United States v. Justin Clark, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16699

Justin Clark pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and was sentenced in 2006 to 120 months (later reduced to time served) plus five years’ supervised release, which began in Nov. 2009.
While on supervised release Clark agreed to additional conditions (mental health/anger management counseling and electronic monitoring) and was later alleged to have left the district without permission and been in a car in Iowa where cash (reported as $10,000 and $20,000) was found.
Clark admitted the violation. At revocation he faced an advisory Guidelines range of 7–13 months; he asked for house arrest, the Government sought 13 months.
The District Court revoked supervised release, sentenced Clark to 13 months’ imprisonment and then imposed a 47‑month term of supervised release, stating generally that it had considered the § 3553(a) factors.
Defense objected on the record that the 47‑month supervised‑release term was unsupported; the District Court did not address that objection on the record.
On appeal Clark argued the court procedurally erred by failing to perform a separate § 3553(a) analysis for the supervised‑release term (and that the sentence was substantively unreasonable). The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for procedural reasons.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a district court must conduct a separate § 3553(a) analysis for post‑revocation imprisonment and for a newly imposed term of supervised release	Clark: district court must apply § 3553(a) separately to the supervised‑release portion; failure to do so is procedural error	Government/District Court: a single, reasoned § 3553(a) analysis may suffice for both imprisonment and supervised‑release portions	The court held a separate § 3553(a) analysis is not required; a single meaningful § 3553(a) consideration may support both portions
Whether the sentencing record reflected meaningful consideration of the § 3553(a) factors supporting the 47‑month supervised‑release term	Clark: the record lacks meaningful application of § 3553(a) to justify 47 months on supervised release	Government: the court’s overall § 3553(a) statements and discussion of Clark’s noncompliance suffice	The court held the record did not show rational and meaningful consideration of the § 3553(a) factors; sentence was procedurally unreasonable and was vacated and remanded

United States v. Penn, 601 F.3d 1007 (10th Cir. 2010) (single § 3553(a) analysis can suffice for both reimprisonment and supervised release)
United States v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766 (3d Cir. 2010) (revocation‑sentence reasonableness standard and requirement of meaningful consideration of § 3553(a))
United States v. Lofink, 564 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2009) (three‑step sentencing process and § 3553(a) consideration)
United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2007) (purpose of post‑revocation imprisonment is to sanction breach of trust)
United States v. Santiago‑Rivera, 594 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2010) (factors for imposing supervised release on revocation mirror those for initial imposition)
United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2007) (review asks whether the record as a whole reflects rational and meaningful consideration of § 3553(a))
United States v. Joline, 662 F.3d 657 (3d Cir. 2011) (sentencing explanation need only allow meaningful appellate review; no ritualistic recitation required)