Sentencing; Whether defendant knowingly & voluntarily waived his right to a revocation hearing for his supervised-release violation; Fed R Crim P 32.1(b)(2); Whether defendant’s sentence was “procedurally unreasonable”; Whether the district court erred when applying the 18 USC § 3553(a) & § 3583(e) sentencing factors & whether this led to a procedurally unreasonable sentence

The court held that the district court erred when applying the § 3553(a) sentencing factors by not specifically applying them to both defendant’s FIP conviction and his supervised-release offense, leading to a procedurally unreasonable sentence. He pled guilty to FIP, admitted this violated a condition of his supervised release, and was sentenced to 96 months in prison with a consecutive 24-month term on the violation for supervised release. Reviewing his three claims of error, the court rejected his argument that he was denied his right to a revocation hearing for the supervised-release violation because he never knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a hearing. The court held that he received all the information and opportunity to respond that he was entitled to under Rule 32.1(b)(2)(A)–(E). Thus, the district court did not clearly err by accepting that his admission of responsibility to the substantive offense and his decision to admit responsibility and forego a hearing was knowing and voluntary. The court also rejected his claim that the district court’s 96-month sentence for FIP was procedurally unreasonable. However as to his supervised-release sentence, it agreed that the district court erred when applying the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, leading to a procedurally unreasonable sentence. With a supervised-release violation, § 3583(e) requires a court to consider a subset of the § 3553(a) factors. The court noted the district court’s discussion of the relevant factors, but explained its significant error of not explicitly distinguishing between which factors, if any, applied to the supervised-release violation, or whether the factors applied to both offenses. This error required resentencing on the supervised-release violation “considering only the permissible factors set forth in § 3583(e).” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.