United States v. Paul Antonio Burke, Jr., 677 F. App'x 619

Burke served 108 months for crack-cocaine distribution and was released to a six-year term of supervised release.
While on supervised release, Burke sold marijuana and ecstasy to a confidential informant on multiple occasions.
Police recorded the encounters on video; Burke admitted the conduct and cooperated with police thereafter.
The probation officer filed a revocation petition based on these events.
The district court held a revocation hearing, found by a preponderance of evidence that Burke possessed/sold controlled substances, and sentenced him to 36 months.
Burke appealed, challenging the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the revocation sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether proof was sufficient to find Burke sold drugs	Burke: lack of forensic/field-test evidence means government failed to prove drug sales	Government: officer testimony, video, admissions, and cooperation are sufficient	Court: evidence met preponderance standard; finding not clearly erroneous
Whether the district court erred procedurally by relying on those facts	Burke: court relied on clearly erroneous facts (no lab confirmation)	Government: credibility and recordings supported findings	Court: no procedural error — factual findings supported by record
Whether the sentence was substantively unreasonable for failing to credit cooperation	Burke: district court ignored his cooperation and mitigating §3553(a) factors	Government: revocation mandatory under 18 U.S.C. §3583(g) for possession of controlled substances, so §3553(a) need not be considered	Court: because §3583(g) mandated revocation, district court was not required to consider §3553(a); sentence not substantively unreasonable
Whether courts must consider §3553(a) in mandatory revocation cases	Burke: not raised as separate binding argument	Concurrence: prefers Third Circuit view that §3553(a) should be considered	Majority: bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent holding §3553(a) need not be considered; concurrence notes disagreement	Majority affirmed; concurrence would require §3553(a) consideration per Third Circuit

United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing supervised-release violation finding)
United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (review of revocation sentence for reasonableness)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for sentencing)
United States v. Almedina, 686 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir.) (definition of preponderance standard)
United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir.) (holding that mandatory revocation under §3583(g) does not require §3553(a) consideration)
United States v. Thornhill, 759 F.3d 299 (3d Cir.) (contrary view: §3553(a) factors should be considered even in mandatory revocation situations)