Harmless-Error Rule in Supervised-Release Revocations: One Proven Violation Suffices, and Unnecessary Findings Do Not Upset Revocation or Sentence When the Guidelines Range Is Unchanged

Introduction

In United States v. Shaun Steven Kidd (6th Cir. Sept. 26, 2025), a published opinion authored by Judge Readler, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the revocation of a defendant’s supervised release and a 14‑month sentence despite a dispute over one of four alleged violations. The panel held that any error in finding the contested violation—commission of a state misdemeanor—was harmless because three other Grade C violations were effectively admitted, any one of which sufficed to justify revocation, and because excluding the contested violation would not have changed the advisory policy-statement range under Chapter 7 of the Sentencing Guidelines or the district court’s ultimate sentencing choice.

The opinion crystallizes a practical and recurrent rule in supervised-release litigation: appellate courts will not reverse a revocation judgment based on an arguable error in one violation finding where other violations independently sustain revocation and the Guidelines range and sentencing decision demonstrably remain the same. The case also illustrates the deferential “clear error” standard for factual findings at revocation, the permissibility of hearsay in revocation hearings, and the advisory nature of Chapter 7.

Parties and posture:

Plaintiff–Appellee: United States of America
Defendant–Appellant: Shaun Steven Kidd
Originating Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Chattanooga)
Panel: Judges Readler, Murphy, and Bloomekatz

Summary of the Opinion

Shortly after beginning supervised release, Kidd was alleged to have violated four conditions: (1) failing to enroll in treatment programs after instructions, (2) lying to his probation officer, (3) failing to appear for a random drug screen, and (4) committing a state misdemeanor (assault and stalking). Kidd largely admitted the first three violations but disputed the fourth. The district court found all four violations by a preponderance, revoked in both underlying federal cases, and imposed a 14-month term of imprisonment within the Chapter 7 policy-statement range (8–14 months).

On appeal, Kidd challenged only the misdemeanor finding, arguing the district court should not have credited hearsay statements and that the lack of corroborating evidence, the complainant’s refusal to testify, and the dismissal of state charges undercut the finding. The Sixth Circuit declined to parse the evidentiary dispute. Instead, it held that even assuming error, the outcome would not change:

Any one violation is sufficient to justify revocation; Kidd committed three uncontested Grade C violations.
The advisory range (8–14 months) would have been the same even without the contested violation because the range is driven by the most serious grade of violation and criminal history score, and the uncontested violations already set the highest grade (Grade C) applicable here.
The district court’s sentencing explanation emphasized Kidd’s admitted violations and criminal history; it did not rely on the misdemeanor finding to select the sentence at the top of the range.

The court therefore found any error harmless and affirmed.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 2009) and Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985): These authorities supply the clear-error standard governing factual findings in revocation proceedings. Anderson’s formulation—reversal requires a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”—frames the degree of deference owed. The Kidd panel invoked this standard but ultimately found it unnecessary to resolve the factual dispute because harmless error disposed of the appeal.
United States v. Lindo, 52 F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1995) and United States v. Johnson, 356 F. App’x 785 (6th Cir. 2009): Lindo (probation) and Johnson (supervised release) establish that a single violation suffices to sustain revocation. Kidd’s three conceded Grade C violations independently authorized revocation, making any error in the fourth finding immaterial to the revocation decision.
United States v. Kokoski, 435 F. App’x 472 (6th Cir. 2011) and United States v. Henderson, 811 F. App’x 935 (6th Cir. 2020): Both apply harmless-error principles in the revocation context where other violations independently support revocation. Henderson specifically found harmless error regarding one Grade C violation where two others were conceded—precisely the alignment in Kidd.
Sister-circuit alignment: United States v. English, 400 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jokhoo, 141 F.4th 967 (8th Cir. 2025): These decisions likewise endorse affirmance when any one violation sustains revocation, reflecting a broad inter-circuit consensus that the Kidd panel expressly acknowledges and follows.
United States v. Charles, 138 F.3d 257 (6th Cir. 1998): A key anchor for harmlessness when the advisory range is unaffected. Kidd uses Charles to emphasize that where the Guidelines (here, Chapter 7 policy statements) would have yielded the same range absent the contested finding, any error did not affect substantial rights.
United States v. Wing, 682 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2012): Cited for the proposition that violations are not individually punished; rather, the court imposes a single revocation sentence based on the highest grade of violation and criminal history category. This reinforces that additional, unnecessary violation findings often do not bear on the advisory range.
U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(b) and § 7B1.4 (U.S. Sentencing Commission 2024): These policy statements determine the advisory range for revocation based on the most serious grade of violation and the defendant’s criminal history. In Kidd, the uncontested Grade C violations and Kidd’s criminal history independently placed him in the 8–14 month range.

