United States v. Willie Washington
706 F. App'x 193
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Willie Washington admitted violating supervised release by using cocaine.
- District court revoked supervised release and sentenced Washington to 18 months' imprisonment.
- At sentencing the court made a comment that Washington showed no "respect for the rules or laws," which Washington later challenged as an impermissible consideration.
- Washington did not object below on the precise ground that the sentence relied on an improper factor, so appellate review applied the plain-error standard.
- The district court expressly relied on Washington’s repeated violations and extensive criminal history in explaining the sentence, and it stated it had considered and rejected additional drug treatment as unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Washington's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court relied on an improper factor by using §3553(a)(2)(A) considerations (promoting respect for the law) in a revocation sentence | The court’s comment about lack of respect for law shows promoting respect for the law was a dominant, impermissible factor | The comment was an offhand remark; the court relied on permissible factors (violations, criminal history); no improper dominant consideration | No error — comment was a throwaway and not a dominant factor; sentence stands |
| Whether the court failed to consider drug treatment as an alternative, making the sentence substantively unreasonable | Court did not adequately consider treatment and should have imposed treatment instead of prison | Court considered treatment, explained why it was unnecessary given repeated positive drug tests; rejection was within discretion | No abuse of discretion; court considered and reasonably rejected treatment alternative |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2011) (revocation sentencing statute does not incorporate §3553(a)(2)(A))
- United States v. Rivera, 784 F.3d 1012 (5th Cir. 2015) (same principle regarding limits on factors in revocation sentences)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error standard for forfeited objections)