United States v. Robert Antrim
681 F. App'x 329
5th Cir.2017Background
- Antrim pleaded guilty in 2009 to three bank-robbery counts and received concurrent 56-month terms and concurrent three-year supervised release terms.
- In 2016 a revocation petition alleged Antrim committed two additional bank robberies in 2015; he admitted the violations at the revocation hearing.
- Probation classified the violations as Grade A with Criminal History Category III, yielding a U.S.S.G. revocation range of 18–24 months per count (statutory max 24 months each).
- At sentencing defense counsel urged mitigation: Antrim already received two concurrent 188-month sentences for the 2015 robberies, linked the conduct to drug addiction and asserted recent sobriety and family hardship.
- The district court cited need for deterrence, protection of the public, Antrim’s lack of respect for supervision, his criminal history, and (incidentally) “respect for the law” and the “serious nature” of the violations, and imposed three consecutive 24-month revocation terms to run consecutively to the 188-month sentences.
- Antrim appealed, arguing plain error because the court relied on impermissible § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors (seriousness/promotion of respect for law) and failed adequately to consider mitigating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court plainly erred by relying on impermissible § 3553(a)(2)(A) factors (seriousness, respect for law) in imposing revocation sentences | Antrim: court expressly cited seriousness and promoting respect for law as reasons, making those impermissible factors dominant | Government: court also relied on permissible factors (deterrence, protection, prior history, failure to comply with supervision), and references to (a)(2)(A) were not dominant | No plain error — references to (a)(2)(A) were not dominant and were made in context of failure to comply with supervised-release conditions rather than to punish underlying offenses |
| Whether the district court failed to consider or balance mitigating evidence when imposing revocation sentences | Antrim: court did not adequately account for mitigation (already severe consecutive sentences, addiction/rehab, family circumstances) | Government: court explicitly noted and considered mitigating factors but reasonably balanced them against public protection and deterrence | No plain error — district court specifically recited mitigation and permissibly balanced factors |
| Applicable standard of review for claimed sentencing errors at revocation | Antrim: acknowledged plain-error review because he did not specifically object below | Government: urged plain-error review; district-court factual findings reviewed under lower abuse standards | Court applied plain-error framework and declined to correct any forfeited error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (requires consideration of specified § 3553(a) factors in revocation but excludes (a)(2)(A))
- United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (impermissible § 3553(a)(2)(A) considerations cannot be a dominant factor at revocation)
- United States v. Walker, 742 F.3d 614 (5th Cir. 2014) (discusses when references to (a)(2)(A) do not predominate)
- United States v. Ramsdale, [citation="658 F. App'x 199"] (5th Cir. 2016) (holding mention of impermissible factors among many permissible ones did not render them dominant)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for forfeited claims)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (framework for plain-error review)