Background
Cody Zane Stevenson appealed the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to nine months in prison plus an additional twelve months of supervised release. Stevenson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning the reasonableness of the sentence. Stevenson filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing that revocation proceedings should have been dismissed, the sentence was substantively unreasonable, and his release date was miscalculated.
The court’s reasoning
The court determined that only Stevenson’s counsel moved to dismiss the revocation proceedings, and the district court properly denied that motion. The court found no reversible error given Stevenson’s admission to eight violations of supervision conditions. Regarding the sentence, the court applied the standard that a revocation sentence is reasonable if within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. The district court properly calculated the advisory policy statement range and explained its reasons for the nine-month term, including sanctioning breaches of trust and deterring future criminal conduct. The court concluded the sentence was not plainly unreasonable and that Stevenson failed to rebut the presumption of substantive reasonableness. Finally, the court found no record support for Stevenson’s contention that his release date was miscalculated or that such a miscalculation would affect the supervised release term.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the Fourth Circuit’s deferential standard of review for supervised release revocation sentences and confirms that a single reference to an impermissible factor does not require vacatur if the error is not plain and does not affect substantial rights.