United States v. McBride
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2821
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty in 2006 to possessing ammunition after misdemeanor domestic violence; sentenced to 51 months and two years of supervised release.
- Standard supervised-release condition prohibited excessive alcohol use and possession or use of controlled substances or related paraphernalia.
- Supervised release began January 13, 2010; he was placed in a curfew program on April 21 and in a residential re-entry center on May 18 for violations.
- While in the halfway house he tested positive for marijuana and alcohol and left to work on an unscheduled day.
- On July 14, probation officer requested revocation and the district court issued a warrant the following day.
- At revocation, Defendant stipulated to one of six asserted violations (failure to comply with halfway-house rules by marijuana and alcohol); court found Grade C offense and criminal-history category VI and proposed a 12-month sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive reasonableness of 12-month sentence | McBride contends the court should have imposed 12 months and 1 day for good-time credit and parity with guideline range. | McBride argues the longer term is unreasonable when a shorter term with credit could be more appropriate. | Sentence within guidelines range; presumption of reasonableness upheld and 12 months affirmed. |
| Procedural reasonableness—alleged reliance on unproven allegations | McBride claims court relied on undisputed/unstipulated facts in revocation decision. | McBride asserts improper consideration of unproved allegations and failure to consider inpatient treatment. | No plain error; court's statements were adequate and within-Guidelines reasoning supported by record. |
| Plain-error review for failure to consider inpatient treatment | McBride argues the court did not adequately consider his inpatient-treatment request. | McBride contends the court did not discuss this request on the record. | No error; court explicitly denied inpatient-treatment request, and within-guidelines sentence does not require extended discussion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rita v. United States, 551 F.3d 338 (U.S. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
- United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050 (10th Cir. 2006) (presumption applies to within-guidelines sentences; can be rebutted)
- United States v. Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2005) (deferential review of reasonableness; abuse of discretion standard)
- United States v. Zubia-Torres, 550 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review; undisputed facts not raised below limit relief)
- United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d 1049 (10th Cir. 2007) (guidelines-based explanation suffices; general reasons acceptable)
- Dodds v. United States, 385 F. App'x 829 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished; within-guidelines analysis context)