What is the test for a district judge to sentence a defendant for violating supervised release guidelines?

"When a district judge deviates from an advisory Guidelines range, it must consider the 'extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.'" Id. (quoting Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189). "Where there is a variance, on appellate review, 'we may take the degree of variance into account and consider the extent of a deviation from the Guidelines . . . . [A] major departure should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one." Id. (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 135 (2d Cir. 2009)).

Page 3

Although these concepts generally apply as well to sentences for violations of supervised release, we have recognized "some differences between sentencing for the underlying crime and sentencing for a violation of supervised release." Id at 252. "Supervised release is not, fundamentally, part of the punishment; rather, its focus is rehabilitation." Id. And "[t]hough the imposition of an above-Guidelines sentence triggers a 'higher descriptive obligation,' we simultaneously require less rigorous specificity where, as here, a court sentences a defendant for violation of supervised release." Id. at 253 (quoting United States v. Cassesse, 685 F.3d 186, 193 (2d Cir. 2012)). "Nonetheless, even in the revocation context, a district court must sufficiently explain its reasoning so that the parties, the public, and a reviewing court can understand the justification for the sentence, particularly when there is a material deviation." Id. at 255.