Background
Steven Bruhn was sentenced to time served and five years of supervised release after pleading guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Upon revocation of his supervised release for drug use and failure to comply with treatment conditions, the district court imposed a twenty-month prison sentence. Bruhn appealed, arguing the sentence was based on speculation.
The court’s reasoning
The Eighth Circuit applied a plain error standard of review. The court found that the district court did not engage in speculation or draw unsupported inferences. The record confirmed Bruhn’s history of noncompliance and his admission that he did not intend to participate in the Teen Challenge program. The district court also provided a reasoned basis for the upward variance by considering the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors under Section one thousand eight hundred fifty-three of Title one of the United States Code.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that district courts may rely on unobjected-to facts in violation reports and probation officer testimony when determining sentences upon revocation of supervised release, provided the record supports the court’s findings.