United States v. Roger Campbell, II, 937 F.3d 1254

Roger William Campbell was convicted of 35 counts of mail fraud and originally sentenced to 35 concurrent 24‑month prison terms followed by 35 concurrent three‑year terms of supervised release.
While on supervised release, Campbell failed to comply with conditions; he admitted to a single Grade C violation (failure to contact his probation officer).
The probation officer recommended a mix of consecutive and concurrent short terms; the government concurred.
The district court imposed a revocation sentence that ran some short terms consecutively (resulting in 25 months’ imprisonment total) and concurrent short terms for the remaining counts; Campbell appealed.
Campbell argued Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines precludes consecutive terms after revocation of concurrent supervised‑release terms (invoking the “negative pregnant” principle and the rule of lenity); the Ninth Circuit rejected that view and affirmed under 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a).
Judge Berzon, dubitante, concurred only to note serious policy and drafting concerns about the Guidelines’ silence and urged the Sentencing Commission to clarify.

Issue	Campbell's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Chapter 7 precludes imposing consecutive imprisonment terms after revocation of concurrent supervised‑release terms	Chapter 7’s silence (absence of a concurrence/consecutiveness policy statement) + negative pregnant + rule of lenity require concurrent sentences	§ 3584(a) expressly permits courts to impose consecutive or concurrent terms; Chapter 7’s silence leaves statutory discretion intact; sister circuits agree	Court affirmed: § 3584(a) governs; district court had discretion to impose consecutive terms and Chapter 7 does not preclude that practice
Standard of review / plain‑error applicability	Campbell had asked for a concurrent sentence but did not object to the sentence imposed; contended outcome was erroneous	Because no timely objection, plain‑error review applies; to prevail Campbell must show plain, obvious error affecting substantial rights	Court applied plain‑error review and found no plain error because the sentence was within the court’s § 3584(a) discretion

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (establishing post‑Booker reasonableness review for sentences)
United States v. Jackson, 176 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (holds §3584(a) discretion to run multiple imprisonment terms consecutively or concurrently applies following supervised‑release revocation)
United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2010) (applies Jackson to revocation context; affirms district court discretion under §3584(a))
United States v. Quinones, 136 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 1998) (concludes Chapter 7 silence leaves intact district court’s statutory discretion to impose consecutive terms)
United States v. Gonzalez, 250 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 2001) (adopts Quinones reasoning; rejects reading Chapter 7 as precluding consecutive revocation sentences)
United States v. D.M., 869 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2017) (explains rule of lenity applies only where grievous ambiguity remains after interpretive aids)
United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes revocation sentencing inquiry from initial sentencing; limits factors court may consider at revocation)