United States v. Miller
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3865
5th Cir.2011Background
- Miller pled guilty in 2003 to possession with intent to distribute 30 kilograms of cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A).
- Original sentence was 87 months in prison followed by a five-year term of supervised release.
- In 2009 the government moved to revoke Miller's supervised release for cocaine possession and DWI with an open container; the DWI allegation was later waived.
- District court found Miller had a criminal history category III and a Grade C violation, resulting in a 5–11 month imprisonment range under § 7B1.4 of the Guidelines; the court sentenced Miller to 60 months (the statutory maximum) after departing from the Guidelines.
- The court based the 60-month sentence on Miller’s reported lack of respect for the law, the offense type, Miller’s history and characteristics, and deterrence; Miller objected, and the district court overruled.
- Miller appeals to challenge the standard of review for revocation/modification of supervised release and the use of § 3553(a)(2)(A) in sentencing under § 3583(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for revocation of supervised release | Miller argues for a standard adopting a reasonableness review for revocation. | Miller contends the district court used an improper standard by focusing on § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors. | Affirmed using plainly unreasonable standard with deferential review for revocation sentences. |
| Use of § 3553(a)(2)(A) in § 3583(e) proceedings | § 3583(e) omits § 3553(a)(2)(A); reliance on it was improper. | Miller contends the court relied on § 3553(a)(2)(A) to justify the sentence. | District court erred by considering § 3553(a)(2)(A), but error was not plainly unreasonable given unsettled caselaw at the time; the sentence was affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hernandez-Martinez, 485 F.3d 270 (5th Cir. 2007) (adopted plain refusal to abrogate §3742(a)(4) review; preference for plainly unreasonable standard)
- United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433 (4th Cir. 2006) (holds district court cannot rely on §3553(a)(2)(A) in revocation/sentencing under §3583(e))
- United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006) (agrees that §3553(a)(2)(A) not allowed under §3583(e))
- United States v. Stiefel, 207 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000) (pre-Booker standard for revocation reviews; framework referenced by court)
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Booker made Guidelines advisory; reasonableness review discussed)