U.S. v. Dill

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 14-month term of incarceration after finding that defendant had violated (for second time) term of his supervised release arising out of defendant’s positive drug test. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. had predetermined that he would be sentenced to at least 12-month term of incarceration without considering his mitigation evidence, record showed that Dist. Ct. held open mind about length of defendant’s sentence throughout sentencing hearing. Moreover, Dist. Ct.’s announcement that it would not impose lighter sentence than 12-month term that it had imposed upon defendant’s first revocation of his supervised release was reasonable.