United States v. Levell Durr, 875 F.3d 419

Levell L. Durr pled guilty to coercion and enticement under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a); district court sentenced him to 21 months and five years’ supervised release.
While on supervised release, a probation officer filed a seven‑count revocation petition alleging drug possession/arrest, possession of an unregistered smartphone, failure to work/perform community service, refusal to permit phone search, association with felons, allowing controlled‑substance use in his home, and driving with a suspended license.
At revocation hearing two probation officers testified; the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Durr committed all alleged violations except the phone‑search refusal.
The district court imposed a 24‑month revocation sentence (a 10‑month upward variance from the 8–14 month guideline range), relying on multiple violations and consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.
Durr appealed, arguing the upward variance rested impermissibly on speculative findings that he remained involved in sex‑trafficking related to his prior conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court improperly relied on speculative inference that Durr continued sex‑trafficking when imposing an upward variance	Durr: the court speculated he was "still pimping out girls" without record support; reliance on that inference was impermissible under Stokes	Government/District: the variance was based on multiple proven violations and §3553(a) factors; any trafficking inference was not the principal basis	Court: Affirmed; inference distinguished from Stokes because the variance rested on multiple violations and §3553(a) considerations, not on the speculative inference alone
Whether the district court procedurally erred in sentencing by failing to properly articulate reasons/consider §3553(a)	Durr: implied error by reliance on improper inference and inadequate record support	Government/District: court expressly stated it considered all §3553(a) factors and listed legitimate bases for variance (violations, associations, non‑employment, disrespect for law)	Court: No procedural error; judge considered §3553(a) and articulated permissible reasons for an upward variance

United States v. Stokes, 750 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2014) (court reversed where judge relied principally on an unsupported factual inference at sentencing)
United States v. Corrales‑Portillo, 779 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. 2015) (distinguishing Stokes where record did not show an improper inference was the principal basis for sentencing)
United States v. Bryant, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (sets standard of review for sentencing: procedural error then substantive reasonableness)