FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT January 21, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 19-3019
(D.C. No. 6:14-CR-10104-EFM-1)
JERMALL CAMPBELL, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Jermall Campbell appeals the district court’s revocation of his supervised
release. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part, reverse in
part, and remand.
I
In 2014, Campbell pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
He was sentenced to 33 months’ imprisonment to be followed by 36 months of
supervised release. Campbell was released from custody in May 2017 and began
serving his supervised release term.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Just two months later, the district court held an informal hearing to address
Campbell. It noted that the probation office had reported several violations of
Campbell’s terms of supervised release in the short time he had been out of prison.
The court declined to revoke Campbell’s supervised release but warned him against
further violations. In December 2017, the probation office moved to modify
Campbell’s conditions to require a 90-day stay in a residential re-entry center. It
noted numerous additional violations as the cause for this request. Campbell waived
his right to a hearing, and the district court granted the modification.
In November 2018, Campbell was arrested for aggravated domestic battery.
The probation office requested the district court issue a warrant for Campbell. It
subsequently provided a violation report identifying eighteen alleged violations
between May 2017 and November 2018. Sixteen were Class C violations and two
were Class B violations.
At his revocation hearing, Campbell admitted to the sixteen Class C violations.
The government requested that the remaining two violations be dismissed. With
Campbell’s category VI criminal history, the Guidelines policy statement on
supervised release recommended a term of 8-14 months’ imprisonment. U.S.S.G.
§ 7B1.4(a). The district court imposed a sentence of sixteen months’ imprisonment
to be followed by 24 months of supervised release. Campbell timely appealed.
2
II
We review a district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Jones, 818 F.3d 1091, 1097 (10th Cir. 2016).1
Campbell argues the district court failed to consider the Guidelines policy
statements on supervised release and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Although a district court is required to consider those sources in imposing
a sentence for violating the terms of supervised release, it “is not required to consider
individually each factor listed in § 3553(a), nor is it required to recite any magic
words to show us that it fulfilled its responsibility to be mindful of the factors that
Congress has instructed it to consider before issuing a sentence.” United States v.
Ortiz-Lazaro, 884 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 2018) (quotations omitted). We are
satisfied, in light of the district court’s lengthy discussion of its reasons for imposing
a sixteen-month sentence, that it adequately considered the necessary factors.
Next, Campbell argues the district court violated § 3553(c)(2) by failing to
provide a written statement of reasons for the sentence imposed. Although the
district court did not provide a written explanation, we conclude its error was
harmless. Ortiz-Lazaro, 884 F.3d at 1264 (because the district court gave a
1
Although the government contends that plain error review governs, we do not
need to resolve the question because Campbell’s claims fail regardless.
3
“comprehensive explanation for its deviation from the guidelines in open court, the
error it made by not submitting a written statement of reasons was harmless”).2
Lastly, Campbell contends the district court erred in imposing a 24-month term
of additional supervised release. The government concedes that under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(h), Campbell faced a maximum of 20 months of additional supervised release
to follow his sixteen-month sentence. We agree and thus reverse that portion of the
sentence.3
III
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the revocation of Campbell’s
supervised release, REVERSE the district court’s imposition of 24 months of
additional supervised release, and REMAND for further proceedings. We DENY AS
MOOT the government’s Motion for Enforcement of Appeal Waiver.
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
2
The government contends that the foregoing arguments are barred by an
appellate waiver. Because appellate waivers do not affect our jurisdiction, we
exercise our “discretion to bypass the relatively complex waiver issue and resolve
[Campbell’s] appeal on the merits.” United States v. Black, 773 F.3d 1113, 1115 n.2
(10th Cir. 2014).
3
The government explicitly does not move to enforce the appellate waiver as
to this issue.
4
United States v. Campbell
Combined Opinion