United States v. Robertson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16821

Robertson was originally convicted in 1993 of growing 228 marijuana plants and sentenced to 120 months with 8 years of supervised release.
In September 2009, just before his supervised release term ended, police found him tending 52 large marijuana plants.
The government filed a petition to revoke his supervised release; he admitted the allegations and pled guilty to a new marijuana charge.
The district court sentenced him to 30 months on the new charge and 34 months for supervised-release revocation, total 60 months, minus 4 months already served.
The guideline range for supervised-release violations was 12–18 months, with a statutory maximum of three years.
On appeal, Robertson challenged only the length of the revocation term and argued the district court failed to provide adequate explanation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the revocation sentence adequately explained?	United States contends some explanation is required for deviation from advisory range.	Robertson argues the court’s reasons were insufficient or absent for a longer term.	Vacated and remanded for resentencing.

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (S. Ct. 2007) (courts must explain substantial deviations from advisory guidelines)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (S. Ct. 2007) (explanation required for non-guideline sentence)
United States v. Flagg, 481 F.3d 946 (7th Cir. 2007) (policy statements are advisory)
United States v. McKinney, 520 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2008) (guideline policy statements advisory post-Booker)
United States v. Neal, 512 F.3d 427 (7th Cir. 2008) (need to show consideration of statutory factors and policy statements)