United States v. Keith Netherland
674 F. App'x 426
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Keith S. Netherland pleaded guilty in 2005 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was on supervised release when he committed violations.
- After a second revocation of his supervised release, the district court imposed a 24-month sentence (the statutory maximum for the revocation).
- Netherland argued the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to give legally sufficient reasons for an above-guidelines sentence.
- He also argued the sentence was substantively unreasonable, asserting the only evidence of the violations was his undisputed testimony providing legitimate reasons for noncompliance.
- He did not object at sentencing to the sufficiency of the district court’s reasons (so procedural-review is for plain error), but he preserved the substantive-reasonableness challenge (review for abuse of discretion).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reason-giving for above-guidelines revocation sentence | Netherland: district court failed to provide legally sufficient reasons for imposing an above-guidelines sentence | Government/District Court: court considered Chapter 7 policy statements and §3553(a) factors and stated reasons for above-guidelines sentence | No plain procedural error; district court provided adequate reasons for review and did not commit clear or obvious error |
| Substantive reasonableness of 24-month sentence | Netherland: sentence unreasonable given his undisputed testimony explaining noncompliance | Government/District Court: repeated failures and lack of acceptance of responsibility justify statutory maximum; credibility findings support sentence | No abuse of discretion; sentence not substantively or plainly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Whitelaw, 580 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2009) (plain-error review and requirements for revocation-sentence explanation)
- United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (more deferential review of revocation-sentence explanations than original sentences)
- United States v. Warren, 720 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Alaniz-Alaniz, 38 F.3d 788 (5th Cir. 1994) (deference to district court credibility determinations)
- United States v. Kippers, 685 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for assessing substantive reasonableness of revocation sentences)