Sentencing — supervised release — reimprisonment

Listen to this article

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Criminal

Sentencing — supervised release — reimprisonment

Consideration of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A) in revoking supervised release is not a procedural error.

“By contrast, two circuits bar consideration of § 3553(a)(2)(A) because Congress excluded it from the list of relevant factors in § 3583(e). See United States v. Miller, 634 F.3d 841, 844 (5th Cir. 2011); United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2009). But the Sentencing Commission’s introduction to chapter 7 of the guidelines explains that the reason courts should not focus on § 3553(a)(2)(A) in revocation hearings is the provision’s ‘just punishment’ clause; revocation is a sanction for violating the terms of supervision, not punishment for a new crime. See U.S.S.G. ch. 7, pt. A, 3(b); cf. United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006) (‘[T]he difference between sanctioning a supervised release violator for breach of trust and punishing him in order to promote respect for the law is subtle indeed.’).”

Affirmed.

13-3510 U.S. v. Clay

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Flaum, J.