"Plainly Unreasonable" Review for Supervised Release Revocation Sentences

US v. Crudup: In this case, the court resolves the issue of what the proper standard of review is for supervised release sentences in a post-Booker world.

Crudup repeatedly violated the terms of his supervised release, eventually leading the district court to revoke Crudup's supervised release and sentence him to the statutory maximum sentence of 36 months in prison.

On appeal, Crudup argued that his sentence was unreasonable, given the 5 to 11 month sentence suggested by the Policy Statements in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines. Before reviewing the sentence itself, the court considered whether that review should be undertaking using an "unreasonableness" standard from Booker or the "plainly unreasonable" standard found in 18 USC 3742(a)(4). After noting that other courts have either utilized the Booker standard or found no substantive difference between the two, the court held that "plainly unreasonable" is the proper standard of review for sentences, such as those imposed for violation of supervised release conditions, that do not have an applicable Guideline. Thus, review of sentences imposed following the revocation of supervised release is unaffected by Booker.

After noting the correct standard of review, the court concluded that Crudup's sentence was not plainly unreasonable.