897 F.3d 870
7th Cir.2018Background
- Kash Lee was released from federal prison to 10 years supervised release after reductions in his original life sentence; he moved to Iowa.
- Lee repeatedly missed drug tests and probation meetings, and battered his girlfriend, Delisa Roland; he also attempted to induce her to recant.
- The district court found Lee violated supervised release (battery and failure to report) and sentenced him to 30 months imprisonment and six years supervised release.
- At sentencing, the government sought 3 years; Lee sought no more than a year and a day, arguing the conduct was a state misdemeanor and would receive minimal punishment in state court.
- Lee appealed, arguing (1) the district court failed to address his principal mitigation argument about unwarranted disparities and (2) the court failed to complete a written "statement of reasons" form required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Lee did not present a developed disparities argument and any failure to file the form was harmless because the court adequately explained its reasons orally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court was required to address an "unwarranted disparities" mitigation argument | Lee: the court should have addressed that an above-Guidelines revocation sentence would be harsher than state misdemeanor outcomes and thus create unwarranted disparities | Government: Lee never identified or developed a disparities comparison or evidentiary basis to trigger the court's duty to address such an argument | Held: No. Lee did not present a developed, comparable-defendant disparities argument; Cunningham duty not triggered |
| Whether failing to file a written "statement of reasons" form requires remand | Lee: remand to complete the form under § 3553(c)(2) | Government: the statute's form requirement (if applicable on revocation) serves the Sentencing Commission administratively and omission is harmless if oral reasons suffice | Held: Harmless error. The oral explanation was adequate; absence of the form did not prejudice Lee |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir.) (district court must address defendant's principal mitigation arguments)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (sentencing judge should state enough to show consideration of parties' arguments)
- Chavez-Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959 (2018) (court should make clear it considered parties' arguments; appellate remedy when explanation inadequate)
- United States v. Jackson, 547 F.3d 786 (7th Cir.) (defendant must fully develop disparities argument to trigger district court discussion)
- United States v. Baker, 445 F.3d 987 (7th Cir.) (oral explanation can suffice in place of written statement of reasons)
- United States v. Jackson, 848 F.3d 460 (D.C. Cir.) (collecting authority refusing remand when oral reasons are adequate)
- United States v. Vazquez-Martinez, 812 F.3d 18 (1st Cir.) (same)
- United States v. Shakbazyan, 841 F.3d 286 (5th Cir.) (written form serves administrative purpose for Sentencing Commission)