Background
Eric Lamount Whitener appealed the revocation of his supervised release and a three-month sentence imposed after he admitted to committing new crimes. Whitener argued the revocation violated his due process rights, the sentence was plainly unreasonable, and the district court failed to adequately pronounce the conditions of his supervised release.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that the petition alleging the violation identified the no-further-crime condition, the crime committed, and the underlying facts, providing Whitener with fair notice. Regarding the sentence, the court found the district court accurately calculated the policy statement range and adequately explained the chosen sentence below that range. Finally, the court determined the written judgment conditions were consistent with the oral pronouncement, rejecting the claim of a Rogers error.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that defendants on supervised release must receive written notice of alleged violations to satisfy due process and that district courts have broad discretion to impose sentences below the policy statement range if they adequately explain their reasoning.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download