U.S. v. Childs

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing 24-month term of incarceration after revoking defendant’s second term of supervised release, even though defendant argued that said sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Record showed that defendant’s first term of supervised release was revoked after defendant had resisted peace officer, had two charges of reckless driving, had one instance of driving under influence of alcohol, one incident of possession of marijuana, retail theft and use of alcohol. Second term of supervised release was revoked after defendant admitted to testing positive to fentanyl, alcohol, methamphetamine and marijuana, had overdosed on drugs on two occasions and was present when another individual had overdosed, left jurisdiction without permission and committed certain traffic offenses. Review of sentences on violations of supervised release is highly deferential, and Dist. Ct. could properly infer that defendant posed danger to public because of risk that he would again combine driving with consumption of drugs and/or alcohol, as well as overdosing. Moreover, Dist. Ct. was not required to give compelling reason why instant sentence was 10 months beyond non-binding policy statement, and Dist. Ct. otherwise justified sentence based on defendant’s violations of terms of his supervised release, his criminal history and relevant section 3553(a) factors.