United States v. Delgado

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2024 · Criminal Procedure

106 F.4th 185 (2024)

Updated July 19, 2026

crimprosupervised releaserevocation sentencingprocedural reasonablenessrevocationsentencingplain errorabuse of discretion

Facts

While on supervised release, Isaac repeatedly tested positive for marijuana and once for benzodiazepines, failed to comply with residential reentry center rules, and was accused of threatening and harassing a former romantic partner, leading to new Commonwealth domestic violence charges. His probation officer filed two revocation motions detailing these violations and also stating that Isaac had refused medication paid for by probation, thereby sabotaging his mental health treatment. At the final revocation hearing, Isaac stated that he would not contest the violations in those motions and instead argued for mitigation based on his mental health treatment, attendance, and employment. The district court relied on the uncontested violations and imposed a 36-month sentence, citing his continued drug use, failure to follow treatment, threats to a former partner, and need to protect the public.

Issue

Whether the district court imposed a procedurally unreasonable revocation sentence by relying on allegedly unsupported factual findings about Isaac's refusal to take medication and the cost of his treatment, and by failing adequately to consider Isaac's mitigating evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Rule

A sentencing court may consider only reliable evidence, but a defendant's admission to conduct provides a sufficiently reliable basis for the court to rely on the admitted-to conduct at sentencing. In a revocation proceeding, an unqualified statement that the defendant does not contest the violations described in probation motions permits the court to rely on the facts set out in those motions. A sentencing court is not required to address every mitigation argument point by point; when mitigating factors are argued and debated, the court's failure to mention each one explicitly suggests they were unconvincing rather than ignored, so long as the court adequately considers the § 3553(a) factors.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boston, Marcus Velez appeared at a final supervised-release revocation hearing after his probation officer filed a petition alleging missed drug tests, refusal to attend anger-management sessions, and threatening text messages to a former partner. Marcus told the court, after reviewing the petition, that he was "not contesting the violations in the petition" and asked only to argue for leniency based on recent counseling.

May the judge rely on the factual allegations in the probation petition when imposing sentence?

Explanation. A sentencing court may consider information with sufficient indicia of reliability, and a defendant's admission to conduct is sufficiently reliable. In a revocation proceeding, an unqualified statement that the defendant does not contest the violations described in the probation filing permits the court to rely on the facts set out there for sentencing.