Whether the First Circuit erred in affirming the district court's denial of the petitioner's motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment

No question identified. : 2 JURISDICTION The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit entered its judgment on May 16, 2018. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1), which grants the United States Supreme Court jurisdiction to review by writ of certiorari all final judgments of the courts of appeals. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner was indicted for violations of Title 21, U.S.C. § 841 & 846, Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances. The 18 USS.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors.18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a) (3), 7B1.4(a) Revocation or Modification of Probation or Supervised Release. STATEMENT In 2010 the Petitioner was imprisoned after pleading guilty to participating in a drug trafficking conspiracy. He was released in 2015 to begin a four-year term of supervised release. In 2016, a probation officer complained to the district court that Ramirez had violated conditions of release by having or using cocaine. The Petitioner accepted responsibility for the revocation process in a timely manner. The Petitioner requested a sentence of imprisonment of six months and special conditions to focus on his stress problems and lack of emotional control. Following his plea of guilty to a violation of the conditions of his supervised release the 3 district court sentenced him to twelve (12) months in prison. The initial sentence of supervised release was four (4) years; on revocation, he was sentenced to a new three (3) years of supervised release term. The term of imprisonment and the additional supervised-release term renders the Petitioner’s sentence unreasonable because the prison term was a harsh punishment for the violations, and the record failed to indicate the additional supervised release would accomplish anything. The term of imprisonment and the additional supervised-release term is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. At the revocation hearing, the district judge stated: “His lack of honesty and commitment to make positive changes in his life only demonstrates that he is a risk to the community.” The district court’s record findings do not support the need for the imprisonment term imposed and the long period of supervised release. The imposition of additional supervised release is unreasonable and does not reflect proper consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT This case involves the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In an unpublished five page opinion the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district Court judgment and rejected the issue raised on appeal that the judgment of the 4 sentencing court was no adequately explained and the sentencing factors were not adequately considered. At sentencing a statement of reasons is important. The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties' arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. See, e.g., United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-337, 108 S.Ct. 2413, 101 L.Ed.2d 297 (1988). This is not the case. Booker and its offspring fundamentally changed the sentencing calculus, requiring courts to consider any mitigation argument related to the sentencing factors contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing a sentence within the statutory range of punishment. See Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1241-48, 179 L.Ed.2d 196 (2011); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101-02, 128 S.Ct. 558, 169 L.Ed.2d 481 (2007); Rita v. United States, 551 US. 338, 357, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). A sentencing court, postBooker, must consider nonfrivolous arguments for mitigation, even if those arguments were previously prohibited under the mandatory guidelines regime. Because the district court failed to consider a nonfrivolous claim of sentencing reduction based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing fac