United States v. Sayer, 916 F.3d 32

Shawn Sayer pled guilty in 2012 to cyberstalking based on extensive online harassment and impersonation of a victim (posting ads, fake social‑media profiles, videos and messages) and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and 3 years supervised release.
Sayer began supervised release in 2016, obtained employment, but the court later added a Computer and Internet Monitoring Program (CIMP) condition at Probation's request.
While on supervision he entered a relationship with M.G.; after their breakup Probation restricted his internet access for obsessive communications; Probation found nude photos on his phone and a GPS tracker on an iPad he had loaned her.
Probation discovered multiple violations: unapproved email and messenger accounts, spoofing apps, and dating profiles impersonating M.G.; Probation petitioned to revoke supervised release in May 2017.
Sayer admitted the violations at the revocation hearing; the Guidelines range for revocation was 5–11 months (Grade C, Criminal History III), but the district court varied upward and imposed 24 months imprisonment plus 12 months supervised release.
On appeal Sayer argued the upward variance was procedurally and substantively unreasonable and that imposing a supervised‑release term in addition to the statutory maximum imprisonment was improper. The First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural reasonableness of upward variance	Government: district court adequately considered §3583(e) factors and explained reasons	Sayer: court failed to adequately explain rationale for upward variance; procedural error	Held: No procedural error; court identified main factors (criminal history, lack of responsibility, public protection) and adequately explained the variance
Substantive reasonableness of 24‑month sentence (13‑month upward variance)	Government: sentence defensible given Sayer’s history, similar conduct on supervision, and public‑safety risk	Sayer: variance excessive; court failed to give mitigating factors sufficient weight and distorted calibration across offenders	Held: Substantively reasonable; court gave a plausible rationale and acted within broad sentencing discretion
Authority to impose additional supervised release after revocation	Government: §3583(h) permits a supervised‑release term so long as it does not exceed statutory maximum less imprisonment imposed	Sayer: imposing supervised release after imposing the statutory maximum imprisonment is improper	Held: No error—36 months (statutory max) minus 24 months imprisonment = 12 months permitted; court validly imposed 12‑month supervised release

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (procedural and substantive reasonableness framework for sentence review)
United States v. Flores‑Machicote, 706 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2013) (examples of significant procedural sentencing errors)
United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2011) (bifurcated reasonableness review and deference to sentencing judge’s weighing)
United States v. Márquez‑García, 862 F.3d 143 (1st Cir. 2017) (preservation and plain‑error principles in sentencing challenges)
United States v. Vargas‑García, 794 F.3d 162 (1st Cir. 2015) (sufficient explanation requires identifying main factors behind decision)
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (plausible rationale and defensible result standard for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Sayer, 748 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 2014) (opinion affirming Sayer’s original conviction and recounting underlying facts)