United States v. Vigil, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20542

Vigil pled guilty in 2006 to making a false statement, a Class D felony, and received three years of probation with special conditions.
Her case moved from Western District of Texas to the District of Colorado after she relocated to Colorado in 2008.
In 2009, probation was revoked for child abuse guilty plea, false community service proof, and failure to perform community service, resulting in two years of supervised release and a six-month halfway house term.
The 2009 supervised-release conditions included community service, residency in a Community Corrections Center, parenting classes, GED, medications, drug testing, and mental-health treatment.
In 2011, due to ongoing noncompliance, a modification placed Vigil in an RRC for up to six months; she again failed to comply with RRC and treatment requirements.
At the February 7, 2012 revocation hearing, Vigil sought a variant sentence; the district court sentenced her to 12 months imprisonment, exceeding the Chapter 7 range and not following the guidelines.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing a sentence above Chapter 7 range was reasonable	Vigil argues no exceptional circumstances justify the variance.	Vigil's history and persistent violations justify a longer sentence.	Yes; the sentence was reasonable.
Whether the district court properly weighed § 3553(a) factors after revocation	The court failed to adequately consider the factors and constraints of advisory policy statements.	The court properly weighed the factors and found Chapter 7 non‑deterrent or insufficient given violations.	Yes; the district court adequately considered § 3553(a) factors.
Whether Chapter 7 policy statements are mandatory or advisory in revocation proceedings	Chapter 7 statements are mandatory guidelines for revocation sentences.	Chapter 7 statements are advisory; district courts may impose above-range sentences.	They are advisory; court may impose above-range sentence if warranted.

Handley, 678 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing revocation sentences)
McBride, 633 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2011) (procedural and substantive reasonableness standard)
Reyes-Alfonso, 653 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2011) (procedural vs. substantive reasonableness framework)
Contreras-Martinez, 409 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2005) (Chapter 7 is advisory, not mandatory)
Hurst, 78 F.3d 482 (10th Cir. 1996) (policy statements advisory in revocation context)
Cordova, 461 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2006) (upward variance based on violations)
Tsosie, 376 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2004) (upward variance warranted by violations)
Kelley, 359 F.3d 1302 (10th Cir. 2004) (revocation sentencing framework post‑Booker)
Tedford, 405 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2005) (requirement of grounding in §3553(a) factors without magic words)
Burdex, 100 F.3d 882 (10th Cir. 1996) (statutory maximum governs revocation sentence)
Sayad, 589 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2009) (totality of circumstances in §3553(a) review)
Gall, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness standard after Booker)
Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (guidelines advisory after Apprendi)
Rita, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (reasonableness review and advisory guidelines)