US v. Lewis: Lewis was on supervised release when he committed, and was convicted of committing, three state drug offenses. His supervised release was revoked for violating the standard condition that he not violate any state, federal, or local law. At sentencing, the Government argued for a sentence at the bottom of the advisory Guideline range, 37 months, while Lewis argued for a sentence of 36 months, concurrent with his state sentence. The district court imposed a sentence of 20 months in prison (consecutive to his state sentence), noting two particular factors in its explanation, Lewis’ criminal history (which was “horrendous”) and his in-custody record (which had “been good”). The district court also stated that such a sentence would “satisfy all the factors set forth in §3553(a), and provide for just punishment, and reflect the extent of the breach of trust evidenced by” Lewis’ conduct.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed Lewis’ revocation sentence, rejecting two related arguments. The first was that the district court relied on an improper factor when it considered the need to “provide for just punishment.” That is because while 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) incorporates most of the § 3553(a) factors, it specifically excludes the need to provide the just punishment for the offense. The court concluded that the district court’s references to those factors were “ambiguous when considered in their overall context,” including the fat that the “factors on which the court actually made its decision were fully authorized.” The court likewise rejected Lewis’ related argument that the policy statements in the Guidelines were invalid because they incorporated the need for punishment into them.
No comments:
Post a Comment