Today, the Supreme Court granted review in Esteras v. United States, in which the justices will address a circuit split over what factors judges can consider when sentencing a person for violating conditions of supervised release and if a court may consider factors that the supervised release law, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), does not mention.
Congress omitted the factors set forth in Section 3553(a)(2)(A) — the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.
Edgardo Esteras contends that five courts of appeals, including the 6th Circuit in his case, have concluded that district courts may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, but four other courts of appeals have concluded that they may not. The prosecution contends that courts can properly consider such factors and that “[a]ny modest disagreement among the courts of appeals on the question presented has no practical effect.”
Esteras, Jaimez and Leaks are represented by the Federal Public Defender for the Southern District of Ohio, and the Federal Public Defender of the Northern District of Ohio respectively.