United States v. Beckett, No. 12-4233-cr (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2013) (Pooler, Raggi, and Wesley) (summary order), available here
After the defendant violated his supervised release, the district court imposed a sentence of 10 months of imprisonment, to be followed by a new, 19-month term of supervised release. On appeal, the defendant argued that the new term of supervised release was unreasonable because it contradicted the Probation Office’s recommendation against any further supervised release.
The Circuit held that the new term of supervised release was reasonable. The panel noted that the Probation Office’s recommendation against supervised release was not binding on the district court, and that the court gave valid reasons for rejecting the recommendation. The court cited the defendant’s need for drug and alcohol treatment and the need to protect the public from any further crimes, valid statutory factors. Accordingly, the Circuit affirmed.