Legal Reasoning

Standard of Review for Contested Finding: The panel recited clear-error review for revocation fact-finding (Kontrol; Anderson). It recognized the district court’s role as primary fact-finder, including weighing conflicting evidence and assessing credibility. While Kidd criticized reliance on hearsay and the lack of corroboration, the panel found it unnecessary to resolve those evidentiary concerns due to harmlessness.
Harmless Error Governs the Outcome: The decisive move was to assume arguendo that the district court erred in the misdemeanor finding and then show that the error did not affect (a) the revocation decision or (b) the sentence.
- Revocation decision: Under Lindo and Johnson, one violation suffices. Kidd admitted or did not contest three Grade C violations—lying to the probation officer, failing to follow enrollment instructions, and failing to appear for a drug screen. Thus, revocation would have been warranted regardless of the contested misdemeanor finding (Kokoski; Henderson; English; Vandergrift; Jokhoo).
- Advisory range unchanged: Chapter 7 sets the range based on the most serious grade (here, Grade C) and criminal history. The three uncontested Grade C violations already set the highest applicable grade. Removing the contested misdemeanor (also Grade C) would not alter the 8–14 month range (U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(b), 7B1.4; Charles; Wing).
- Sentencing choice unaffected: The district court’s remarks focused on Kidd’s criminal history and admitted violations (“lying to your probation officer,” failure to attend treatment). It did not emphasize the misdemeanor when explaining why a top-of-range sentence was warranted. The panel also noted Kidd’s failure to squarely preserve an argument that the top-of-range selection depended on the contested finding (citing United States v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 832, 846 (6th Cir. 2006) on inadequate briefing). Independently, the panel expressed confidence the same sentence would have been imposed even absent the misdemeanor finding.
Hearsay and Dismissed State Charges—Not Outcome-Determinative Here: Kidd’s argument emphasized unsworn hearsay from the complainant, lack of physical evidence, and state-charge dismissal. Although the panel acknowledged hearsay is generally admissible at revocation proceedings, it declined to engage this evidentiary dispute because harmless error mooted it. The dismissal of state charges likewise did not control the federal revocation decision, which is based on a different standard of proof and purpose. The panel left broader confrontation and reliability questions for another day.

Impact and Forward-Looking Significance

This publication cements and clarifies several important operational points for supervised-release practice in the Sixth Circuit:

