Background
Demetrie Massey appealed his sentence following the revocation of his supervised release. He argued that the district court plainly erred by considering the severity of his breach of trust and that the sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the plain error standard because Massey did not raise his primary argument in the district court. The court noted that while the Supreme Court in Esteras v. United States prohibited considering retribution for the underlying crime, it declined to address retribution for supervision violations. The Fourth Circuit has previously stated that the purpose of a revocation hearing is to determine the gravity of the defendant’s breach of trust. The court found that even if the district court erred, the error was not plain and did not affect Massey’s substantial rights. Regarding the remaining arguments, the court found the sentence procedurally reasonable as the district court adequately explained the sentence considering the Sentencing Guidelines and Section 3553 factors. The sentence was also substantively reasonable given the totality of the circumstances.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces that district courts may consider the gravity of a defendant’s breach of trust when revoking supervised release, even if they cannot consider retribution for the underlying offense.