FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MAINE [Hon. Jon D. Levy, U.S. District Judge]
L. Parsons and Law Offices of Inga L. Parsons on brief for
B. Frank, United States Attorney, and Benjamin M. Block,
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Howard, Chief Judge, Selya and Barron, Circuit Judges.
Robert Daoust mounts a multi-pronged challenge to the
sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised
release term. Concluding, as we do, that his claims of
sentencing error are futile, we affirm the sentence.
briefly rehearse the facts and travel of the case. In 2010,
the appellant pleaded guilty to possession of heroin with
intent to distribute. See 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1). The district court sentenced him to a seven-year
term of immurement, to be followed by a three-year term of
supervised release. The appellant's prison sentence was
later reduced to seventy months, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2), and he served that sentence. His
supervised release commenced on September 29, 2016.
appellant moved into a motel room, obtained fulltime
employment, and began participating in various treatment
modalities. Soon thereafter, the appellant relocated to a
different motel room, sharing his new accommodations with a
female companion (herself a convicted felon). This new
relationship did not last long: approximately two months
after regaining his freedom, the appellant became intoxicated
at a party, returned to his motel, and wound up in an
altercation with his companion. The appellant punched the
woman in the head, covered her face with a pillow, and
repeatedly threatened that he was going to kill her. When
another motel resident tried to intervene, the appellant
struck him and pushed him to the ground.
police were notified and charged the appellant with
misdemeanor domestic violence assault. See Me. Rev.
Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 207-A. Not surprisingly, the
United States Probation Office moved expeditiously to revoke
the appellant's supervised release. The probation
officer's filing identified four putative violations of
the appellant's supervised release conditions, namely,
that he had possessed or consumed alcohol or other
intoxicants, that he had associated with a convicted felon,
that he had committed a state crime, and that he had failed
to give timely notice to the probation office prior to
revocation hearing held on March 3, 2017, the government
dismissed the charge of untimely notification. In return, the
appellant admitted to the remaining three violations. The
appellant did not object to anything in the revised
revocation report, and the district court adopted the report
in its entirety. The court proceeded to note that the
admitted violations constituted Grade C violations,
see USSG §7B1.1(a)(3); that the advisory
guideline sentencing range was eight to fourteen months,
see id. §7B1.4(a); and that the maximum penalty
provided by statute was two years' imprisonment,
see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).
probation officer recommended a sentence of one year and one
day. The government suggested that the court either adopt the
probation officer's recommendation or impose a
top-of-the-range sentence (fourteen months). For his part,
the appellant argued for a sentence in the three-to-six-month
range. After mulling the relevant guideline provisions and
sentencing factors, the district court imposed a two-year
incarcerative term, to be followed by an additional
thirty-four months of supervised release. This timely appeal