Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENDRICK BROWN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s imposition of a twelve-month consecutive prison sentence for violating supervised release terms. The court applied a deferential abuse of discretion standard to review the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Regarding procedural reasonableness, the court held that it was not error for the district court to impose a second revocation sentence based on bank fraud conduct that occurred prior to the defendant’s first revocation hearing in 2023, even though the government was aware of the allegations at that time; the court relied on *United States v. Cross* to establish that a district court may revoke supervised release for conduct occurring before a prior revocation if the court was not aware of that conduct at the time of the first hearing. The court further found no procedural error in the district court’s conclusion that the government could not have sought revocation based on the fraud in 2023 due to insufficient evidence, as supported by the record and permissible reasonable inferences. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court rejected the defendant’s claim that the sentence was arbitrary or based on impermissible factors, noting that the district court correctly considered all relevant sentencing factors while explicitly excluding the impermissible “retribution” factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) as required by *Esteras v. United States*. The practical consequence is that the defendant’s conviction and sentence stand, requiring him to serve the twelve-month term for the supervised release violation consecutively to his thirty-three-month sentence for bank fraud.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.