United States v. John Brooker, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10152

Brooker pleaded guilty in 2011 to possession of a counterfeit obligation, was sentenced to 70 months and three years supervised release; supervised release began June 26, 2015.
The government moved to revoke Brooker’s supervised release in May 2016, alleging methamphetamine use/possession, multiple positive drug tests, refusal of substance-abuse counseling, and failure to make fine payments.
At the revocation hearing Brooker pleaded true to the violations; the district court revoked supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment (no further supervised release), noting prior supervision had failed.
Brooker objected, arguing the court failed to meaningfully consider placement in a drug treatment program under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and that he was denied a meaningful opportunity for allocution prior to revocation.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and the ‘‘plainly unreasonable’’ standard for revocation sentences, and considered whether the court implicitly considered the § 3583(d) treatment exception and whether allocution rights were violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court was required to consider § 3583(d) treatment exception before revoking supervised release	Brooker: court should have applied § 3583(d) and placed him in drug treatment instead of imprisonment	Government/District Court: revocation was required by § 3583(g) given possession/refusal to comply and court implicitly considered and rejected treatment	Court: No reversible error; even if § 3583(d) applied, the record shows implicit consideration and rejection of treatment, so revocation was proper
Whether Brooker was denied meaningful opportunity for allocution before revocation	Brooker: he should have been allowed to speak before revocation (not just before sentencing)	Government: Rule 32 requires opportunity to speak before sentencing; Brooker had opportunity before sentence was imposed	Court: No error—Brooker had ample allocution after revocation but before sentencing; no controlling authority requiring allocution prior to revocation

United States v. McCormick, 54 F.3d 214 (5th Cir.) (standard for revocation review)
United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (two-step ‘‘plainly unreasonable’’ review for revocation sentences)
United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491 (5th Cir.) (no checklist recitation required; implicit consideration sufficient)
United States v. Reyna, 358 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. en banc) (plain error standard for unpreserved allocution claims)
United States v. Crace, 207 F.3d 833 (6th Cir.) (no magic words needed to show court considered drug-treatment alternative)
United States v. Hammonds, 370 F.3d 1032 (10th Cir.) (implicit consideration of treatment where parties disputed alternative)
United States v. Pierce, 132 F.3d 1207 (8th Cir.) (remand where court treated revocation as mandatory and failed to consider treatment)
United States v. Evans, 587 F.3d 667 (5th Cir.) (no plain error when appellant cites no controlling Fifth Circuit precedent on allocution timing)