United States v. Krystal Sisler, 680 F. App'x 207

Defendant Krystal Eileen Sisler appealed after the district court revoked her probation and sentenced her to 37 months’ imprisonment.
Sisler previously received a downward departure from an original Guidelines range of 30–37 months to 18–24 months and then a variance to probation.
At the revocation hearing, defense counsel noted Sisler’s lack of criminal history, argued she was a nonviolent, first-time drug offender, and requested a short term sufficient to obtain residential drug treatment; counsel also stated the Chapter 7 policy range was 3–9 months.
The Government asked for 18 months (the low end of the earlier downward-departure range).
The district court imposed 37 months, explaining it was an upward variance to a term within the original pre-departure Guidelines range and citing Sisler’s inability/unwillingness to follow probation protocol and danger posed to herself and others.
On appeal, Sisler argued the sentence was plainly unreasonable and that the court failed to adequately consider the Guidelines, § 3553(a) factors, and made clearly erroneous factual findings about danger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the 37-month revocation sentence procedurally reasonable?	Sisler: court failed to properly consider Chapter 7 policy range and § 3553(a); did not explain its reasoning.	Govt: court considered parties’ arguments, advisory ranges, and grounds for revocation.	Court: procedurally reasonable—court considered Guidelines/policy statements and parties’ positions; no rote recitation of § 3553(a) required.
Was the sentence substantively reasonable?	Sisler: 37 months is excessive given nonviolent, first-time status and requested treatment-oriented short term.	Govt: sentence within statutory maximum and justified by breach of probation and need for sanction.	Court: substantively reasonable—district court stated proper basis (sanctioning breach and protection concerns).
Did the court plainly err in finding Sisler posed danger to herself/others?	Sisler: factual finding was clearly erroneous.	Govt: record supports court’s factual conclusions.	Court: findings supported by record; not clearly erroneous.
Is the sentence plainly unreasonable under plain-error review?	Sisler: aggregate procedural/substantive errors make sentence plainly unreasonable.	Govt: no procedural or substantive unreasonableness shown.	Court: sentence not procedurally or substantively unreasonable, therefore not plainly unreasonable; judgment affirmed.

United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (standards for reviewing probation revocation sentences and deference to district court)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (reasonableness review framework and plain-unreasonableness standard)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (less detailed explanation required for revocation sentences than original sentences)
United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638 (4th Cir. 1995) (procedural reasonableness shown when court references probation worksheet and counsel’s argument reflecting consideration of policy statement range)
United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2006) (trial court need not recite each § 3553(a) subsection verbatim)