Background
Joseph Nehme, a convicted sex offender, was sentenced to thirty-seven months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release in twenty eighteen. After his release in early twenty twenty-four, Nehme violated multiple terms of his supervised release, including failing to appear for scheduled visits and failing to update his sex offender registration. He was subsequently charged and pleaded nolo contendere to a state crime for failing to register as a sex offender. The United States Probation Office petitioned to revoke his supervised release, recommending a custodial term of twenty-one to twenty-seven months. The district court sentenced Nehme to a twenty-four-month term of reimprisonment, explicitly excluding the retributive factors of Section thirty-five hundred fifty-three subsection a two a.
The court’s reasoning
The Eleventh Circuit applied plain error review to the claim that the district court impermissibly relied on retributive factors under Section thirty-five hundred fifty-three subsection a two a. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Esteras versus United States, the court noted that the statutory list of factors for revocation conspicuously omits the retributive factor. However, the court found it was neither clear nor obvious that the district court relied on the proscribed factors, as the court expressly disclaimed reliance on them and based its decision on Nehme’s failure to comply with supervised release conditions. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court held that the district court did not commit a clear error of judgment. The court acknowledged that the district court considered the relevant factors and gave weight to Nehme’s argument regarding time served in state custody, while also weighing his history and characteristics. The twenty-four-month sentence fell within the advisory guideline range, supporting its reasonableness.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that while district courts are barred from considering retributive factors related to the underlying conviction when revoking supervised release, they retain discretion to sanction violations of release conditions. It clarifies that plain error review requires a clear or obvious reliance on the excluded factors, and sentences within the guideline range are generally upheld as reasonable.