United States v. Clay, No. 13-3510 (7th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseClay’s supervised release began in May 2013, after he served a seven-year sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and using a gun during a drug-trafficking crime. In June, Clay fled on foot during a traffic stop and tried to hide a bag of marijuana in his sister’s house. He pleaded no contest to obstructing a police officer and received a suspended sentence. In September, Clay was arrested again during a traffic stop and was issued a municipal citation. Between May and October, Clay continued using drugs, failed to take three drug tests, lied about his whereabouts, did not make a good-faith effort to find a job, did not cooperate with child support enforcement, failed to submit monthly supervision reports, and continued associating with felons. The district court held that Clay’s conviction for obstructing an officer was a Grade B violation because Clay faced up to two years’ imprisonment as a repeat offender. The court revoked Clay’s supervised release and sentenced him to 24 months, relying on a factor from the sentencing statute: “the need for the sentence imposed … to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment,” that is not listed in the statute governing post-revocation sentencing, 18 U.S.C. 3583(e). The Seventh Circuit affirmed, joining the majority of circuits that have addressed the question and holding that consideration of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A) in revoking supervised release is not a procedural error.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.