United States v. Terry J. Martin
20-13279
| 11th Cir. | Oct 19, 2021Background
- Terry Martin, a felon convicted for possession of a firearm, appealed his sentence after revocation of supervised release.
- The district court imposed 24 months imprisonment followed by 12 months of supervised release and a special condition requiring child-support payments (state-determined level or up to 25% of take-home pay as set by U.S. Probation).
- Statutory maximum supervised release for Martin’s underlying offense is 36 months. He had a prior revocation term of 53 days (time served) and received 24 months imprisonment on the current revocation.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), the statutory maximum new term of supervised release must be reduced by the aggregate length of imprisonment imposed on revocation(s); applying that reduction left Martin a little over 10 months eligible supervised release.
- The district court nevertheless imposed 12 months supervised release (which Martin asserted exceeded the statutory maximum); Martin also challenged the child-support condition and the reasonableness of his sentence (procedural and substantive).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the new supervised-release term exceeded the statutory maximum | Martin: 12 months exceeds maximum once prior (53 days) and current (24 months) revocation imprisonments are subtracted from the 36‑month statutory cap. | Government: (conceded) the statutory calculation governs; no dispute about arithmetic. | Vacated the 12‑month supervised-release term as plain error; remand to impose a term within the statutory maximum (≈10 months). |
| Validity of child-support special condition | Martin: challenges the special condition (did not object below). | Government/District Court: condition authorized by statute and recommended by Sentencing Guidelines; analogous conditions previously upheld. | Condition lawful; not plain error. District court may reimpose it on remand. |
| Procedural error for considering "promote respect for the law" | Martin: court improperly relied on a §3553(a)(2)(A) factor not listed for revocation sentencing. | Government: such consideration is permissible; circuit precedent allows it. | No plain error; consideration of promoting respect for the law is permissible. |
| Reliance on alleged clearly erroneous facts and substantive unreasonableness | Martin: court relied on unsupported facts (high‑speed chase, selling marijuana, missed apology/appearance, absconding) and thus sentence is substantively unreasonable. | Government: record (probation memos, warrant) contained support for those facts; defense’s general objections were insufficiently specific. | No plain error or clear error; facts supported in the record; sentence of imprisonment affirmed as substantively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Zinn, 321 F.3d 1084 (11th Cir.) (standard of review and plain-error framework for supervised-release sentencing)
- United States v. Mazarky, 499 F.3d 1246 (11th Cir.) (aggregate reduction of maximum supervised release by prior revocation imprisonment under §3583(h))
- United States v. Crape, 603 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir.) (standards and limits on supervised-release conditions)
- United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.) (upholding family‑support condition tied to local court order)
- United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir.) (permitting consideration of promoting respect for the law in revocation sentencing)
- United States v. Parks, 823 F.3d 990 (11th Cir.) (general objections do not preserve specific sentencing issues)