Background
Johnathan E. Goins appealed his sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. Goins argued that the district court plainly erred by treating the need to promote respect for the law as a dominant sentencing factor.
The court’s reasoning
The court noted that while a district court may not consider the need to promote respect for the law under Section thirty-five fifty-three subsection a two A when imposing a sentence after a discretionary revocation, this revocation was mandatory. Goins admitted to testing positive for illegal substances more than three times in one year, triggering mandatory revocation under Section thirty-five eighty-three subsection g four. Because Section thirty-five eighty-three subsection g applied, the court found no clear or obvious error in the district court’s imposition of the revocation sentence.
What it means going forward
This decision clarifies that the restrictions on considering the need to promote respect for the law do not apply to mandatory supervised release revocations triggered by repeated positive drug tests.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download