21 F.4th 862
D.C. Cir.2022Background
- Lorenzo Turner pleaded guilty to two federal counts (drug and firearm) and was sentenced with concurrent 4‑year terms of supervised release on each count following his prison term.
- While on supervision, Turner admitted violating the conditions by unlawfully possessing a firearm; Probation calculated the Chapter 7 Revocation Table range as 6–12 months (Grade and criminal history) for the violation.
- Probation and the government initially recommended applying the 6–12 month range to each supervised‑release term (two 9‑month midpoints → 18 months total); Turner argued the 6–12 month range is the total recommended punishment for the violation, not per underlying count.
- The district court revoked both supervised‑release terms and imposed consecutive nine‑month sentences for each (total 18 months), stating it was revoking each supervised release separately; the court later entered judgment after briefing.
- The D.C. Circuit held the Revocation Table’s ranges represent the total recommended punishment for a supervised‑release violation (not a per‑count multiplier), vacated Turner’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Turner) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Chapter 7 Revocation Table range is the total recommended punishment for a supervised‑release violation or applies separately to each term/count | The Revocation Table (grade + criminal history) yields a single recommended range that represents the total punishment for the violation, regardless of number of underlying counts | The Revocation Table may be applied to each term of supervised release being revoked, permitting separate advisory ranges (and thus separate sentences) per term | The court held the Revocation Table prescribes the total recommended punishment for the violation, not a per‑count multiplier; apply the table once based on most serious conduct and criminal history. |
| Whether the district court committed a procedural error by miscalculating the applicable Guidelines range | Turner: district court misapplied the Guidelines by treating the range as per count, so calculation was improper | Government: district court’s approach was consistent with some circuit precedent and within discretion | Held that the district court committed a significant procedural error (improperly calculated the Guidelines range); vacated and remanded for resentencing. |
| Whether circuit decisions permitting consecutive revocation sentences (applying range per term) control | Turner: such precedents are unpersuasive and conflict with Chapter 7’s text, structure, and purpose | Government: other circuits (e.g., Ninth, Fifth) have allowed consecutive revocation sentences by applying ranges per revoked term | Court rejected those cases to the extent they treat Chapter 7 as authorizing per‑count multipliers; found Chapter 7’s text, structure, and policy favor a single total punishment approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (creation of Sentencing Commission and Guidelines framework)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Guidelines are advisory; courts must correctly calculate range)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (two‑step reasonableness review and importance of correct Guidelines calculation)
- Van Buren v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 1648 (2021) (textual/contextual interpretation guidance)
- United States v. Brown, 892 F.3d 385 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (de novo review of Guidelines interpretation; calculation requirement)
- United States v. Berkeley, 567 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (procedural/substantive review framework)
- United States v. Campbell, 937 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2019) (upheld consecutive revocations; discussed by majority and dissent)
- United States v. Badgett, 957 F.3d 536 (5th Cir. 2020) (upheld consecutive revocation sentences where each term fell within advisory range)
- In re Sealed Case, 527 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (court characterized giving a defendant twice the Guidelines maximum as error; cited by majority)