United States v. Theresa Thornhill, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12820

Thornhill pled guilty to bank fraud (2003) and received five years of supervised release; restitution of $25,521.12 ordered.
Multiple petitions alleged violations of supervised release in 2007, 2008, 2010-2013, including positive marijuana tests and new federal offenses.
District Court revoked supervised release, sentenced Thornhill to minimal imprisonment for 2003 and 2007 convictions, and imposed a new 36-month sentence with no supervised release following for those revocations.
Thornhill later pled guilty to a 2009 bank fraud information and was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment with four years of supervised release.
In 2013 a Sixth Petition alleged further violations; controversy centered on mandatory revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) and the length of imprisonment under that provision.
The Third Circuit held that §3553(a) factors must be considered when imposing the term of imprisonment under §3583(g).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §3553(a) factors must be considered in mandatory revocation	Thornhill—mandatory revocation under §3583(g) requires no §3553(a) analysis	Government—§3553(a) factors may be considered but are not required	Yes; §3553(a) factors must be considered in setting the imprisonment term under §3583(g)
Whether the district court meaningfully considered §3553(a) factors	Record shows insufficient explanation and no mitigation consideration	Court considered Thornhill’s history and violations; adequate consideration	Court’s consideration of §3553(a) factors not clearly demonstrated; remand not necessary given holding? (Ruling supports meaningful consideration requirement)
Whether procedural errors rendered sentences unreasonable	Procedural defects taint the reasonableness of sentences	Court adequately explained and weighed factors; decisions reasonable	Procedural errors not established; sentences affirmed on review of reasonableness

United States v. Doe, 617 F.3d 766 (3d Cir. 2010) (distinguishes discretionary vs mandatory revocation; factors may be considered in discretionary but not mandated by text of §3583(g))
United States v. Bungar, 478 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2007) (requires meaningful consideration of §3553(a) in revocation proceedings for reasonableness)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (S. Ct. 2007) (context and record important in showing reasoned explanation for sentence outside guidelines)
United States v. Clark, 726 F.3d 496 (3d Cir. 2013) (inside revocation context, analysis of §3553(a) factors may be required for reasonableness; informs standard here)
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc; requires individualized consideration and record showing meaningful consideration of §3553(a))
United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237 (3d Cir. 2006) (three-step sentencing process; importance of meaningful consideration in revocation)