650 F. App'x 948
10th Cir.2016Background
- Myron Robert Lee admitted to multiple supervised-release violations (false statements to probation, failure to notify probation after law-enforcement contact, failure to participate in education/vocational program, alcohol use) while on a three-year term of supervised release.
- The probation office characterized the violations as Grade C; with criminal-history category I, the U.S.S.G. revocation range was 3–9 months.
- At sentencing the district court expressed concern about Lee’s failure to report being questioned by law enforcement in connection with his girlfriend’s recent death (an active homicide investigation in which Lee was a suspect), and emphasized the cumulative nature of his violations and alcohol relapse.
- The court stated it had considered the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors and imposed a high-end Guideline sentence: 9 months imprisonment followed by 24 months supervised release.
- Lee appealed, arguing (1) procedural error for relying on § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors not listed in § 3583(e), (2) substantive unreasonableness of the sentence, and (3) reliance on unproven factual allegations (due-process violation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court procedurally erred by considering § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors in revocation sentencing | Lee: § 3583(e) omits § 3553(a)(2)(A); considering those factors is forbidden and was error | Gov: Court did not rely on (a)(2)(A); even if referenced, other circuits allow limited consideration | No plain procedural error; consideration is permissible so long as (a)(2)(A) does not predominate and circuit law is not settled |
| Whether the 9‑month within-Guidelines revocation sentence was substantively unreasonable | Lee: Sentence greater than necessary; court ignored less‑restrictive sanctions and mitigation | Gov: Within-Guidelines sentence presumptively reasonable; court accounted for cumulative violations and public safety | Affirmed; presumption stands and Lee failed to rebut it |
| Whether court relied on unproven homicide allegation in sentencing (Due Process) | Lee: Court adopted and relied on law‑enforcement suspicion about girlfriend’s death | Gov: Court expressly said sentence was for failure to report the contact, not for the homicide allegation | No error; court did not base sentence on unproven facts and Lee failed to show otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McBride, 633 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir.) (establishes review for reasonableness of revocation sentences)
- United States v. Mendiola, 696 F.3d 1033 (10th Cir.) (plain‑error review where issue not raised below)
- United States v. Gantt, 679 F.3d 1240 (10th Cir.) (plain‑error doctrine requirements)
- United States v. Dazey, 403 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir.) (discussing plain‑error standard)
- United States v. Rivera, 797 F.3d 307 (5th Cir.) (permitting consideration of (a)(2)(A) so long as it does not predominate)
- United States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638 (4th Cir.) (mere reference to (a)(2)(A) does not render revocation sentence procedurally unreasonable)
- United States v. Simtob, 485 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.) (discussing limits on (a)(2)(A) in revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing goals of criminal sentencing and revocation sentencing)