Upholding Discretion in Supervised-Release Revocation: Mens Rea for RRC Violations and Flexible Use of Hearsay Evidence

Introduction

This commentary reviews the Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Randy Scott Rader, decided June 3, 2025. The appeal arises from the district court’s revocation of Randy Rader’s supervised release after two distinct violations: failure to reside at a residential reentry center (RRC) for the full four-month period and unauthorized use of cocaine. Rader challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence supporting these violations and the resulting below-Guidelines sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed both the revocation and the sentence, clarifying key points of supervised-release law, including the required mens rea for compliance with special conditions, the admissibility of hearsay evidence in revocation hearings, and the scope of the court’s discretionary authority under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

Summary of the Judgment

The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Rader (1) knowingly failed to complete his four-month stay at the RRC, and (2) used cocaine in violation of a standard supervised-release condition.
Evidence included testimony about Rader’s combative behavior at intake, laboratory confirmation of cocaine in his urine sample, and the court’s prior warnings about consequences for non-compliance.
The district court revoked Rader’s supervised release, calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 8–14 months for the RRC violation and 21–27 months for the drug violation, then imposed a downward-variance total sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment with no further supervised release.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that:
- The court did not clearly err in finding Rader knowingly violated the RRC condition, given prior warnings and his disruptive conduct.
- The hearsay laboratory affidavit was sufficiently reliable under the flexible evidentiary standards for revocation hearings.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying § 3583(e)(3) to revoke supervised release or in imposing a procedurally and substantively reasonable sentence under the § 3553(a) factors.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Kontrol, 554 F.3d 1089 (6th Cir. 2009): Established the standard of review for supervised-release revocations—abuse of discretion for revocation, de novo for legal conclusions, clear error for factual findings.
United States v. De Leon, 810 F. App’x 384 (6th Cir. 2020) & United States v. Smith, 695 F. App’x 854 (6th Cir. 2017): Discussed the mens rea requirements (willfulness or knowledge) for violation of special conditions.
United States v. Stephenson, 928 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1991) & United States v. Lofton, 810 F. App’x 436 (6th Cir. 2020): Confirmed that hearsay may be considered in supervised-release revocation hearings if sufficiently reliable.
United States v. Kokoski, 435 F. App’x 472 (6th Cir. 2011): Affidavits under oath with detailed laboratory procedures satisfy reliability for hearsay admission.
United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2008): Applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to supervised-release revocation sentences and the § 3553(a) analysis.
United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) & United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008): Laid out procedural reasonableness requirements and preserved-error analysis for sentencing challenges.
United States v. Johnson, 95 F.4th 404 (6th Cir. 2024) & United States v. Ely, 468 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2006): Addressed substantive reasonableness and the presumption in favor of within-Guidelines or below-Guidelines sentences.

Legal Reasoning

Revocation Standard (18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3))
The court applies a preponderance standard to determine violation of supervised-release conditions and reviews the revocation for abuse of discretion. See Kontrol.
Mens Rea for Special Conditions
Even if a special condition does not explicitly require willfulness, the court found no clear error in concluding Rader “knowingly” violated the RRC requirement. Rader had been twice warned that non-compliance would lead to prison, and his own disruptive conduct rendered his non-completion voluntary and willful. See De Leon, Smith.
Admissibility of Hearsay
Revocation hearings permit reliable hearsay. The laboratory director’s affidavit—made under oath with detailed methodology—was reliable. The court thus properly credited the positive cocaine test over Rader’s denial. See Stephenson, Kokoski, Lofton.
Discretion in Sentencing
Upon revocation, the district court again considers the advisory Guidelines, treats them as advisory, and weighs the § 3553(a) factors. The court’s 10-month below-Guidelines total sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable. Although Rader argued for placement in a substance-abuse program, the court gave multiple chances and lawfully concluded prison was necessary. See Polihonki, Rayyan, Johnson, Ely.

Potential Impact

This decision reaffirms the broad discretion of district courts in supervised-release revocation, especially in weighing repeated non-compliance with special and standard conditions.
It underscores that supervised-release hearings allow reliable hearsay, lowering the defendant’s ability to challenge laboratory results on technical grounds.
The case clarifies that mens rea for special conditions may be established by explicit warnings and the defendant’s conduct, even without explicit statutory language.
Sentencing practitioners should note the continued strength of the § 3553(a) framework and the presumption of reasonableness for within- or below-Guidelines sentences on revocation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Preponderance of the Evidence: The standard requiring that a fact is more likely true than not (greater than 50% probability), less stringent than “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Abuse of Discretion: An appellate standard under which a district court’s decision will be upheld unless it is arbitrary, irrational, or based on an erroneous view of the law.
Hearsay in Revocation Hearings: Unquestioned statements made outside court normally inadmissible at trial, but allowed in revocation proceedings if reliable (e.g., sworn affidavits with tested procedures).
Advisory Guidelines and § 3553(a): Sentencing Guidelines provide a recommended range; judges must consider statutory factors (nature of offense, history, deterrence, public safety, etc.) and may vary from the range.
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Revocation: Certain violations (e.g., three positive tests under § 3583(g)(4)) require mandatory prison, but most revocations under § 3583(e)(3) are discretionary based on any violation by preponderance.

Conclusion

United States v. Randy Scott Rader reaffirms that district courts have broad discretion in revoking supervised release under § 3583(e)(3), including the authority to admit reliable hearsay and to impose sentences below the Guidelines when justified by the § 3553(a) factors. The decision clarifies that defendants can be held to a mens rea standard for special conditions through explicit warnings and proved conduct, and that proof of drug use need not rest on direct testimony when laboratory affidavits are sufficiently detailed. Going forward, this case will guide both probation officers and defense counsel in framing revocation hearings and sentencing arguments, emphasizing compliance with all conditions of supervised release and preparing to address reliable hearsay evidence.