United States v. Kevin Smith
698 F. App'x 154
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Kevin Lavon Smith’s supervised release was revoked after he was removed from two drug treatment programs for illegal drug use.
- The Sentencing Guidelines Chapter Seven policy range was calculated at 8–14 months for the revocation.
- The district court imposed the statutory maximum revocation term of 36 months.
- The court justified the above-range sentence by citing Smith’s breach of trust, repeated failure to comply with the law, propensity to commit crimes while using drugs, and potential to benefit from further treatment while incarcerated.
- Smith appealed, arguing the sentence was plainly unreasonable because the court failed to adequately explain the above-range sentence and the 36-month term was disproportionate to his violations.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court adequately considered relevant factors and provided a sufficient individualized explanation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural reasonableness — adequacy of district court's explanation for above-range sentence | Smith: court failed to adequately explain why it imposed the statutory maximum | Gov't: court expressly considered Guidelines, §3553(a) factors, and gave individualized reasons (breach of trust, recidivism, danger, treatment needs) | Affirmed — explanation was adequate for a revocation sentence |
| Substantive reasonableness — whether 36 months was disproportionate | Smith: 36 months is plainly unreasonable and disproportionate given the nature of violations | Gov't: court acted within broad discretion; sentence within statutory maximum and justified by Smith's history and risk | Affirmed — sentence not plainly unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 2013) (district courts have broad discretion in revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2015) (review of revocation sentence for plain unreasonableness; Guidelines-range sentences presumed reasonable)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework applies to revocation sentences)
- United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (revocation sentences require consideration of Chapter Seven policy statements and §3553(a); explanation need not be as detailed as post-conviction sentences)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sentencing courts must make an individualized assessment under §3553(a))