The Sixth Circuit Again Reminds Us that Supervised Release Revocation Proceedings are Different.

Those who have participated in supervised release revocation proceedings know they operate under different rules. For example, a district court can conclude criminal conduct occurred under a lesser evidentiary standard than what it would have to otherwise apply. The Sixth Circuit recently reminded us of this in United States v. Jaimez. 

Timothy Jaimez initially pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess narcotics with the intent to distribute them. After a previous revocation, police arrested him for transporting marijuana with co-felons from his original conviction. An Ohio court subsequently found him guilty of attempting to traffic marijuana, a misdemeanor.

Citing his Ohio conviction, the District Court found Jaimez violated his supervised release by: (1) being charged with a new crime; (2) associating with known felons; and (3) possessing drug paraphernalia. Over his objection, the District Court sentenced him to sixty months' incarceration based on a "Grade A" violation.

The Court first found Jaimez's sentence procedurally reasonable, noting the District Court properly considered the federal sentencing factors, including the seriousness of his offense, promotion of respect for the law, and the provision of just punishment -- factors it was not required to consider pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Finally, it held the District Court properly sentenced him for a "Grade A" violation, even though an Ohio court only found him guilty of a misdemeanor offense, noting it could have reasonably concluded, under a preponderance of the evidence standard, that Jaimez knowingly transported under a kilogram of marijuana aware it was intended for resale, which is punishable by over a year imprisonment in Ohio.

The Court next rejected Jaimez's argument that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. It held the District Court did not place too much weight on his underlying conduct, noting such conduct demonstrated a "flagrant lack of" deterrence and respect for the law considering the similarity between it and his original offense. 

Jaimez also argued his sentence constituted "double punishment" for his Ohio offense. Not so, the Court said. It noted the longstanding rule that federal and state courts can punish defendants separately. Moreover, it held Jaimez's sentence was not, in fact, punishment for his Ohio conduct. Instead, it noted that revocation sentences are never punishment for the actual release violations; instead, they are punishment for the original offense and for breaching the court's trust.

The Court also rejected Jaimez's challenge to the length of his within-Guidelines sentence. First, noting that "every drug trafficker could have shipped more drugs," it rejected Jaimez's argument that a maximum sentence was not warranted because his underlying conduct could have been worse. It then concluded the District Court gave sufficient weight to Jaimez's "paper-thin" mitigating evidence. Finding it both procedurally and substantively reasonable, the Court affirmed his sentence.