United States v. Fulton, 567 F. App'x 668

Fulton appeals a 24‑month sentence after revocation of supervised release.
Sentence exceeded the advisory range (8–14 months) for revocation and was justified as a variance.
Fulton has a lengthy revocation history with multiple violations under supervised release since 2011, including drug testing positives, travel violations, and other noncompliant conduct.
District court stated it would rescind supervised release and impose prison due to Fulton’s defiant attitude and repeated violations, rejecting leniency.
The court explained the variance was to deter future violations and not to punish remorse; the advisory range was not determinative given the cumulation of violations and Fulton’s history.
Appellate review affirmed the sentence as reasonable and within statutory authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a variance above Guidelines.	Fulton argues the court used an improper trade-off and punished lack of remorse.	Fulton contends the variance was warranted by repeated violations and deterrence.	No abuse; variance supported and reasonable.
Whether the court properly considered 3553(a) factors in the revocation sentence.	Fulton claims factors were not adequately weighed.	Court properly weighed factors and cumulation of violations.	Court’s reasoning satisfied §3553(a) considerations.

United States v. Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2004) (authority on revocation sentencing with §3583(e) constraints)
United States v. Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2006) (guidelines and statutory factors in revocation sentences)
United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness review of revocation sentences)
United States v. Ruby, 706 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2013) (reasonableness and abuse of discretion standards in revocation cases)
United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800 (10th Cir. 2008) (requirement for reasoned rationale supporting variance)