United States v. Shaon Arch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10916
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Phillips and Arch both violated terms of supervised release in the Western District of Wisconsin and faced revocation hearings before Judge Barbara Crabb.
- Phillips: released 2012; violations included drug use (positive tests), attempting to dilute a urine sample, failing sweat-patch testing, leaving the district without permission, associating with a person engaged in criminal activity, and evading arrest; guidelines recommended 12–18 months; judge imposed 24 months and cited need to “hold you accountable” and to protect the public.
- Arch: released 2014; violations included leaving a homeless shelter, absconding the district, assaulting two sisters while intoxicated, and possessing an open container; judge revoked supervision and imposed a within-guidelines 12-month term, citing danger to others, noncompliance with treatment, and the need for accountability and public protection.
- Both defendants challenged the use of “accountability” in the revocation rationale, arguing § 3583(e) does not list accountability as a factor; Phillips also contended the judge failed to adequately explain the above-guidelines sentence.
- The Seventh Circuit consolidated the appeals and affirmed: holding that consideration of accountability is permissible and that the district judge adequately considered the § 3583(e)/§ 3553(a) factors for both sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may rely on “accountability” when revoking supervised release | Phillips/Arch: "Accountability" is not enumerated in § 3583(e); its use is procedural error | Government/Judge: Accountability is a legitimate concern tied to breach-of-trust, deterrence, and public protection | Court: No reversible error — accountability is permissible and fits within § 3583(e)/§ 3553(a) considerations |
| Whether the § 3583(e) list is exclusive | Defendants: § 3583(e) lists exclusive factors; courts must not consider other reasons | Government: Courts may consider additional, related sentencing rationales if they primarily rely on § 3583(e) factors | Court: The list is not exclusive; courts may consider related factors so long as they rely primarily on § 3583(e) factors (citing Clay) |
| Adequacy of explanation for above-guidelines sentence (Phillips) | Phillips: Judge failed to explain why an above-guidelines (24 mo) sentence was necessary in light of § 3553(a) factors | Government: Judge noted guidelines, defendant’s history, need to protect public, deterrence; sentence near top of range so brief explanation sufficed | Court: Affirmed — remarks were sparse but sufficient given proximity to the guideline range and statutory factors considered |
| Whether revocation sentencing must expressly recite § 3553(a) factors | Phillips: District court failed to apply/expressly articulate § 3553(a) factors, requiring reversal | Government: Judge addressed relevant considerations (history, protection, deterrence) even if not verbatim recitation | Court: Consideration satisfied here; explicit recital not always required if record shows relevant factors considered |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clay, 752 F.3d 1106 (7th Cir. 2014) (district court may consider non-§3583(e) sentencing concepts if it relies primarily on §3583(e) factors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (extent of explanation required for variance depends on proximity to Guidelines range)
- United States v. Jones, 774 F.3d 399 (7th Cir. 2014) (explanation sufficiency for variance analyzed in context of Guidelines proximity)
- United States v. Kappes, 782 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2015) (district courts must apply §3553(a) factors when imposing supervised-release-related sentences)
- United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 1163 (7th Cir. 2015) (punishment for supervised-release violation is a sentence requiring §3553(a) consideration)
- United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2006) (revocation aimed at sanctioning breach of trust)
- United States v. Young, 634 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2011) (discussion of just punishment and revocation rationale)
- United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizing breach-of-trust rationale for revocation)
- United States v. Robertson, 648 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2011) (requirements for justifying above-Guidelines sentences)