Dist. Ct. did not err in revoking defendant's term of supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months of incarceration, followed by 24-month term of supervised release when he admitted to use of cocaine and methamphetamine during his term of supervised release. On appeal, defendant argued that he was entitled to new sentencing hearing, because Dist. Ct. had: (1) disregarded his mitigation arguments that involved fact that he had paid child support that had accrued during his prior incarceration on drug conspiracy charges; and (2) failed to consider certain sentencing factors under section 3553(a). Ct. of Appeals, though, held that during revocation sentencing hearing, Dist. Ct. need not explain how every potential mitigation point affected Dist. Ct.'s reasoning in imposing instant sentence, and record otherwise reflected that Dist. Ct. had actually considered his mitigation arguments. Moreover, record reflected that Dist. Ct. actually considered sentencing factors under section 3553(a). Also, sentencing at high end of guideline range was not substantively unreasonable, where defendant had failed to abide by prior terms of probation or supervision, and where Dist. Ct. noted that defendant had already received prior sentencing break, since Dist. Ct. had given defendant below-guideline range sentence when imposing defendant's original sentence.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court