887 F.3d 326
7th Cir.2018Background
- Kyle Williams was charged in June 2014 with conspiracy to possess heroin with intent to distribute; he entered a treatment-based diversion (PADI) and graduated in June 2015.
- After positive drug tests and relapse incidents, the government terminated diversion; Williams pleaded guilty in August 2016 under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) to a 90-day term but the district court instead imposed time served and five years supervised release.
- In May 2017 Williams was charged in state court with DUI and possession of heroin; he admitted those violations and the probation officer petitioned to revoke his federal supervised release.
- At the revocation hearing the district court revoked supervised release and imposed the statutory maximum of three years’ imprisonment and one year supervised release.
- Williams appealed, arguing (1) the district court failed to properly consider the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines policy statements applicable to revocation and (2) the court failed to address his mitigation argument that his original criminal-history calculation was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court failed to consider the Sentencing Guidelines policy statements for revocation | Court did not adequately consider U.S.S.G. Chapter 7, Part B ranges | Court did consider the policy statements and permissibly rejected them as unhelpful | Court considered and rejected the policy statements; no procedural error (affirmed) |
| Whether the court failed to address Williams' mitigation claim about an original criminal-history error that would lower the revocation range | Court ignored Williams' argument that a lower criminal-history score would reduce the suggested revocation range | Court explicitly rejected the Guidelines ranges as inadequate and thus sufficiently addressed the argument | Court adequately considered and rejected the mitigation argument (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hollins, 847 F.3d 535 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for review of revocation sentences and requirement to consider Guidelines policy statements)
- United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir. 2015) (implicit consideration of policy statements can suffice at revocation)
- United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657 (7th Cir. 2007) (same)
- United States v. Donelli, 747 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2014) (district courts must address principal mitigating arguments with legal merit)
- United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (same)