United States v. George Brown, 705 F. App'x 166

George Royal Brown, on supervised release for a prior check-fraud conspiracy, committed new offenses (mail theft, bank fraud, conspiracy) and was charged with violating supervised release terms (absconding, failing drug tests, stopping restitution payments, and committing new bank/mail fraud in Ohio).
At the revocation hearing Brown admitted the Grade C violations (absconding, drug-testing noncompliance, restitution nonpayment) but contested the Ohio bank/mail fraud allegations (Grade A).
The Government sought to introduce hearsay statements from four check-cashers (three incarcerated, one not located); Brown objected to their reliability and asserted they were not truly unavailable.
The district court admitted the hearsay after finding the statements substantially similar and the witnesses effectively unavailable, revoked supervised release, and calculated a Guidelines range based on the Grade A violation.
The court sentenced Brown to 30 months (below the 36-month statutory max) and stated it would have imposed the same 30-month sentence even absent the Grade A finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of hearsay at revocation hearing	Government: hearsay from unavailable witnesses is reliable and admissible to prove violations	Brown: statements unreliable; witnesses not truly unavailable; admitting them was error	Court assumed any error but treated it as harmless because of alternative findings and reliability factors
Whether admission of hearsay affected revocation and Guidelines calculation	Government: evidence supported Grade A violation and Guidelines calculation	Brown: reliance on hearsay improperly increased Guidelines range and prejudiced sentence	Court concluded any evidentiary error was harmless; court explicitly imposed same sentence even without Grade A finding
Procedural reasonableness of above-Guidelines variant sentence	Government: sentence within statutory max and justified by breach of trust	Brown: 30 months is an excessive variance from 6–12 mo Guidelines for Grade C violations	Court held sentence procedurally proper (considered §3553(a) factors) and not plainly unreasonable
Substantive reasonableness of the sentence (breach of trust justification)	Government: egregious breach of trust while on supervised release justifies variance	Brown: breach-of-trust rationale duplicates Guidelines and cannot support large variance	Court found breach of trust an appropriate principal basis for revocation sentence and affirmed reasonableness

United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for supervised-release revocation rulings)
United States v. Doswell, 670 F.3d 526 (4th Cir. 2012) (review of evidentiary rulings at revocation hearings)
United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2014) (harmlessness framework when assuming error in guidelines application)
United States v. Hargrove, 701 F.3d 156 (4th Cir. 2012) (assumed-error harmlessness inquiry to avoid unnecessary remand)
United States v. Ferguson, 752 F.3d 613 (4th Cir. 2014) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional errors at revocation)
United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (affirming revocation sentence if within statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (affirming substantial upward variance on revocation sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness principles; review of variances)
United States v. Bennett, 698 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (treating egregious breach of trust as proper principal basis for revocation sentence)