United States v. Ferrell Butler
688 F. App'x 630
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Butler was serving a four-year term of supervised release after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute 18.3 grams of crack cocaine (a Class B felony at sentencing).
- While on supervised release he sold or directed sales of controlled substances and failed to notify his probation officer that he changed residences.
- Police searched a house where Butler was present and found drugs packaged for sale, bullets in the kitchen, and a loaded firearm in a car trunk for which Butler had the only key.
- The district court revoked Butler’s supervised release and sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment (the statutory maximum for revocation following a Class B felony).
- Butler appealed, arguing the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable; he did not object at the revocation hearing, so the court reviewed procedural claims for plain error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness of sentence | Butler: court procedurally erred by not calculating the Guidelines range and failing to properly explain sentence | Government: district court considered the §3553(a) factors and expressed intent to impose statutory maximum; any omission was not prejudicial | No plain error — court adequately considered factors and stated intent to impose the statutory maximum, so Butler did not show reasonable probability of different result |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Butler: 36 months was greater than necessary and unreasonable under §3553(a) | Government: sentence justified by seriousness of violations, danger to public, deterrence, and Butler’s poor supervised-release performance | Sentence substantively reasonable — district court did not abuse discretion in weighing §3553(a) factors |
| Burden of proof on appeal | Butler: sentence unreasonably high given the record | Government: appellant bears burden to show unreasonableness; record shows consideration of factors | Butler failed to meet burden; district court’s sentencing rationale supported the sentence |
| Reliance on single factor | Butler: court improperly gave undue weight to one factor (public protection/deterrence) | Government: court may weigh factors as it deems fit within discretion | No abuse — court permissibly emphasized deterrence/public protection without unjustified reliance on a single improper factor |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (standards for reviewing revocation-of-supervised-release sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for sentencing)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error review standards)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (requiring reasonable probability of different result to show plain error affected substantial rights)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (brief explanations can be sufficient when record shows sentencing judge considered arguments)
- United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion occurs if court fails to consider significant factors or gives weight to improper factors)
- United States v. Crisp, 454 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2006) (improper reliance on a single §3553(a) factor can indicate unreasonableness)