Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 13-4118
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:98-cr-00192-JRS-1)
Argued:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Tashell Romaine Waller appeals her eighteen-month sentence,
imposed
For
following
the
revocation
reasons
that
follow,
of
her
we
supervised release.
vacate
and
remand
for
resentencing.
Waller
completed
her
incarceration
for
possession
with
in
February
supervised
2013,
release
and
the
district
sentenced
her
court
revoked
her
to eighteen months of
imprisonment.
At the final revocation hearing, the Government sought a
twenty-four-month
sentence,
Waller
conform
had
to
pointing
her
to
the
conduct
to
numerous
the
chances
terms
of
personally
addressed
the
noted in particular
that
Wallers
attempt
to
defeat
her
be
revoked
left
without
Wallers
some
supervised
release
and
court
imposed an eighteen-
month sentence.
At the February 2013 hearing, neither the court nor the
parties referred to the Guidelines Manual policy statement and
corresponding
for
table
commission
Waller,
in
suggesting
of the
criminal
grade
3-9
C
months
of
violations by
imprisonment
a person, like
Sentencing
we
will
affirm
sentence
imposed
after
imposing
when imposing a
Thompson,
internal
595
revocation
post-conviction
F.3d
quotation
544,
sentence
as
it
sentence[.] United
547
(4th
Cir.
omitted).
But,
we
2010)
have
must
be
States
v.
(citation
held
that
and
the
such
hearing
occurred
two
years
earlier.
And
more
The
Government also argues that the parties and court had a worksheet
setting
forth
appeal,
however,
Government,
the
over
Guidelines
range.
contains
no
such
Wallers
objection,
The
certified
worksheet,
tardily
record
on
although
the
submitted
the
worksheet to the argument panel. In any event, the mere fact that
a Probation Officer prepared a worksheet does not establish, on
the present record, that the court actually considered the policy
conclude
that
Wallers sentence
Because
Wallers
sentence
violated
Mouldens
clear
harmless because
we
cannot
Although
conclude
that
the
an individualized
district
court
explanation
for
is
its
charged
with
decision
to
to
support
an
eighteenmonth
sentence
does
not,
the
v.
F.3d
Boulware,
604
policy
832,
statement
range. United
838
Cir.
(4th
2010).
States
For
Wallers
policy
statement
range,
it
could
violations,
but
continued
sentencing
to
give
Waller
chance to correct her behavior. This leniency did not work, and
Waller violated again in May 2011. But in a further effort to
work with the defendant, the district court continued Waller on
her
supervised
release
under
the
same
terms
and
conditions.
violated
her
conditions
again
several
more
times
between
of
that
range
when
it
finally
imposed
sentence.
statement
range
at
the
7
first
hearing.
The
government
stated the range in open court, and Waller does not challenge the
fact
that
the
court,
the
government,
and
she
all
had
the
to
comply
court
must
with
procedural
consider
the
reasonableness,
policy
statement
the
and
the
States
(emphasis
v.
added).
Davis,
Because
53
F.3d
it
is
638,
642
abundantly
(4th
clear
Cir.
that
1995)
the
district court knew the policy statement range for Waller and
gave
both
sides
the
opportunity
to
present
arguments
on
the