United States v. Lacrelle Clay
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10006
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- LaCrelle Clay began supervised release in May 2013 after a 7-year federal sentence for drug and gun offenses.
- Within months Clay committed multiple supervised-release violations: a state conviction for obstructing an officer (plea), two drug-related arrests/citations, continued drug use, missed drug tests, failure to report and find employment, and associating with felons.
- The district court classified the state conviction as a Grade B violation and, with Clay’s criminal-history category V, the Guidelines range for revocation was 18–24 months under U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4.
- The court revoked Clay’s supervised release and sentenced him to the top of the range, 24 months, citing factors including the need to reflect seriousness, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment.
- Clay appealed, arguing the district court erred by relying on 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) (seriousness/promote respect/just punishment), a subsection not listed among the permissible factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(A) in revocation is not a procedural error when the court primarily relies on factors enumerated in § 3583(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may rely on § 3553(a)(2)(A) when imposing revocation imprisonment | Clay: § 3553(a)(2)(A) is excluded by § 3583(e); relying on it is error | Government: § 3553(a)(2)(A) overlaps with permitted § 3583(e) factors and may be considered | Court: Permissible to consider § 3553(a)(2)(A) so long as primary reliance is on § 3583(e) factors |
| Whether the sentence was an abuse of discretion | Clay: sentence improperly based on excluded factor and thus substantively unreasonable | Government: sentence within Guidelines range and based on defendant’s conduct and history | Court: No abuse of discretion; 24 months justified by repeated, serious violations |
| Applicable standard of review for unpreserved challenge | Clay: plain error (not raised below) | Government: abuse of discretion (or at least affirmable) | Court: unnecessary to decide; result affirmed under either standard |
| Role of "just punishment" language in revocation sentencing | Clay: "just punishment" is punishment for offense and thus inappropriate in revocation | Government: context shows sanction for breach of supervision and deterrence, not new-crime punishment | Court: "Just punishment" reference in context described a permissible supervisory sanction and deterrent; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bartlett, 567 F.3d 901 (argument that district court failed to explain sentence)
- United States v. Pitre, 504 F.3d 657 (plain-error review when challenge not raised below)
- United States v. Young, 634 F.3d 233 (nature of violation includes seriousness)
- United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393 (overlap between seriousness and nature of violation)
- United States v. Williams, 443 F.3d 35 (seriousness encompassed in nature of offense)
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (promoting respect for law relates to deterrence)
- United States v. Vargas-Davila, 649 F.3d 129 (respect for law tied to deterrence)
- United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (Fifth Circuit: § 3553(a)(2)(A) excluded by § 3583(e))
- United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100 (Ninth Circuit: bars consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(A) on revocation)
- United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (distinguishing sanction for breach from punishment for new crime)
- United States v. Paul, 542 F.3d 596 (abuse-of-discretion standard description)
- United States v. Musso, 643 F.3d 566 (repeated violations justify revocation sentence)
- United States v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427 (same)
- United States v. Salinas, 365 F.3d 582 (same)