The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a 24-month prison sentence for Devonte Cortez Welch, who violated multiple conditions of his supervised release following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.
In an opinion filed Jan. 27, 2026, Circuit Judge Hermandorfer wrote that while the district court had previously failed to adequately explain its sentencing rationale, the court properly addressed those concerns on remand and imposed an appropriate sentence.
Welch originally pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee sentenced him to 38 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. After completing his confinement, Welch was released under supervision but repeatedly violated the terms of his release.
The violations included testing positive for marijuana and oxycodone while under supervision. Several days after the positive drug test, law enforcement officers arrested Welch and found him in possession of 23 fentanyl pills, marijuana, and nearly $1,000 in cash. Additionally, Welch sold fentanyl to a confidential informant on four separate occasions while on supervised release.
When the district court initially sentenced Welch to 24 months for these violations, he appealed to the Sixth Circuit. In that first appeal, the appeals court concluded that the district court had failed to adequately explain its selection of Welch's sentence. The Sixth Circuit vacated the sentence as procedurally unreasonable and remanded the case back to the district court for resentencing.
On remand, the district court again imposed a 24-month term of imprisonment for the supervised release violations. Welch appealed the sentence a second time, this time arguing that the district court relied on an impermissible factor during sentencing.
However, the Sixth Circuit rejected Welch's latest challenge. Circuit Judge Hermandorfer wrote in the opinion that Welch's argument failed and that the district court had properly addressed the procedural concerns raised in the previous appeal.
The case highlights the challenges defendants face when violating supervised release conditions, particularly when drug offenses are involved. Supervised release serves as an alternative to imprisonment that allows offenders to reintegrate into society while remaining under court supervision and specific conditions.
Violations of supervised release can result in additional prison time, as occurred in Welch's case. The severity of the violations often influences the length of any additional sentence imposed.
In federal criminal cases, courts must consider various factors when imposing sentences for supervised release violations, including the nature and circumstances of the violation, the defendant's history and characteristics, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the violation.
The Sixth Circuit's decision underscores the importance of district courts providing adequate explanations for their sentencing decisions. When appellate courts find that trial courts have failed to sufficiently justify their sentences, they will vacate and remand for proper consideration.
Welch's case demonstrates that while appellate courts will scrutinize sentencing explanations, they will affirm sentences that are properly explained and justified, even when the same sentence is reimposed after remand.
The opinion was marked "Not Recommended for Publication," indicating it will not serve as binding precedent but may be cited for its persuasive value. Such designations are common for routine appeals that do not establish new legal principles.
The three-judge panel that decided the case included Circuit Judges Davis, Ritz, and Hermandorfer, with Judge Hermandorfer writing the opinion for the court.
Federal supervised release violations involving drug offenses have become increasingly common as courts grapple with substance abuse issues among defendants. The case reflects ongoing challenges in the federal criminal justice system regarding recidivism and the effectiveness of supervised release as a tool for preventing future criminal conduct.
For Welch, the affirmance means he must serve the full 24-month sentence imposed by the district court. The case file indicates this is case number 25-5136 in the Sixth Circuit, which covers federal appeals from district courts in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.