A Brief, Contextual Explanation Supports a Within-Guidelines Consecutive Revocation Sentence

Introduction

This appeal concerned the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a 30-month federal sentence imposed after David de Leon Colon violated supervised release by committing a serious state drug-trafficking offense. The district court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to his five-year state sentence and imposed an additional two years of supervised release.

Mr. de Leon Colon argued that the district court inadequately explained its decision and failed to give sufficient attention to his medical conditions, personal history, character evidence, and completion of drug treatment. The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments. It held that a sentencing court may provide a relatively brief explanation for a within-guidelines revocation sentence when the record shows that the court considered the parties’ submissions, the statutory factors, the Guidelines, and the defendant’s escalating misconduct.

The opinion is designated “Not for Publication,” so its formal precedential force is limited. It nevertheless offers useful guidance concerning revocation sentencing, preservation of procedural objections, mitigating evidence, and consecutive sentences.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 2009, Mr. de Leon Colon pleaded guilty to a cocaine-base offense committed near a protected area. He initially received 121 months’ imprisonment and eight years of supervised release. His prison term was later reduced to 100 months, and he began supervised release in August 2016.

His supervised release was soon revoked after several failed drug tests. The district court imposed time served and five additional years of supervised release. In 2021, while still under supervision, state investigators identified him as a potential participant in a drug-trafficking organization. A traffic stop produced fentanyl, cocaine, and drug-distribution paraphernalia. He later pleaded no contest to trafficking at least 14 grams of fentanyl and received a five-year state sentence.

At the federal revocation proceeding, Mr. de Leon Colon admitted the violation. The court postponed sentencing so that he could submit mitigating materials, including character letters, treatment records, and medical documentation showing Hepatitis C, severe hepatic fibrosis, and chronic kidney disease with significantly impaired kidney function.

He requested a 30-month federal sentence concurrent with his state sentence, emphasizing that the Federal Bureau of Prisons could provide better medical treatment. The government sought a 24-month consecutive sentence, stressing the dangerous drugs involved, the favorable state sentence, and the escalating severity of his violations.

The district court calculated a Grade A violation and criminal-history category IV, producing an advisory range of 24 to 30 months. It imposed 30 months consecutively, explaining that Mr. de Leon Colon’s conduct had progressed from drug use to dealing particularly lethal drugs. No further objection was made.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed on both issues:

• Procedural reasonableness: Because Mr. de Leon Colon did not object to the adequacy of the explanation at sentencing, review was only for plain error. The district court’s explanation was sufficient because it expressly considered the Guidelines, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the parties’ arguments, his prior violation, the escalation of his criminal conduct, and the danger posed by fentanyl trafficking.
• Substantive reasonableness: The court was not required to discuss every mitigating document individually. Its acknowledgment that it had reviewed the filings and considered the statutory factors was enough. The sentence also fell within the advisory range and below the statutory maximum, supporting its reasonableness.

Analysis

The Governing Rule

The central holding is that a district court adequately explains a within-guidelines revocation sentence when the hearing record, viewed as a whole, demonstrates that the court considered the parties’ arguments and identified a reasoned basis for the sentence. The court need not separately discuss every § 3553(a) factor or every item of mitigation evidence.

The decision also confirms that escalation from drug use to trafficking dangerous narcotics may justify placing substantial weight on deterrence, protection of the public, and the seriousness of the supervised-release breach.

Procedural Reasonableness and Plain-Error Review

A procedurally sound sentence requires a correct Guidelines calculation, consideration of the applicable statutory factors, and an explanation sufficient for appellate review. The amount of explanation is context dependent. A substantial variance ordinarily demands more explanation than a sentence falling within the advisory range.

Because defense counsel did not object after sentence was imposed, Mr. de Leon Colon had to establish plain error: an error that was clear or obvious, affected his substantial rights, and seriously undermined the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. The panel found no error at the first step. The sentencing judge had expressly identified the previous violation, the escalation in conduct, and the lethality of the drugs being distributed.

Substantive Reasonableness

Substantive review asks whether the sentence falls within the range of reasonable choices available to the district court. It does not permit the appellate court to reweigh the relevant considerations merely because it might have selected a different sentence.

The district court could reasonably give greater weight to repeated noncompliance and public danger than to Mr. de Leon Colon’s health conditions and treatment history. A court’s failure to mention particular mitigating evidence does not show that the evidence was ignored, especially where the court states that it reviewed the parties’ filings and invites additional mitigation at the hearing.

Consecutive Sentencing

The panel recognized the general discretion of federal courts to determine whether a sentence will run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence, including a state sentence. At the time of sentencing, U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) stated that imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release should be served consecutively to a sentence the defendant was already serving.

The court applied the Guidelines Manual in effect on July 1, 2025, the date of sentencing. It specifically noted that § 7B1.3(f) was amended on November 1, 2025. Thus, the opinion’s discussion of the provision must be understood in light of the version applicable at the time of this sentencing.

