Preston Mills, Jr. was originally sentenced in 2008 for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and possession of a firearm. After serving prison time, he was released to supervised release in 2015. In 2018, he faced a revocation petition for a new crime of strangulation and assault, which resulted in an 18-month prison sentence. After a second release in 2020, Mills was charged again in 2021 with strangling and assaulting his then-girlfriend, Jessica Rodriguez. The federal revocation proceedings were delayed significantly due to continuances pending the outcome of the state trial, extending Mills' supervised release term from June 2023 until January 2025. At the revocation hearing, the district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mills had committed the new crime and revoked his release, sentencing him to 24 months in prison. Mills appealed, arguing the finding of the new crime was clearly erroneous and that the sentence was unreasonable because the court ignored his argument that he should receive credit for the 19 months he spent on supervision while the case was pending.
The Fourth Circuit applied an abuse-of-discretion standard to the revocation decision and a 'plainly unreasonable' standard to the sentence. First, the court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence for the new crime. The district court found Mills guilty of strangulation and assault based on the testimony of the victim, her daughter, and contemporaneous text messages in which Mills apologized without denying the allegations. The appellate court held that the district court did not clearly err in crediting the victim's testimony over Mills' denial, noting that credibility determinations are entitled to great deference. The court rejected Mills' arguments regarding inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, finding them immaterial or non-existent. Second, the court addressed the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. Under Fourth Circuit precedent, a sentencing court must adequately explain its chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), including any potentially meritorious arguments raised by the defendant. Mills argued that the court should credit the 19 months he spent on supervised release after the original term expired but before the revocation was resolved. The court found that while the district court was aware of this extended period, the record contained no evidence that the court actually considered this specific mitigation argument in its sentencing explanation. The court distinguished the colloquy regarding the legal authority to impose a new term of supervision from the substantive consideration of the time served as a mitigating factor. Because the record did not affirm that the court considered this non-frivolous argument, the sentence was procedurally unreasonable and, consequently, plainly unreasonable.
The decision affirms the finding that Mills violated his supervised release, meaning he remains subject to the consequences of that violation. However, the sentence of 24 months is vacated. The case is remanded to the district court for resentencing. On remand, the district court must explicitly address Mills' argument regarding the 19-month extension of his supervised release and explain how that factor influenced the new sentence. The court noted that the district court should proceed without delay given Mills' projected release date.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download