Background
Demetri Romell Pharr pleaded guilty in 2009 to manufacturing cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). The district court sentenced him to 157 months in prison followed by 10 years of supervised release.
In 2025, Pharr admitted violating the terms of his supervised release, and the district court revoked his supervision and imposed a 42-month prison sentence above the advisory Chapter Seven policy-statement range. Pharr appealed, arguing that the upward-variant sentence was plainly unreasonable. He also moved to file a pro se supplemental brief despite being represented by counsel.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the 42-month revocation sentence was reasonable. The district court sufficiently explained that Pharr committed several violations, lacked credibility, was dishonest and uncooperative with his probation officer, and used hotel points to obtain rooms for drug dealers in exchange for drugs—conduct similar to the activity underlying his earlier conviction.
The panel also found that the district court properly weighed Pharr’s positive employment history and some negative drug tests against the need for deterrence and protection of the public. It concluded that the mitigating circumstances did not outweigh Pharr’s continued criminal conduct, particularly because his earlier 157-month prison term had failed to deter him. The Fourth Circuit separately denied Pharr’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief because he was represented by counsel.
Key Takeaways
- A revocation sentence within the statutory maximum will be affirmed unless it is plainly unreasonable.
- An above-range revocation sentence requires an explanation showing why the higher sentence better serves the applicable sentencing factors.
- The district court adequately justified the 42-month term by addressing Pharr’s repeated violations, dishonesty, similar criminal conduct, failed deterrence, mitigating evidence, and danger to the public.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deferential review applied to supervised-release revocation sentences and the explanation needed to sustain an upward variance. A sentencing court need not provide the same level of detail required for an original sentence, but it must address potentially meritorious arguments and give reasons sufficient for meaningful appellate review.
The opinion also confirms that a represented appellant has no right to submit an additional pro se brief raising substantive issues.