United States v. Patrick

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2021 · Evidence

998 F.3d 1071

Updated July 19, 2026

evidencesupervised releaseApprendiSixth Amendmentrevocation sentencingrevocation18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)Haymond

Facts

Henderson pleaded guilty in federal court to being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to 117 months’ imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release, while the statutory maximum for the offense was 120 months. After beginning supervised release, he committed multiple violations, including failing to appear for a urinalysis test, failing to appear for a mental health assessment, and committing new crimes for which he was convicted in Montana state court. At the revocation hearing, he admitted the violations. The district court revoked supervised release and imposed fifteen months’ imprisonment consecutive to his state sentence, plus fifteen months of supervised release.

Issue

Does the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as informed by Apprendi and United States v. Haymond, prohibit a district court from imposing a revocation sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) that, when aggregated with the defendant’s original prison term, exceeds the statutory maximum for the underlying offense absent jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt?

Rule

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a term of supervised release and any revocation sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) are part of the sentence authorized for the underlying conviction. Accordingly, neither Apprendi nor Haymond requires jury findings beyond a reasonable doubt before a court may impose a standard supervised-release revocation sentence under § 3583(e), even if the aggregate of the original imprisonment and reimprisonment exceeds the statutory maximum for the underlying substantive offense.

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 federal court in Phoenix, Luis Moreno was convicted of a firearm offense carrying a 10-year statutory maximum. He received 120 months in prison and 2 years of supervised release. After release, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) that Luis repeatedly failed drug testing conditions and imposed 8 additional months in prison.

Luis argues the revocation sentence is unconstitutional because his total incarceration now exceeds the 10-year statutory maximum for the underlying offense and no jury found the violations beyond a reasonable doubt. What is the strongest response?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, ordinary revocation under § 3583(e) does not trigger Apprendi merely because the original prison term plus reimprisonment exceeds the statutory maximum for the substantive offense. Revocation and reimprisonment are treated as part of the original penalty, and the court rejected an aggregation-based constitutional limit. (Derived from United States v. Patrick (n.d.).)