United States v. Michael Patterson
957 F.3d 426
4th Cir.2020Background:
- Patterson was serving supervised release after a 2000 drug conspiracy conviction and a prior supervised-release revocation; he was subject to intermittent weekend jail confinement for repeated positive drug tests.
- In 2017 probation filed revocation petitions alleging multiple violations; Patterson admitted use of cocaine and failing drug tests (Violations One and Two) and contested two Grade A charges for possession with intent to distribute heroin and Xanax on jail premises (Violations Five and Seven).
- Patterson’s cellmate, John Perry, testified Patterson removed a blue latex glove from a body cavity containing pills and bags of drugs, gave Perry drugs, and Perry overdosed; officers recovered a small bag of opiate-based powder from Perry’s bunk and video showed Patterson entering the cell toilet area while officers attended Perry.
- District court found Violations Five and Seven proven by a preponderance (crediting Perry’s testimony and the video/opportunity evidence), revoked supervised release, and imposed a 39‑month revocation sentence (the statutory cap given prior revocation time).
- On appeal Patterson argued (1) due process violation because the court failed to specify evidence supporting findings, (2) the findings were clearly erroneous, and (3) procedural error in sentencing for failing to acknowledge mitigation. The Fourth Circuit affirmed revocation, rejected the clear‑error challenge, but vacated the sentence and remanded because the court failed to acknowledge it considered Patterson’s nonfrivolous mitigation arguments.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court violated due process by not specifying evidence supporting Violations Five and Seven | Patterson: court failed to provide written or explicit findings as required for revocation, denying due process | Government: transcript and record sufficiently show the evidence the court relied on | No due process violation; record/transcript plainly show basis for findings (Copley standard) |
| Whether findings that Patterson possessed Xanax/heroin with intent to distribute were clearly erroneous | Patterson: Perry was not credible and physical evidence/other explanations undercut his testimony | Government: Perry’s testimony, video showing opportunity, and prior jail-possession history made findings plausible | No clear error; credibility determinations entitled to deference and findings were plausible |
| Whether revocation sentence was procedurally reasonable | Patterson: court failed to acknowledge consideration of nonfrivolous mitigation (employment, family support, treatment efforts) | Government: within-Guidelines sentence and court gave reasons; minimal explanation suffices | Procedural error: court did not affirm it considered mitigation; sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due-process requires statement of evidence/reasons for revoking parole)
- Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (transcript or memorandum can satisfy written-statement requirement)
- United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir. 1992) (transcribed oral findings plus record may satisfy Morrissey in supervised-release revocations)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (credibility determinations reviewed for clear error; deference to factfinder)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (sentencing courts must explain consideration of arguments and § 3553(a) factors)
- Chavez‑Meza v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1959 (minimal acknowledgement that court considered arguments can suffice in simple cases)
- United States v. Gibbs, 897 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2018) (revocation sentencing requires assurance court considered meritorious mitigation)
- United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202 (4th Cir. 2017) (vacating revocation sentence where court entirely failed to address detailed nonfrivolous mitigation)