United States v. Haddad: Clarifying Plain-Error Review When Impermissible § 3553(a) Factors Creep into Revocation Sentencing

Introduction

United States v. Ronald Haddad, Jr., Nos. 24-2855, 25-1484, 25-2020, 25-2040 (7th Cir. June 27, 2025), is a consolidated, non-precedential order that nevertheless advances an important procedural clarification: when a district court revoking supervised release mentions impermissible sentencing factors (here, the “seriousness of the offense” and “respect for the law”) but does not rely on them, appellate relief is foreclosed absent a showing—under the plain-error framework—that the remarks likely affected the sentence.

The appellant, Ronald Haddad, challenged (i) the finding that he violated supervised-release conditions and (ii) the six-month prison term plus 2½ years’ additional supervision imposed by Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall after repeated state-law offenses. His appointed lawyer filed an Anders motion to withdraw, arguing that any appeal would be frivolous. The Seventh Circuit agreed, granted the motion, and dismissed all four related appeals.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that:

A Grade C violation (criminal trespass) was conclusively established by Haddad’s state conviction, even though the conviction was on direct appeal.
A Grade B violation (aggravated battery on a peace officer) was established by Haddad’s own admissions and an unobjected-to police report; any confrontation-clause argument was forfeited.
The district court properly calculated the Chapter 7 advisory range (4–10 months) and imposed a within-range term of six months, followed by a lawful 30-month supervised-release term.
Although the district judge briefly referred to impermissible § 3553(a) factors, reversal is unwarranted absent a “reasonable probability” of a lower sentence—consistent with Olano plain-error review and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Esteras v. United States (2025).
Discrepancies between the oral pronouncement and the written judgment either benefitted Haddad or were clerical; therefore, no relief was appropriate.
All additional pro se appeals were either untimely or duplicative and were dismissed.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) – sets out counsel’s duties when an appeal appears frivolous.
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) – established that the right to counsel in revocation proceedings is not absolute but often provided.
United States v. Brown, 823 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2016) – confirms Anders procedures apply to supervised-release revocations in the Seventh Circuit.
United States v. Perez, 99 F.4th 972 (7th Cir. 2024) – re-affirms the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for proving violations and the confrontation right.
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) – foundational case on plain-error review.
Esteras v. United States, 600 U.S. ___, 2025 WL 1716137 (2025) – Supreme Court decision limiting district courts to § 3583(e) factors during revocation; cited for the notion that improper factors do not mandate reversal absent prejudice.
Additional supporting cases: Fleming (state conviction suffices), Lopez-Hernandez (use of police reports in sentencing), Patlan (waiver of condition challenges), Kappes (overbreadth of certain standard conditions), and others listed in the order.

2. Legal Reasoning of the Seventh Circuit

Scope of Review under Anders. Because counsel’s Anders brief was “thorough,” the panel limited review to the issues flagged by counsel and Haddad’s Rule 51(b) responses.
Revocation Supported by Record. The state-court conviction and the admitted conduct each independently met the preponderance burden under Rule 32.1.
Waiver & Forfeiture Principles.
- By failing to object to the use of the police report or to demand witness confrontation, Haddad forfeited confrontation claims.
- By affirmatively stating he had no objection to the conditions announced, he waived future challenges to those conditions.
Sentencing Calculations. Grade B violation + Criminal-history I → 4–10 months (§ 7B1.4(a)). Six months was lawful (18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)).
Plain-Error Application to Impermissible Factors.
- Although “seriousness” and “respect for the law” are not listed in § 3583(e), their fleeting mention did not satisfy the third and fourth Olano prongs (effect on substantial rights; harm to judicial reputation).
- The panel drew heavily on Esteras, emphasizing that not every inappropriate reference is reversible; what matters is reliance, not utterance.
Oral vs. Written Judgment Discrepancies. Missing conditions in the written judgment were favorable to Haddad; minor wording mismatches were inconsequential under Strobel.

3. Potential Impact

Though technically “non-precedential,” the order is informative for district judges and litigants within the Seventh Circuit and beyond:

Reinforces rigorous plain-error hurdles for defendants attempting to overturn revocation sentences based on stray references to impermissible factors.
Signals a pragmatic tolerance for harmless sentencing missteps post-Esteras, provided the district court relies primarily on authorized considerations such as deterrence and defendant characteristics.
Highlights the strategic importance of timely objections. Failure to contest evidentiary submissions or sentencing remarks can doom an appeal.
Encourages careful alignment of written judgments with oral pronouncements while suggesting that omissions that benefit the defendant rarely justify resentencing.
Guides defense counsel on Anders practice in the revocation context, illustrating what a “thorough” Anders submission looks like.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised Release: A period of community supervision that follows a federal prison sentence, akin to probation but administered by federal probation officers.
Revocation: The court’s decision to terminate supervised release (usually because of violations) and impose additional penalties, commonly imprisonment and/or a new term of supervision.
Grade A/B/C Violations: Classification system in the Sentencing Guidelines (Chapter 7). Grade A is the most serious; Grade C the least. The grade affects the advisory imprisonment range.
Plain-Error Review (Olano): A four-part test applied when an issue was not raised in the district court: (1) error, (2) plain/obvious, (3) affecting substantial rights (usually meaning it altered the outcome), and (4) seriously affecting the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Anders Brief: A filing in which appointed counsel explains why an appeal lacks arguable merit and seeks to withdraw; the appellate court independently reviews the record for non-frivolous issues.
Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right; forfeiture is a failure to timely assert a right inadvertently. Waiver usually extinguishes appellate review, whereas forfeiture allows review for plain error.

Conclusion

United States v. Haddad underscores the Seventh Circuit’s continuing adherence to Anders safeguards and to a disciplined application of plain-error review in supervised-release revocation appeals. The panel’s treatment of impermissible § 3553(a) factors, filtered through the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Esteras, establishes a pragmatic rule: mention is not reliance, and reversal requires a concrete showing of prejudice. District judges are reminded to cabin their reasoning to the enumerated § 3583(e) factors, but the decision provides them comfort that minor verbal missteps, when unobjected-to and non-prejudicial, will not invalidate otherwise sound sentences. For practitioners, the case is a cautionary tale about timely objections, the consequences of waiver, and the limited post-sentence leverage available when counsel has already filed an Anders brief.