United States v. Erick Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199

Erick Gibbs pleaded guilty in 2010 to being a felon in possession of a firearm, received 36 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release.
While on supervised release he committed four violations: misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia (2013), two positive marijuana tests (2013), and a 2014 conviction for conspiracy to traffic heroin (sentenced 19–32 months). He admitted all violations at the revocation hearing.
The violations were Grade A; with Criminal History VI the Guidelines recommended 33–41 months, but statutory maximum for revocation was 24 months, making 24 months the applicable Guidelines-recommended revocation sentence.
Defense asked for a 12-month downward variance based on (1) extreme family hardship, (2) time already served on the state sentence, (3) employability/skills from a training program, and (4) purported cooperation with law enforcement.
Government emphasized seriousness of the heroin offense, extensive criminal history (assaults, resisting officers, multiple drug convictions, gang affiliation), but acknowledged helpful cooperation; an agent was present but not heard.
District court imposed the 24‑month sentence, briefly recited Gibbs’s violations and criminal history, stated Gibbs had a “scant employment record and little in the way of marketable job skills,” declined to reduce the sentence after defense asked reconsideration, and entered judgment. Gibbs appealed only the procedural reasonableness of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation sentence was procedurally reasonable	Gibbs: district court failed to adequately address his nonfrivolous mitigation (family hardship, time served, employability, cooperation) and made a contrary factual finding about job skills without explanation	Government/District court: court considered the arguments, noted and rejected them, emphasized severity of violations and lengthy criminal history; revocation review is deferential and within-range sentences require less explanation	Affirmed: court provided sufficient explanation in context; it considered Gibbs’s arguments and relied on seriousness of violations and criminal history to impose the within‑range 24‑month term (not plainly unreasonable)

United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (revocation sentences reviewed with deference; less explanation required than for original sentences)
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (revocation sentencing must show consideration of §3553(a) factors and parties’ arguments)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (where record shows consideration, trial court need not write extensively)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (district court must adequately explain chosen sentence; extent of explanation varies with context)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (within-range revocation sentence vacated where court gave no explanation)
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (within-Guidelines revocation sentences are presumptively reasonable on substantive review)
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572 (4th Cir. 2010) (sentencing court must respond to nonfrivolous mitigating arguments)
United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2017) (vacated revocation sentence where court imposed upward variance without addressing defendant’s nonfrivolous arguments)
United States v. Blue, 877 F.3d 513 (4th Cir. 2017) (court must address each nonfrivolous mitigating argument; failure to do so is reversible)