Background
Kelly Christine Hartman pleaded guilty in December 2023 to conspiracy to aid escape from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court sentenced her to 15 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.
In January 2026, the district court revoked Hartman’s supervised release and imposed 12 months in prison with no additional supervised release. Hartman appealed, arguing that the court improperly relied on the retributive considerations listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) when it considered her lack of candor with her probation officer and failure to appear at an earlier revocation hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Because Hartman had not alerted the district court that considering her lack of candor and failure to appear might constitute impermissible reliance on § 3553(a)(2)(A), the panel reviewed the issue for plain error.
The court resolved the appeal at the second step of plain-error review. Even assuming the district court partly intended the sentence to punish Hartman for her lack of candor and failure to appear, any error was not clear or obvious because whether a sentencing court may consider retribution for supervised-release violations remains an open question. The district court focused on Hartman’s violations—including dishonesty, failure to appear, repeated drug use, failure to follow probation instructions, and unsuccessful participation in outpatient treatment—and never mentioned her original offense. It therefore did not clearly or obviously violate the Supreme Court’s rule against imposing a revocation sentence to exact retribution for the underlying crime.
Key Takeaways
- A court imposing a revocation sentence may not rely on § 3553(a)(2)(A) to exact retribution for the defendant’s underlying offense.
- A defendant who does not alert the district court to alleged reliance on prohibited retributive factors faces plain-error review on appeal.
- Because the district court focused on Hartman’s supervised-release violations rather than her original conviction, any possible reliance on retribution was not clearly or obviously unlawful.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrow relief available under plain-error review after the Supreme Court’s decision in Esteras. A revocation court’s discussion of the defendant’s conduct while under supervision does not clearly violate that decision when the court does not invoke the underlying crime or the need to punish it.
The Fourth Circuit also left unresolved whether a district court may consider retribution for the supervised-release violations themselves. Preserving that issue through a specific contemporaneous objection may therefore be critical in future revocation proceedings.