Background
Cody Zane Stevenson was on supervised release when he committed eight violations of his supervision conditions. The district court for the Northern District of West Virginia revoked his supervised release and imposed a nine-month prison sentence followed by 12 months of additional supervised release. The advisory sentencing guideline range for Grade B violations with Criminal History Category II was 6 to 12 months imprisonment.
Stevenson appealed, raising three main arguments: that the revocation proceedings should have been dismissed, that his nine-month sentence was substantively unreasonable, and that his original release date was miscalculated, which would have meant he was not actually on supervised release when the violations occurred.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the revocation judgment. The court rejected Stevenson’s first argument, finding that only his counsel had moved to dismiss—not the prosecutor or probation officer as Stevenson claimed. The court found no reversible error in the revocation itself, given Stevenson’s admission to eight violations of supervision conditions.
On the sentencing challenge, the Fourth Circuit applied a highly deferential standard, affirming because the sentence fell within statutory limits and was not plainly unreasonable. The court found the nine-month sentence procedurally reasonable because the district court: properly calculated the advisory guideline range, heard arguments from counsel, allowed Stevenson to allocute, and explained its reasoning with reference to valid sentencing factors including sanctioning Stevenson’s repeated breaches of trust and deterring future criminal conduct.
The court also found the sentence substantively reasonable, concluding that Stevenson failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness. Although Stevenson argued the court should have considered his rehabilitation efforts and noncustodial options given the nonviolent nature of the violations, the court reasonably determined that nine months was necessary given his multiple violations.
Key Takeaways
- District courts possess “extremely broad discretion” when imposing revocation sentences, and appellate review applies a highly deferential “plainly unreasonable” standard.
- A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the court considers the Sentencing Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and adequately explains its reasoning.
- Sentences within the policy statement guideline range receive a presumption of substantive reasonableness that the defendant must rebut.
- Claims of release date miscalculation must be supported by record evidence; unsupported contentions on appeal will not succeed.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of appellate review for supervised release revocation sentences. Courts have broad discretion to craft revocation penalties, and appeals will generally fail unless the sentence falls outside statutory limits or is plainly unreasonable—a high bar. The opinion also clarifies application of recent Supreme Court guidance from Esteras v. United States (2025), which limits certain sentencing considerations at revocation, while emphasizing that isolated references to impermissible factors may not require reversal if other valid reasons support the sentence and the error did not affect substantial rights.