Background
In two thousand and eleven, Marcus Sletten pled guilty to possession of child pornography. He was sentenced to one hundred months in prison followed by life on supervised release. Since starting supervised release in two thousand and eighteen, Mr. Sletten has repeatedly violated his conditions, resulting in three prior revocations and sentences. In February of two thousand and twenty-five, he admitted to a fourth violation involving a refusal to provide a smartphone passcode and possession of an unauthorized phone. The district court revoked his release and sentenced him to twenty-four months in prison.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the sentence for reasonableness under an abuse of discretion standard. Regarding procedural reasonableness, the court held that Mr. Sletten forfeited and waived his challenges because he did not raise them in the district court and did not argue plain error on appeal. Regarding substantive reasonableness, the court found the district court did not abuse its discretion. The court noted that the district judge appropriately considered the defendant’s personal circumstances, including an autism diagnosis, but also weighed his repeated violations and the threat to public safety. The appellate court concluded that the justification for the twenty-four-month sentence was sufficiently compelling.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that defendants must raise procedural objections at sentencing to preserve them for appeal. It also confirms that appellate courts will uphold upward variances from sentencing guidelines when a district court cites repeated violations and public safety concerns as justification.