United States v. Yackeem McFarlane, 24-11512

Yackeem McFarlane was sentenced in 2013 to 120 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release for a narcotics offense.
Jurisdiction over his supervised release was transferred from New York to the Middle District of Florida after McFarlane moved there.
In 2024, McFarlane admitted to 11 violations of his supervised release, including unauthorized travel, missing appointments, and lying to his probation officer.
The guideline range for imprisonment upon revocation was three to nine months, but the probation officer recommended an upward variance.
The district court imposed an 18-month sentence without further supervision, noting both mitigating evidence and the repeated nature of McFarlane’s violations.
McFarlane appealed, arguing the sentence was substantively unreasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantive reasonableness of upward variance	Sentence was unduly harsh, court failed to properly balance § 3553(a) factors and overemphasized violations	Sentence properly accounted for pattern of violations and considered all relevant factors	Sentence was reasonable; district court did not abuse its discretion
Consideration of mitigating evidence	Court failed to give sufficient weight to minimal criminal history and family circumstances	Court considered but gave more weight to repeated breaches of trust	No error; court has discretion on weight given to factors
Reliance on guideline range	Court should not have doubled the top of the guidelines	Higher sentence justified by pattern and gravity of violations	Upward variance was justified in light of conduct and sentencing factors
Manifest miscarriage of justice if affirmed	Affirming would be a miscarriage if sentence was unreasonable	No miscarriage because sentence is reasonable	Did not reach argument; sentence was not unreasonable

United States v. King, 57 F.4th 1334 (11th Cir. 2023) (standard of review for reasonableness of sentence upon revocation)
United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (abuse of discretion standard and factors for reviewing sentencing decisions)
United States v. Woodson, 30 F.4th 1295 (11th Cir. 2022) (vacating substantively unreasonable sentence standard)
United States v. Riley, 995 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2021) (district court’s discretion on weight given to sentencing factors)
United States v. Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court need not discuss every factor explicitly)
United States v. Amedeo, 487 F.3d 823 (11th Cir. 2007) (failure to address every piece of mitigation does not mean it was ignored)
United States v. Clay, 483 F.3d 739 (11th Cir. 2007) (discretion to weigh sentencing factors)
United States v. Sweeting, 437 F.3d 1105 (11th Cir. 2006) (permissibility of sentence within statutory maximum)