Sentencing for violation of supervised release terms; Procedural reasonableness; Consideration of the length of defendant's state-court sentence; USSG Manual § 7B1.3(f); Finding that defendant trafficked cocaine when he pled guilty only to possession in state court; Whether the district court adequately justified its upward sentencing departure; 18 USC § 3553(a); Substantive reasonableness

The court affirmed the district court’s upward departure in sentencing defendant-Sims for violating the terms of his supervised release, holding that it did not err by considering the length of his state-court sentence or in finding he trafficked cocaine when he only pled guilty in state court to possession. The district court previously sentenced Sims to 48 months in prison and a 3-year term of supervised release after he pled guilty to FIP of a firearm and ammunition. He admitted that he violated the terms of his supervised release by using marijuana. But despite being warned that continued drug use could jeopardize his status, 2.4 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, and a measuring scoop were later found in his car. After pleading guilty in state court to felony cocaine possession, he was sentenced to nine months. At his hearing for revocation of his federal term of supervised release, he admitted to supervised-release violations of unauthorized drug use, possession of cocaine, and failure to report police contact but denied that he owned the cocaine. The district court concluded his denials were “not credible.” With a guidelines range of 7 to 13 months, Sims asked for a 9-month sentence and the government requested a 12-month consecutive sentence. The district court imposed an 18-month sentence to run consecutively to his state sentence. Sims argued that it erred by considering the length of his state-court sentence. But the court noted that the state sentence was relevant because it formed the basis of his supervised release violation and Guidelines Manual § 7B1.3(f) required the district court to consider how the federal term would interact with the state sentence. It also rejected his argument that the district court erred by finding that he trafficked cocaine. “At a revocation hearing, a district court may find facts by a preponderance of the evidence and may consider any reliable information in fashioning an appropriate sentence.” The district court considered the evidence taken from his car, which indicated “more than personal use[,]” and reasonably concluded that he had engaged in trafficking. Lastly, the court held that the district court adequately justified the sentence. It connected the “variance to Sims’s repeated failures to comply with conditions of supervision and the need for increased deterrence.” As to substantive reasonableness, given his “repeated failures and the ineffectiveness of prior lenience, an extra five months for cocaine possession while on supervised released is not ‘too long.’”