Blueprint for Harmlessness in Revocation Appeals: Where multiple violations are found and at least one uncontested violation independently justifies revocation, defense appeals that target only a contested, non-dispositive violation face a steep uphill climb. Appellees can (and should) highlight that the advisory range and the sentencing explanation do not depend on the disputed finding.
Recordcraft for District Courts: Sentencing explanations that focus on admitted violations, noncompliance, and the § 3583(e)/§ 3553(a) factors, rather than a contested allegation, fortify harmless-error arguments and reduce the likelihood of remand. Explicitly tying the sentence to uncontested grounds makes appellate affirmance more likely even if an error lurks in a disputed finding.
Defense Strategy and Preservation: To overcome harmlessness, appellants must do more than attack the sufficiency of the evidence on a single violation. They should:
- Show that removing the contested violation would change the grade of the most serious violation (e.g., where the disputed violation is Grade A or B and others are Grade C).
- Demonstrate that the advisory range would be lower without the contested finding.
- Preserve and develop an argument that the district court’s sentence selection hinged on the disputed finding (e.g., repeated references to the contested conduct as aggravating or as a reason for a top-of-range or consecutive sentence).
Guidelines Mechanics Matter: Because § 7B1.1(b) pegs the advisory range to the highest grade, adding “extra” Grade C violations often has no effect on the range. Attempting to vacate a duplicative Grade C finding typically will not yield a lower range or sentence absent clear evidence the judge relied on that finding to select the sentence within the range.
Limited Precedential Reach on Hearsay/Confrontation: Although the panel noted that hearsay is commonly admissible at revocation (consistent with Rule 32.1 and due process caselaw), it did not delineate the boundaries of reliability or confrontation rights in this decision. Practitioners should continue to litigate reliability and the Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) balancing where those issues are outcome-determinative.
Publication Significance: By recommending the opinion for publication, the Sixth Circuit signals that the harmless-error pathway in revocation appeals—especially under unchanged advisory ranges—should guide future panels and district courts. The opinion also aligns the Sixth Circuit with sister circuits (5th, 8th, 11th), reinforcing national coherence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised Release vs. New Criminal Prosecution: Revocation is not a new prosecution. The court decides whether the defendant violated release conditions by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The purpose is to manage and sanction breach of trust in supervision, not to re-punish the original crime or adjudicate a new offense.
Hearsay at Revocation: Unlike at trial, reliable hearsay can be considered at revocation hearings. Defendants have limited confrontation rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, often subject to balancing against the government’s showing of good cause for not producing a witness and the reliability of the hearsay.
Grades of Violations (U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1): Violations are categorized as Grade A (most serious), Grade B, or Grade C (least serious). The advisory range is set by the most serious grade proved and the defendant’s criminal history category (U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4). Many “technical” violations (e.g., lying to a probation officer, missing treatment, failing drug testing) are Grade C.
Harmless Error: An appellate doctrine providing that a conviction or sentence will not be reversed for an error that did not affect the outcome. In revocation, harmlessness is typically shown if other violations independently justify revocation and the advisory range and selected sentence would be the same without the error.
Dismissed State Charges vs. Revocation Findings: State dismissal (for any number of reasons) does not preclude a federal revocation based on the same conduct because the standards, purposes, and procedures differ. Federal courts can find a violation by a preponderance even where the state declines to proceed or cannot prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

What the Opinion Does Not Decide

Reliability Thresholds for Hearsay: The panel did not resolve how much corroboration is required for hearsay statements or how to balance confrontation interests under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(C) where those issues are dispositive. Future cases will need to address these questions when the contested violation affects the grade or sentencing range.
Effect of a Higher-Grade Contested Violation: The court did not decide what to do where the disputed finding is a higher-grade violation (A or B) that increases the advisory range. In such a scenario, harmless error would be harder for the government to establish, and a remand would be more likely if the higher grade drove the range or the sentencing choice.

Practical Takeaways

For the government: Emphasize that any one uncontested violation sustains revocation, and demonstrate—using § 7B1.1(b) and § 7B1.4—that the advisory range is unchanged without the contested finding. Point to the sentencing transcript to show the district court did not rely on the disputed conduct.
For the defense: Preserve arguments that removing a contested violation would lower the grade or alter the sentencing analysis. Develop a clear record showing the district court’s reliance on the disputed conduct and explain why the sentence would likely have been different absent that reliance.
For district courts: When multiple violations exist, articulate that revocation is supported by specific uncontested violations and explain sentence selection by reference to those violations and the § 3583(e) factors. This minimizes the risk of remand if a disputed violation is later deemed unsupported.

Conclusion

United States v. Kidd delivers a clear and pragmatic message for supervised-release revocation practice in the Sixth Circuit: courts need not reverse revocation or sentence due to a disputed additional violation where other violations independently justify revocation, the advisory Chapter 7 range remains unchanged, and the sentencing decision does not turn on the contested finding. The opinion consolidates Sixth Circuit precedent and aligns with sister circuits, providing a sturdy framework for applying harmless-error review in revocation cases. Its publication ensures that district courts and litigants have a predictable roadmap for litigating and reviewing multi-violation revocations going forward.