United States v. Thomas Hawkins

── United States v. Thomas Hawkins ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-3133 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THOMAS L. HAWKINS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 3:07-cr-50058-3 — Iain D. Johnston, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 8, 2026 — DECIDED JUNE 2, 2026 ____________________ Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and KOLAR, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. While on federal supervised re- lease for prior robberies, Thomas Hawkins committed two more. New convictions followed, and in a combined hearing, the district court revoked Hawkins’ supervised release and sentenced him on both the new robberies and for the super- vised release violations. On appeal Hawkins invokes the Su- preme Court’s recent decision in Esteras v. United States, 606 U.S. 185 (2025), and contends that the district court considered 2 No. 24-3133 an impermissible factor—retribution—in imposing the maxi- mum possible revocation sentence. He also sees his revoca- tion sentence as excessive and reflecting an unwarranted dis- parity with the sentences imposed on others who violate their supervised release in similar ways. While Hawkins makes some fair observations about the sentencing proceeding in the district court, he falls short of demonstrating error, leaving us to affirm. I In 2008 Thomas Hawkins pleaded guilty in federal court to committing two commercial robberies in Rockford, Illinois, and using a firearm in one of them. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 924(c)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 136 months’ imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Hawkins began his supervised release in July 2018. Trou- ble followed. In October 2020, he participated in an armed home invasion robbery during which his accomplice shot and killed a woman. In return for his cooperation, the state opted not to charge Hawkins with any crime. Hawkins also committed two more commercial robberies around the same time. In September 2020, he robbed a Red Roof Inn in Rockford, armed with something resembling a gun. A month later he robbed a Mobil gas station in Rockford, this time unquestionably armed with a gun that he pointed at the station attendant. A new round of federal charges followed for the two new commercial robberies, and Hawkins once again pleaded guilty. The government pointed to these robberies in asking the district court to revoke his supervised release. No. 24-3133 3 The district court conducted Hawkins’ new sentencing and his revocation sentencing in the same hearing. The court sentenced Hawkins for the new robberies first. After deter- mining the advisory Guidelines range of 108–135 months, the court heard arguments from the parties and a statement from Hawkins. It then considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the purposes of punishment generally, including retribution. The district court also recognized the challenges Hawkins had faced growing up while emphasiz- ing the leniency he received in his 2008 sentence and the dan- gerousness of the two new robberies. In the end, the district court sentenced Hawkins to 135 months and three years of supervised release. The district court then turned to the supervised release vi- olations. After Hawkins admitted that he violated his super- vised release, the court revoked it. Everyone agreed that rev- ocation sentencing range was 18–24 months. The district court acknowledged that Congress enumer- ated the f