United States v. Keith Nelson, 37 F.4th 962

Nelson convicted in 2002 of two Illinois sex offenses and required to register as a sex offender; later pleaded guilty in federal court to failing to update his registration under 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a).
At original sentencing, § 3583(k) applied, producing a mandatory supervised-release term of at least five years (and up to life); court imposed 41 months imprisonment and 25 years supervised release.
Over the years Nelson repeatedly violated supervised release; at his fifth revocation proceeding (Apr. 2021) he admitted violations.
The probation officer and the district court treated 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) (revocation-supervised-release provision) and U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3 as creating a five-year minimum at revocation; court imposed 24 months custody plus five years supervised release.
On appeal (plain-error review because Nelson did not object below), Nelson argued § 3583(h) authorizes supervised release after revocation but sets only a maximum (“shall not exceed”), not a minimum; the Fourth Circuit agreed.
Court vacated Nelson’s entire revocation sentence and remanded for resentencing so the district court may re-evaluate custody and supervised-release terms under the correct legal framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) requires a minimum supervised-release term at revocation	Nelson: § 3583(h) is permissive (“may”) and limits length only by a ceiling (“shall not exceed”); no minimum	Government: court may impose zero, but if it imposes supervised release § 3583(k)’s original minimum also applies (i.e., zero or at least five years)	§ 3583(h) does not create a minimum; it is discretionary and provides only an upper limit mirroring the statute and Guidelines’ text
Whether the district court’s error was plain and affected substantial rights	Nelson: miscalculation of statutory and Guidelines range was plain error and likely affected the sentence because court selected the low end (five years) of what it believed to be the range	Government: district court gave reasons and sentence was below the statutory maximum, so defendant cannot show prejudice	Error was plain (textual clarity and circuit consensus) and affected substantial rights under Molina‑Martinez logic; vacatur and resentencing ordered

United States v. Teague, 8 F.4th 611 (7th Cir. 2021) (interpreting § 3583(h) as permissive and establishing a ceiling but no floor for post‑revocation supervised release)
United States v. Campos, 922 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 2019) (same conclusion that § 3583(h) prescribes a ceiling, not a minimum)
United States v. Roebuck, [citation="761 F. App'x 98"] (3d Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (concluding § 3583(h) does not impose a mandatory post‑revocation supervised‑release minimum)
United States v. Green, 996 F.3d 176 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing plain‑error review in sentencing contexts)
Molina‑Martinez v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1338 (2016) (advisory Guidelines miscalculation ordinarily shows reasonable probability of different outcome)
Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (setting plain‑error review framework)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (requiring an error be "clear or obvious" to be plain error)