998 F.3d 1071
9th Cir.2021Background
- Henderson pleaded guilty in 2010 to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 117 months’ imprisonment followed by 3 years’ supervised release (statutory maximum 120 months).
- While on supervised release he was arrested for violent conduct and later convicted in Montana state court of multiple offenses and sentenced to a state term (20 years, 15 suspended).
- The Probation Office petitioned to revoke Henderson’s federal supervised release for missed appointments and the state convictions; Henderson admitted some violations at a revocation hearing.
- The district court revoked supervised release and imposed 15 months’ federal custody (to run consecutive to the state term) plus 15 months’ supervised release; Henderson appealed, arguing Fifth and Sixth Amendment errors under Apprendi.
- The Ninth Circuit majority affirmed, holding it was bound by Ninth Circuit precedent (United States v. Purvis) and that Haymond’s plurality does not extend Apprendi to ordinary §3583(e) revocation proceedings.
- Judge Rakoff dissented, arguing the panel was not bound on the constitutional question and that Apprendi (and Haymond’s reasoning) requires vacatur because the aggregate sentence exceeded the statutory maximum without jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a supervised-release revocation sentence that causes aggregate imprisonment to exceed the statutory maximum for the underlying conviction violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments | Henderson: Apprendi/Alleyne require jury-proof beyond a reasonable doubt for any fact that increases punishment beyond statutory maximum | Government/District: Purvis treats supervised release and revocation as part of original sentence; Apprendi does not apply to ordinary revocations; Haymond plurality is not controlling | Majority: Affirmed — revocation sentence allowed; Purvis controls; Haymond concurrence limits the reach of Haymond’s plurality |
| Whether Haymond overruled or undermined Purvis | Henderson: Haymond’s reasoning (plurality) shows Apprendi should apply to revocations and undermines Purvis | Government: Haymond is fractured; Justice Breyer’s concurrence is controlling and limited to §3583(k) mandatory-minimum provision | Majority: Haymond did not overrule Purvis; Breyer’s concurrence narrows Haymond to §3583(k) contexts |
| Whether Apprendi/Alleyne extends to ordinary §3583(e) revocation proceedings | Henderson: Yes—judge-found facts increasing the aggregate maximum require jury trial and proof beyond reasonable doubt | Government: No—ordinary revocation is like parole revocation and part of original sentencing framework; judge may use preponderance standard | Majority: Apprendi not extended to standard §3583(e) revocations here; constitutional challenge rejected |
| Whether this panel is bound to follow Purvis even though Purvis did not address the Sixth Amendment issue | Dissent: Purvis did not decide Sixth Amendment questions; panel free to decide constitutional claim | Majority: Circuit precedent binds unless clearly undermined by intervening authority; Haymond did not clearly do so | Held: Majority applies stare decisis and affirms; dissent would reach and decide the constitutional issue in Henderson’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Haymond v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019) (fractured decision striking §3583(k) mandatory-minimum as unconstitutional; plurality and Breyer concurrence differ in rationale)
- United States v. Purvis, 940 F.2d 1276 (9th Cir. 1991) (held §3583 authorizes revocation sentences that, when combined with time already served, may exceed the statutory maximum)
- Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000) (revocation sentences treated as part of the penalty for the initial offense)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums/authorized sentence must be found by a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (Apprendi principle applied to state sentencing regimes)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (rule for construing fragmented Supreme Court decisions)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (harmless-error standard for constitutional sentencing errors)
- United States v. Salazar, 987 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2021) (interpreting Haymond and concluding Apprendi does not apply to ordinary §3583(e) revocations)