Ancrum is a new but unpublished Fourth Circuit decision
On October 2, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Ancrum. The panel affirmed a judgment revoking supervised release and imposing concurrent six-month prison terms followed by twelve months of supervision.
The opinion is unpublished and expressly states that it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. It nevertheless provides a current illustration of the minimum procedures required at a federal revocation hearing and the deferential standard governing an appeal from the resulting sentence.
Revocation is not a new prosecution, but minimum due process still applies
A supervised-release revocation hearing is not a second trial on the original conviction and is not treated as a new criminal prosecution. Even so, the loss of liberty is substantial. Supreme Court decisions beginning with Morrissey v. Brewer and Gagnon v. Scarpelli require basic procedural protections before parole or probation can be revoked.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 implements those protections for federal probation and supervised release. The rule, the revocation petition, the hearing transcript, and the district court's findings should be reviewed together rather than assuming that an informal hearing automatically satisfied due process.
Rule 32.1 identifies the core hearing rights
Unless the person waives the hearing, Rule 32.1(b)(2) provides a right to written notice of the alleged violation, disclosure of the evidence, an opportunity to appear and present evidence, an opportunity to question adverse witnesses unless the court finds that the interest of justice does not require the witness to appear, and notice of the right to retain counsel or request appointed counsel when eligible.
These are separate protections. A record may show adequate notice but an unresolved witness-confrontation issue, or representation by counsel but inadequate disclosure of the evidence. Each asserted violation should be matched to the corresponding part of the rule and the facts shown in the transcript.
The district court addressed confusion about the violation report in open court
At Ancrum's final hearing, there was brief confusion about whether the operative report listed fourteen or eleven violations. The district court resolved the issue by reviewing the allegations individually in open court. Defense counsel confirmed that he had reviewed the revised report with Ancrum.
Ancrum then confirmed under oath that she had reviewed the report, declined to raise objections, accepted responsibility, and explained circumstances she believed contributed to the violations. The Fourth Circuit relied on that hearing record when rejecting the claim that she lacked adequate notice.
A disagreement between counsel and client did not establish the absence of counsel
Defense counsel stated that he was 'conflicted.' The appellate court read the remark in context as a disagreement about whether Ancrum intended to object to the report—not as counsel declaring an ethical conflict, withdrawing, or becoming unable to represent her.
The panel concluded that Ancrum remained represented throughout the hearing and received the protections Rule 32.1 requires. In another case, an actual conflict of interest, an attempted withdrawal, deficient consultation, or an uncounseled admission could present a different record and require separate analysis.
Revocation ordinarily requires proof by a preponderance, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt
Section 3583(e)(3) generally permits a federal court to revoke supervised release when it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition was violated. That burden is lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard governing a new criminal conviction.
The violation may involve conduct that also produced a new charge, but the revocation court is deciding whether a condition of release was violated and what consequence is authorized under the existing federal judgment. The new criminal case and the revocation proceeding can therefore involve different burdens, evidence rules, timelines, and outcomes.
The available prison term depends on the original offense and the revocation statute
Section 3583(e)(3) caps the imprisonment that may be imposed on a revocation according to the classification of the offense that originally produced supervised release. Section 3583(h) separately governs whether another term of supervised release may follow imprisonment and limits its length after accounting for revocation imprisonment.
A reliable calculation should begin with the original judgment, statute of conviction, offense classification, prior revocations, earlier revocation imprisonment, and any offense-specific supervised-release provision. The advisory Chapter Seven policy-statement range is important, but it is not the same thing as the statutory maximum.
Fourth Circuit review asks whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable
Under United States v. Crudup, the Fourth Circuit first asks whether a revocation sentence is unreasonable, using the considerations applicable to revocation while recognizing the district court's broad discretion. Only if the sentence is unreasonable does the court ask whether the error is plainly so.
That framework is more deferential than ordinary reasonableness review of an original sentence. A sentence within the statutory ceiling can still be challenged, but the record must identify a procedural defect or an improper substantive basis rather than merely proposing a different sentence.
The revocation court still must calculate, consider, and explain
Ancrum states that a procedurally reasonable revocation sentence includes an accurate policy-statement calculation, consideration of the relevant statutory factors, attention to the parties' principal arguments, and an adequate explanation. A substantively reasonable sentence must rest on a proper basis tied to the revocation record.
The panel concluded that the district court met those requirements. The court had continued supervision after earlier violations, modified conditions, warned of consequences, reviewed the final allegations, considered the explanations offered, and imposed a term the panel found supported by the record.
A revocation review should reconstruct both notice and proof
The essential record ordinarily includes the original judgment and conditions, every petition or violation report, amendments, service or disclosure records, detention materials, hearing notices, probation evidence, exhibits, treatment and testing records, counsel appointment, hearing transcripts, findings, policy-statement calculation, judgment, and notice of appeal.
For each alleged violation, identify the exact condition, date, factual allegation, evidence disclosed, response made, finding entered, grade assigned, and effect on the advisory range. Preserve objections when possible; unpreserved issues may face a more demanding appellate standard.
- Confirm which violation report was operative and when it was disclosed.
- Match every allegation to the exact written condition of supervision.
- Identify counsel's role, consultation, objections, and any actual conflict issue.
- Separate admissions from contested allegations and identify the proof for each finding.
- Calculate the Chapter Seven range and the statutory ceiling independently.
- Document mitigation, treatment, compliance, risk, and alternatives to imprisonment.
Ancrum does not make every revocation procedure sufficient
The decision turned on a developed record showing representation, review of the operative allegations, an opportunity to respond, repeated prior hearings, and an explanation for the sentence. It does not hold that confusion about charges is harmless in every case or that a court may dispense with Rule 32.1's separate protections.
This article provides general educational information, not legal advice, a determination that any revocation was valid or invalid, a sentencing calculation, or a prediction of appellate relief. The controlling circuit, original offense, conditions, violation evidence, hearing record, objections, prior revocations, and deadlines require case-specific review.