Precedents Cited

United States v. Hamilton, 168 F.4th 1354 (11th Cir. 2026)

This decision supplied the standard for reviewing an unpreserved procedural sentencing claim. It established that ordinary abuse-of-discretion review gives way to plain-error review when the defendant fails to object during sentencing. That demanding standard materially weakened Mr. de Leon Colon’s procedural challenge.

United States v. King, 57 F.4th 1334 (11th Cir. 2023)

United States v. King provided the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a revocation sentence.

United States v. Sotelo, 130 F.4th 1229 (11th Cir. 2025)

This precedent emphasized that appellate courts do not substitute their preferred sentence for the district court’s judgment. Their task is limited to determining whether the sentence falls within the range of permissible outcomes.

United States v. Steiger, 99 F.4th 1316 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc)

United States v. Steiger articulated the obligation under § 3553(c) to explain a sentence sufficiently to permit meaningful appellate review. It also established that the required detail varies according to the circumstances: within-guidelines sentences may require less explanation, while major departures or variances require more.

Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007)

Rita v. United States supports the proposition that a judge who applies the Guidelines need not always provide a lengthy explanation. The Eleventh Circuit relied on that principle because Mr. de Leon Colon received a sentence within the calculated range.

United States v. Hamilton, 66 F.4th 1267 (11th Cir. 2023)

This earlier United States v. Hamilton decision explained that a court need not expressly address every § 3553(a) factor. A concise explanation may draw meaning from the record, the defendant’s background, and the arguments presented by counsel.

United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2013)

United States v. Kuhlman supplied the practical test for adequate explanation: the record must show that the court considered the parties’ arguments and possessed a reasoned basis for its decision. The district court’s comments about escalating misconduct and dangerous drugs satisfied that test.

Setser v. United States, 566 U.S. 231 (2012)

Setser v. United States confirms federal judicial authority to decide whether a federal sentence will run concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence, including one imposed in state court. It established the district court’s authority to impose the consecutive sentence challenged here.

United States v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc)

United States v. Irey identifies three principal forms of substantive unreasonableness: failing to consider an important factor, relying significantly on an improper factor, or committing a clear error of judgment in balancing proper factors. The panel found none of these defects.

United States v. Scott, 426 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Scott, abrogated on other grounds by Rita v. United States, supports the rule that a district court may adequately demonstrate consideration of § 3553(a) without expressly discussing every factor.

United States v. Butler, 39 F.4th 1349 (11th Cir. 2022)

United States v. Butler directly addressed mitigating evidence. It held that failure to discuss mitigation expressly does not establish that the evidence was ignored. An acknowledgment that the court considered the statutory factors and the parties’ arguments ordinarily suffices.

United States v. Castaneda, 997 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2021)

United States v. Castaneda recognizes that a guidelines sentence below the statutory maximum is ordinarily expected to be reasonable. Although this is not an irrebuttable presumption, it reinforced the conclusion that the 30-month sentence was permissible.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised release

A period of federal monitoring following imprisonment. Violating its conditions can result in additional imprisonment and further supervision.

Revocation sentence

A sentence imposed because the defendant breached the conditions of supervised release. It addresses the breach of supervision, even when the same conduct also produced a separate state conviction.

Procedural reasonableness

Whether the sentencing process was legally proper, including the Guidelines calculation, consideration of relevant factors, and adequacy of the court’s explanation.

Substantive reasonableness

Whether the sentence itself was within the range of choices reasonably available to the district court.

Plain error

A demanding standard used when an issue was not properly preserved. The error must be clear, prejudicial, and sufficiently serious to justify appellate correction.

Grade A violation

The most serious category of supervised-release violation under the Guidelines, generally involving serious criminal conduct.

Concurrent and consecutive sentences

Concurrent sentences run at the same time; consecutive sentences run one after the other.

Mitigating evidence

Information offered to support a less severe sentence, such as illness, treatment progress, family circumstances, or positive character evidence.

Potential Impact

The opinion reinforces several practical lessons. First, defendants should make a specific objection if they believe the court’s explanation is inadequate; otherwise, appellate review will ordinarily be limited to plain error. Second, sentencing judges may rely on context and need not mechanically recite every statutory factor. Third, serious new criminal conduct—particularly fentanyl trafficking—may outweigh substantial medical and rehabilitative evidence.

The ruling also confirms that a top-of-the-range revocation sentence is not arbitrary merely because the court does not explain why it selected one precise point rather than another. A reasoned discussion of the defendant’s conduct, history of violations, and danger to the public may be enough.

Its future reach is moderated by two features: the opinion is unpublished, and its discussion of U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(f) concerns the Guidelines version in effect before the November 2025 amendment.

Conclusion

United States v. David De Leon-Colon confirms that a concise but contextually meaningful explanation can sustain a within-guidelines, consecutive revocation sentence. The district court demonstrated a reasoned basis by identifying repeated violations, escalation from drug use to drug trafficking, and the exceptional danger of fentanyl distribution.

The principal takeaway is that sentencing courts need not discuss every mitigating fact individually. When the record shows consideration of the submissions, statutory factors, Guidelines, and competing arguments, appellate courts will defer to the district court’s weighing of those considerations.