 620 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2010) (same: amendment removes crediting of prior revocation imprisonment)
United States v. Shabazz, 633 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2011) (same statutory reading)
United States v. Knight, 580 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2009) (same statutory reading)
United States v. Hernandez, 655 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2011) (same statutory reading)
United States v. Spencer, 720 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (same statutory reading)
United States v. West, 962 F.3d 183 (6th Cir. 2020) (within‑Guidelines sentences are presumptively reasonable)
United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain‑error standard and exceptional‑circumstances test for unobjected‑to sentencing errors)