United States v. Lacresha Slappy, 872 F.3d 202

Slappy pleaded guilty in 2006 to armed bank robbery, served 107 months, and began five years of supervised release on September 30, 2014.
Probation filed revocation charges after positive drug screens and later an amended petition alleging additional violations including shoplifting, missed drug tests, marijuana use, leaving the district without permission, and absconding.
At the revocation hearing Slappy admitted two Grade C violations (drug use and leaving the district); the Chapter 7 advisory range was 7–13 months and the statutory maximum was 36 months.
Slappy urged a 13‑month sentence and highlighted employment, rehabilitation efforts, and community service; the Government sought the 36‑month statutory maximum emphasizing her extensive criminal history and the seriousness of prior offenses.
The district court imposed the 36‑month maximum, stating it considered § 3553(a) factors and Chapter 7 policy statements, but did not specifically address Slappy’s mitigating arguments or explain why the maximum was necessary.
The Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the revocation sentence procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to address nonfrivolous mitigation arguments and to explain the upward selection of the statutory maximum; the dissent would have affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation sentence was procedurally reasonable given district court’s failure to address Slappy’s nonfrivolous mitigation evidence	Slappy: court must address and explain why it rejects nonfrivolous arguments for a within‑range sentence	Government: court sufficiently considered § 3553(a) and need not engage argument-by-argument if unconvinced	Court: district court erred procedurally by not addressing Slappy’s nonfrivolous arguments; vacated and remanded
Whether court adequately explained imposition of statutory maximum rather than advisory Chapter 7 range	Slappy: court failed to explain why 36 months was necessary over the 7–13 month advisory range	Government: court referenced history, deterrence, and protection of the public; explanation sufficient	Court: failure to explain why maximum was necessary compounded procedural error; remand required
Whether procedural error was harmless	Slappy: errors likely affected sentence; remand required	Government: did not carry burden to show harmlessness	Court: errors were not harmless; reversal required

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (district court should address nonfrivolous arguments and explain rejection when imposing a sentence)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (more significant justification required for major variances; need for individualized assessment)
United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (applying Rita: district court must explain why it rejects nonfrivolous arguments)
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (revocation sentences reviewed with relaxed but still meaningful explanation requirement)
United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (framework for reviewing revocation sentences and discussion of modified standards)
United States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (plainly unreasonable standard and harmless‑error discussion)