United States v. Percy McClinton Snow
17-14515
| 11th Cir. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Percy Snow was on supervised release and was alleged to have changed residence without notifying his probation officer.
- Snow told his officer he would stay in a motel for a few days but remained there over a month and later planned to move from the motel to a purchased house.
- Probation obtained corroborating facts: Snow’s stepmother said he had moved away and his utilities were disconnected.
- The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Snow violated the residency-notification condition and revoked supervised release.
- The district court sentenced Snow to six months imprisonment (within the advisory revocation range of 6–12 months) and reimposed 54 months of supervised release without explaining its § 3553(a) considerations.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the factual finding of violation but vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Snow) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Snow violated supervised-release condition by failing to report a change of residence | Snow contends he did not change residence or failed to meaningfully notify his officer | Court found evidence he remained at a motel over a month, intended to move, utilities disconnected, stepmother corroborated move | Court: No clear error — violation proved by preponderance of evidence |
| Whether the sentence was procedurally reasonable | Snow argues district court failed to consider and explain § 3553(a) factors | Government relied on Guidelines range and revocation authority without expanded justification | Court: Procedurally unreasonable — district court did not state § 3553(a) reasons; vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir.) (preponderance standard for supervised-release violations)
- United States v. Barrington, 648 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir.) (standard for clear-error review of factual findings)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural-reasonableness requirements and review of sentencing)
- United States v. Agbai, 497 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir.) (requirement that judge explain reasoning to show consideration of parties’ arguments)
- United States v. Livesay, 525 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir.) (need to state reasons for sentence under § 3553(c))
- United States v. Velasquez Velasquez, 524 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for revocation of supervised release)
- United States v. Holland, 874 F.2d 1470 (11th Cir.) (accepting district court’s factual findings absent clear error)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (deferential abuse-of-discretion review of revocation sentences)