868 F.3d 598
7th Cir.2017Background
- James White was convicted in 2011 of failing to register as a sex offender (stemming from a 2002 sexual-exploitation/battery conviction) and was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment plus 5 years’ supervised release.
- While on supervised release, White pleaded guilty in state court to credit-card fraud and theft; the probation officer reported additional unproven allegations (possible robbery in Iowa) and unauthorized travel.
- The probation officer calculated a policy-statement range of 21–27 months (category VI, Grade B), recommended the statutory maximum 24 months (capped by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c)(3)), and urged incarceration and no further supervision.
- At the revocation hearing the probation officer made inflammatory, adversarial statements (labeling White sociopathic and not amenable to treatment); the prosecutor urged a consecutive sentence and criticized White’s conduct; defense counsel disputed factual assertions and noted a psychiatrist’s report finding no need for psychiatric intervention.
- The district court revoked supervised release, imposed 20 months’ imprisonment consecutive to White’s state sentence, and declined to impose further supervised release; judgment initially listed two violations but the court only based revocation on the new criminal conduct.
Issues
| Issue | White's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 20-month consecutive revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable | Sentence is unreasonable because prosecutor and probation officer presented inaccurate, inflammatory information that affected outcome | Below-guidelines sentence presumed reasonable; record supports revocation and 20-month term | Affirmed: below-guidelines term is presumed reasonable and White did not rebut presumption |
| Whether probation officer’s misconduct (advocacy, misstatements) violated due process by relying on inaccurate info | Probation officer’s personal, inflammatory attacks and unsupported assertions deprived White of accurate-basis sentencing | Probation officer’s statements inappropriate but district court did not rely on them | Court condemned conduct but found no due-process violation because judge did not rely on misinformation |
| Whether district court relied on unsupported psychiatric conclusions to deny supervision | White: probation officer’s view that he was not amenable to supervision lacked evidentiary support (psychiatrist found no need for treatment) | Government: court independently reviewed record and grounds for no supervised release | Held: judge’s reasons (poor adaptation to supervision, specific offense while on release) justify denying further supervision despite officer’s remarks |
| Whether revocation judgment should list two violations (new crimes and unauthorized travel) | White: contesting factual basis and fairness | Government: conceded judgment should reflect only the found violation | Modified: strike finding for unauthorized travel; affirm remainder of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mbaye, 827 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2016) (below-guidelines sentence is presumed reasonable)
- United States v. Chatman, 805 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2015) (due-process right to be sentenced on accurate information)
- United States v. Mejia, 859 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2017) (defendant’s right to accurate sentencing information reinforced)
- United States v. Peterson, 711 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2013) (probation officers must not assume adversarial role at sentencing)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (misinformation at sentencing can require remedy when it is of constitutional magnitude)