United States v. Booker

United States v. Booker, 63 F.4th 1254 (2023) Supervised Release Sentencing Short version: Judge should not consider the retribution prong when thinking about sentencing on revocations Long version: Section 3553(a)(2) requires the judges to consider: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Subsection A which is “to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment” is known as the retribution prong (seems a bit of a misnomer to me but SCOTUS didn’t ask me – go figure). Now for supervised release revocation/modification the statute (§ 3583(e)) instructs to think about some 3553(a) factors but noticeably the retribution prong is not on that list. And under canons of statutory construction this means the court should not consider this prong. Since the judge did mention this during the sentencing spiel, it’s error. But (because there is always a but) it is harmless because it was “a formulaic recitation of a statutorily enumerated sentencing factor” and Mr. Booker would have received the same sentence.