United States v. Sirois, 898 F.3d 134

Ricky Sirois was convicted of federal drug trafficking, served 48 months, and was released to three years of supervised release with conditions including no drug use and drug testing.
Initially compliant, Sirois later failed multiple drug tests (positive for cocaine and marijuana) and exhibited association with other drug users and resistance to treatment.
In May 2017, he was arrested in Maine with a crack pipe, hypodermic needles, marijuana, crack cocaine, and heroin; he pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of heroin (state felony) and received 59 days in jail.
The probation office sought revocation of supervised release; the calculated revocation Guidelines range was 21–24 months, which Sirois did not dispute.
At the revocation hearing Sirois admitted the violations and asked for 90 days plus treatment; the district court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment (within Guidelines) and declined to impose further supervised release.
On appeal Sirois argued (1) imprisonment for conduct caused by addiction violates the Eighth Amendment and (2) his sentence was substantively unreasonable; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Sirois's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether imprisoning an addict for drug-use/possession violates the Eighth Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment	Addiction is a disease that compels drug use; punishing manifestations of that disease is unconstitutional	No clear Supreme Court or circuit precedent bars incarceration for drug use/possession; established practice allows punishment	Rejected — no plain error; not clearly established as unconstitutional
Whether denial of treatment in lieu of incarceration violated Eighth Amendment (as raised in reply)	Imprisonment without treatment is unconstitutional	Argument was not properly developed; waived on appeal	Waived / not considered on the merits
Whether a 24-month sentence upon supervised-release revocation is substantively unreasonable	Science and treatment policy favor alternatives to incarceration; lesser term plus treatment would be appropriate	Sentence is within the Guidelines; district court gave plausible reasons (repeat violations, refusal of treatment)	Rejected — sentence reasonable and within court’s discretion
Whether plain-error review standard allows overturning based on novel Eighth Amendment theory	Novel Eighth Amendment application should be recognized due to modern science on addiction	Defendant failed to preserve the claim; no clear controlling precedent; plain-error standard not met	Rejected — no clear or obvious legal error established

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (recognition of categorical Eighth Amendment limits and framework for national consensus analysis)
Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (Eighth Amendment forbids punishment based solely on status as narcotics addict)
Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (distinction between status crimes and punishable public conduct; concurrence questioning punishment for compelled drug use)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (discussion of life-without-parole equivalence to death-penalty context cited in Graham)
United States v. Blodgett, 872 F.3d 66 (1st Cir. 2017) (plain-error standard discussion)
United States v. Marcano, 525 F.3d 72 (1st Cir.) (requiring clear, binding precedent to show plain error)
United States v. Moore, 486 F.2d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (rejecting expanded reading of Robinson/Powell to bar criminal punishment for addiction)
United States v. Ayala-Vazquez, 751 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) (standards for substantive-reasonableness review)
United States v. Rivera-Clemente, 813 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2016) (deference to within-Guidelines sentences)