United States v. Leonidas Brown, Jr.
675 F. App'x 370
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brown pled guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine; originally sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and five years supervised release; sentence later reduced and he was released in 2014.
- In May 2016, a petition alleged numerous violations of Brown’s supervised release; Brown admitted the violations and pled guilty at the revocation hearing.
- Defense counsel emphasized Brown’s long history of mental-health and substance-abuse problems and requested a sentence of time served (about eight weeks) to permit placement in a long-term treatment program.
- The Government urged a revocation sentence within the Chapter 7 policy-statement range (6–12 months) and noted a statutory maximum of 60 months.
- The district court imposed 24 months’ imprisonment (with credit for time served) and revoked further supervised release, but did not reference the Chapter 7 policy statement range or a guidelines worksheet.
- The Fourth Circuit found the record lacked any indication the court considered the applicable Chapter 7 policy-statement range and vacated and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the revocation sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district court failed to consider the Chapter 7 policy-statement range | Brown: district court failed to consider the applicable policy-statement range for revocation sentences | Government: court knew the range because Government counsel cited it in argument | The sentence was procedurally unreasonable; court failed to show consideration of the Chapter 7 policy-statement range and vacated sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Crudup v. United States, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (appellate standard: affirm revocation sentence unless plainly unreasonable)
- Moulden v. United States, 478 F.3d 652 (4th Cir. 2007) (district courts must consider Chapter 7 policy statements and § 3553(a) factors when imposing revocation sentences)
- Thompson v. United States, 595 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2010) (lesser procedural detail required at revocation sentencing but must still consider policy statements)