United States v. Lee Hall, III
931 F.3d 694
| 8th Cir. | 2019Background
- Hall served 27 months for failing to register as a sex offender, then began a five‑year term of supervised release in late 2015.
- In 2017 Hall was arrested for promoting prostitution and admitted (no contest) that he committed a crime while on supervised release.
- The violation was designated Grade B, yielding a Guidelines revocation range of 8–14 months; both parties recommended 14 months.
- The district court rejected the joint recommendation and imposed an upward variance to 21 months, with no further supervised release.
- Hall appealed, arguing the court (1) considered improper § 3553(a) factors not listed in § 3583(e), (2) failed to account properly for this being his first supervised‑release violation, and (3) misweighed the sentencing factors.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (procedural then substantive), focused on whether the court gave significant weight to any improper factor, and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hall's Argument | Government/District Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court improperly relied on § 3553(a) factors excluded by § 3583(e) | District court relied on § 3553(a)(2)(A) (promote respect for law), an excluded factor, so sentence is improper | Even if mentioned, excluded factors were used insignificantly; court primarily relied on permissible factors (offense nature, history) | No abuse of discretion; incidental mention of excluded factor was immaterial |
| Whether court failed to consider that this was Hall’s first supervised‑release violation | First violation should weigh against upward variance | Court explicitly considered first‑violation status but found countervailing history of repeated sex offenses and prior similar conduct | No error; court permissibly weighed first‑violation status against criminal history |
| Whether sentencing variance was substantively unreasonable (weighting of factors) | 21‑month sentence was a significant variance and near original 27 months, so unreasonable | Court offset longer imprisonment by terminating remaining supervised release and relied on record of repeated promotion of prostitution | No abuse of discretion; variance reasonable given history and elimination of remaining supervised release |
| Standard of review for revocation sentencing | (implied) scope of § 3583(e) factors matters for reasonableness review | Eighth Circuit applies abuse of discretion; examines whether improper factors were given significant weight | Abuse‑of‑discretion review applies; no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Richey, 758 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for revocation sentences)
- United States v. Martin, 757 F.3d 776 (8th Cir. 2014) (discussing circuit split and use of § 3553(a) factors in revocation)
- United States v. Valure, 835 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2016) (deference to sentences under revocation policy statements)
- United States v. Nelson, 453 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2006) (reasonableness review relative to policy statements and § 3583(e))
- United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (district court abuses discretion if it gives significant weight to an improper factor)
- N.L.R.B. v. SW Gen., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929 (2017) (interpretive canon: expressio unius est exclusio alterius)
- United States v. Johnson, 827 F.3d 740 (8th Cir. 2016) (variances may be appropriate for repeated supervised‑release violations)