United States v. Joshua Scott, 24-13332

Joshua Scott pled guilty in 2018 to unlawful possession of a firearm as a convicted felon after threatening his wife with a shotgun and was sentenced to 63 months in prison and two years of supervised release.
After his release in December 2022, Scott violated his supervised release by possessing a firearm belonging to his mother, allegedly refusing to return it, and making threatening statements about killing his mother.
A revocation petition alleged violations including possession of a firearm and ammunition and committing theft, terroristic threats, and possession of drug-related objects.
Scott admitted to the firearm possession violation, and, as part of a plea agreement, other alleged violations were dismissed.
The guideline range for revocation was calculated as 12-18 months’ imprisonment, but the district court varied upward and imposed the statutory maximum of 24 months based on Scott’s history and conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Scott argued the sentence was unreasonably harsh due to an inaccurate assessment of his conduct and insufficient consideration of § 3553(a) factors	Government argued Scott’s conduct and criminal history justified an above-guideline sentence	Court affirmed the 24-month sentence, finding no abuse of discretion
Use of unchallenged facts in sentencing	Scott raised no specific objection but suggested court misunderstood facts (e.g., severity of violations)	Government noted undisputed facts in PSR/reports can be relied upon	Court held reliance on undisputed facts was proper
Correct guideline range application	Scott conceded the guideline calculations were technically correct	Government agreed with the calculation	Court adopted the guideline range but found variance warranted under § 3553(a)
Consideration of prior leniency	Scott disputed that he had been given a "break" before	Government noted the prior below-guideline sentence	Court found it reasonable to consider prior leniency and its lack of deterrent effect

United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard for review of sentences imposed following revocation of supervised release)
United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) (court may rely on undisputed facts in a presentence report)
United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006) (failure to object to presentence report facts admits those facts for sentencing)
United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2000) (requirement to consider guideline range and § 3553(a) factors at revocation)
United States v. Grushko, 50 F.4th 1 (11th Cir. 2022) (upward variances from guidelines must be supported by compelling justifications)
United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262 (11th Cir. 2023) (standard for substantive reasonableness and deference to district court’s § 3553(a) analysis)