United States v. Tyree Monroe

── United States v. Tyree Monroe ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 10, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-14233 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14233 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus TYREE ARVELL MONROE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00007-TFM-N-1 ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Tyree Arvell Monroe appeals the procedural and substan- tive reasonableness of the sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. The district court sentenced Monroe to an USCA11 Case: 25-14233 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 25-14233 above-guidelines sentence of 24 months in prison. Monroe argues that the district court plainly erred by not providing a sufficient oral justification for imposing an upward variance. He further argues that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a substan- tively unreasonable sentence. Upon review, we affirm the sen- tence. I. We begin with Monroe’s first argument—that the district court erred by failing to provide sufficient oral justification for the upward variance. Monroe argues, in effect, that this failure made his sentence procedurally unreasonable. Generally, we review de novo the legality of a sentence im- posed upon revocation of supervised release. United States v. Cun- ningham, 800 F.3d 1290, 1291 (11th Cir. 2015). But we review for plain error a sentencing challenge when such a challenge—as is the case here—is raised for the first time on appeal. United States v. Stei- ger, 99 F.4th 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc). To be plain error, the defendant must establish that (1) there was an error; (2) the error was plain; (3) the error affects the de- fendant’s substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation or judicial proceedings. United States v. Moore, 22 F.4th 1258, 1264–65 (11th Cir. 2022). To be plain, an error must have “been specifically and directly resolved by the explicit language of a statute or rule or on point precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court.” United States v. Green, 158 F.4th 1347, 1372 (11th Cir. 2025) (citation modified). USCA11 Case: 25-14233 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 3 of 6 25-14233 Opinion of the Court 3 A sentence such as Monroe’s is procedurally unreasonable if the court “fail[ed] to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c), requires district courts to explain, both orally and in writing, their reasoning for imposing a sentence above the rele- vant guideline range to “allow for meaningful appellate review.” Steiger, 99 F.4th at 1321–22 (citation modified). The sufficiency of a district court’s explanation depends on the circum