Background
Kevlin Jerrod Jackson appealed a district court judgment that revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment. The appeal followed an Anders brief filed by his counsel, which stated there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioned the reasonableness of the sentence.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard that a revocation sentence is affirmed if it is within the statutory maximum and not plainly unreasonable. The panel determined the sentence was procedurally reasonable because the district court calculated the policy statement range correctly, engaged the parties in discussion, and considered the relevant statutory factors. The sentence was also substantively reasonable as it fell within the recommended policy statement range of four to ten months, creating a presumption of reasonableness that Jackson failed to overcome.
We will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Slappy, 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the presumption of reasonableness for supervised release revocation sentences that fall within the Sentencing Guidelines policy statement range.