United States v. Marshay Wilson, 630 F. App'x 575

In 2008 Marshay Wilson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50–150 g of crack cocaine and was classified as a career offender; the court varied downward and sentenced him to 96 months.
In 2012 a different judge reduced Wilson’s sentence to 63 months under Amendment 750 and § 3582(c), citing rehabilitation and support letters.
Wilson incurred multiple supervised-release violations (assault report, positive cocaine test, state drug conviction); a 2013 revocation resulted in credit for time served.
In 2014 Wilson pled guilty in Ohio to drug trafficking and tampering and received an eight-year state sentence; the federal court held a supervised-release revocation hearing in 2015.
At that hearing the district court criticized prior judges’ leniency (including the § 3582 reduction), emphasized Wilson’s repeated violations, and imposed a 60-month federal sentence (statutory maximum) consecutive to the state term.
Wilson appealed, arguing the district court impermissibly based its sentence on disagreement with the prior judge’s § 3582 reduction rather than permissible § 3553(a) factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court relied on an impermissible factor (disagreement with a prior judge’s § 3582 reduction) in imposing an above-guidelines supervised-release revocation sentence	Wilson: The court improperly penalized him for a prior judge’s reduction and effectively disagreed with the Sentencing Commission’s policy to reduce crack sentences	Government/District Court: The judge permissibly considered prior leniency only as contextual evidence of repeated failure to comply with supervision and as relevant to § 3553(a) purposes	The Sixth Circuit affirmed: the court did not abuse its discretion; considering prior reductions and leniency as part of the § 3553(a) analysis was permissible

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural and substantive reasonableness standard for sentencing)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (district courts may vary based on policy disagreement with Guidelines)
Spears v. United States, 555 U.S. 261 (recognition of district courts’ authority to vary based on Guidelines policy)
United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318 (revocation sentencing under § 3583(e))
United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (review standards for supervised-release revocation sentences)
United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089 (reasonableness review; discretion in supervised-release context)
United States v. Recla, 560 F.3d 539 (limits on basing sentence on anticipated future events such as Rule 35 cooperation)