Upward Variance Discretion in Supervised Release Revocation Sentences: United States v. Joshua Scott

Introduction

United States v. Joshua Scott, decided by the Eleventh Circuit on March 20, 2025, addresses the scope of a district court’s discretion to impose an upward variance above the advisory guideline range when revoking a term of supervised release. Joshua Scott, a felon previously convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) for pointing a shotgun at his wife, completed his 63-month prison term and began supervised release in December 2022. In October 2023, Scott was found in possession of his mother’s handgun, threatened to kill her, and was subsequently charged with violations of his release conditions. After admitting to gun possession, the district court revoked his supervised release and varied upward from the 12–18-month guideline range to impose the statutory maximum of 24 months’ imprisonment. Scott appealed, arguing that the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals reviewed Scott’s sentence for substantive reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard. It confirmed that:

A district court may consider undisputed facts in a presentence or revocation report without objection.
Although possession of a firearm by a supervised-releasee mandates revocation under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)(2), the court must still consider the advisory guideline range and may apply 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to vary above it.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding an upward variance justified by Scott’s violent history, his repeated gun-related misconduct, and the need for adequate deterrence.

Because Scott failed to object to the underlying factual allegations, the court’s reliance on them was permissible, and its sentence—though above the guidelines—fell within the broad range of reasonable outcomes. The Eleventh Circuit therefore affirmed the 24-month term.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Eleventh Circuit anchored its decision on several key authorities:

United States v. Vandergrift, 754 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2014): Established that revocation sentences are reviewed for reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
United States v. Brown, 224 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2000): Held that even when revocation is mandatory (e.g., firearm possession), courts must consider the advisory guideline range and may also consider § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Oudomsine, 57 F.4th 1262 (11th Cir. 2023): Confirmed that district courts enjoy broad discretion to vary outside guideline ranges and that appellate courts must give due deference to such sentencing decisions.
United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2009) and United States v. Wade, 458 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2006): Clarified that undisputed facts in a presentence report are binding if not objected to.
United States v. Grushko, 50 F.4th 1 (11th Cir. 2022): Emphasized that a variance must be supported by sufficiently compelling § 3553(a) justifications.
Tapia v. United States, 564 U.S. 319 (2011): Partially abrogated Brown’s language on the necessity of considering § 3553(a) factors but did not disturb its core holding regarding revocation.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning can be distilled as follows:

Mandatory Revocation vs. Sentencing Discretion
Section 3583(g)(2) obligates revocation and caps the term at two years when a supervised-releasee possesses a firearm. That cap becomes the statutory maximum, but the district court retains discretion—subject to § 3553(a)—to determine the appropriate sentence within that limit.
Guidelines and § 3553(a) Factors
Although the guidelines for revocation are advisory, the court must calculate and consider the range (12–18 months here). It may then weigh the § 3553(a) factors—nature of the offense, history and characteristics, deterrence, protection of the public, and consistency with similar sentences—to justify a variance above the range.
Reliance on Undisputed Facts
Because Scott did not object to the revocation report’s allegations (gun possession, terroristic threats, prior brandishing), the court permissibly credited those facts in determining that a higher sentence was warranted.
Reasonableness Review
Under the totality of the circumstances, an upward variance to the statutory maximum was not a clear error of judgment. The court’s detailed explanation—citing Scott’s repeated violent conduct shortly after release and the need for deterrence—satisfied the requirement for a compelling justification.

Impact

United States v. Joshua Scott reinforces and clarifies several points for practitioners and lower courts:

District courts have broad discretion to impose upward variances in supervised-release revocation cases, even where possession of a firearm mandates revocation.
Mandatory revocation statutes do not preclude consideration of the full suite of § 3553(a) factors or the imposition of sentences above the advisory guidelines, up to the statutory maximum.
Failure to object to factual assertions in revocation reports will bind defendants at sentencing and on appeal.
Appellate courts will defer to well-explained district court judgments on variance, viewing them as reasonable unless a clear error in weighing factors is shown.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supervised Release Revocation: A process by which a court reinstates a term of imprisonment if a releasee violates the conditions of supervision.
Advisory Guidelines: Sentencing ranges recommended by the Sentencing Commission, which courts must calculate and consider but may depart from or vary under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Variance vs. Departure: A “departure” alters the guidelines for policy reasons set forth in the Guidelines Manual, while a “variance” relies solely on § 3553(a) factors.
§ 3553(a) Factors: Statutory considerations that guide sentence selection, including the nature of the offense, history of the defendant, need for deterrence, protection of the public, and consistency among sentences.
Reasonableness Review: An appellate standard assessing whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence that logically advances the § 3553(a) objectives.

Conclusion

United States v. Joshua Scott affirms that, even in mandatory-revocation contexts, district courts may impose sentences above the advisory guideline range when adequately grounded in the § 3553(a) factors. By upholding Scott’s statutory-maximum sentence, the Eleventh Circuit underscores the wide latitude given to sentencing courts to address repeat violent misconduct and to promote deterrence. This decision will guide future revocation proceedings, reminding defendants of the importance of contesting factual allegations and illustrating the degree of deference appellate courts grant to well-reasoned variances.