Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02084/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christa L. Policare
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-2084

____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHRISTA L. POLICARE,

Appellant

____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 3-13-cr-00237-001)

District Judge: Honorable Malachy E. Mannion

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

October 31, 2016

Before: HARDIMAN and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges,

and ROSENTHAL,

* District Judge.

(Filed: November 3, 2016)

____________

OPINION**

____________

 

* The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, United States District Judge for the Southern 

District of Texas, sitting by designation.

** This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 

does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-2084 Document: 003112454047 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2016
2

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Christa Policare appeals an order of the District Court revoking her supervised 

release and imposing a sentence of incarceration for a year and a day. We will affirm.

I

Policare pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute a controlled substance—AlphaPyrrolidinopentiophenone (A-PVP), also known as bath salts—in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 371. Although Policare’s final advisory sentencing range was 57 to 60 months, the 

District Court granted a substantial downward variance and imposed a term of 20 

months’ incarceration because of Policare’s minor role in the offense, the psychological 

circumstances that led to her crime, and her maturity, age, and lack of criminal history. 

After completing her term of incarceration, Policare began serving a two-year term 

of supervised release and was forbidden from unlawfully possessing or using a controlled 

substance. She violated this condition at least eight times by using a variety of drugs 

including marijuana, cocaine, bath salts, Xanax, and Suboxone. The Probation Office 

notified the District Court of at least three of these violations, but the Court initially 

refrained from taking action in favor of treatment for Policare. After the eighth violation, 

however, the Probation Office submitted a Petition for Warrant or Summons and Policare 

was detained pending a supervised release revocation hearing. 

At the hearing, Policare pleaded guilty to violating the conditions of her 

supervised release, which subjected her to a statutory maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment 

and a Sentencing Guidelines range of 3 to 9 months. Although the Government 

Case: 16-2084 Document: 003112454047 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2016
3

recommended a within-Guidelines sentence, the District Court varied upward, sentencing 

Policare to a year and a day in prison. 

II1

Policare appeals, claiming her sentence is substantively unreasonable. This 

argument falls short of our highly deferential standard of review, which requires us to 

affirm unless “no reasonable sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence on 

that particular defendant for the reasons the district court provided.” United States v. 

Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 568 (3d Cir. 2009).

Policare argues that the District Court placed undue emphasis on her relapses 

without properly considering other factors. Given her history of drug addiction, Policare 

insists that the Court should have expected she might relapse. She also cites her candid 

admissions to the Probation Office about her relapses and her desire for treatment. 

Finally, she notes that the Government recommended a sentence within the Guidelines 

range. 

We are unpersuaded by Policare’s argument that the District Court abused its 

discretion by varying upward. The same judge who varied downward after applying the 

§ 3553(a) factors during Policare’s initial sentencing hearing carefully considered her 

circumstances at the supervised release revocation hearing. The Court acknowledged that 

Policare suffered from addiction. The Court recognized her honesty, though it expressed 

 

1 The District Court had jurisdiction over the original criminal case under 18 

U.S.C. § 3231 and revoked Policare’s supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). 

We have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

Case: 16-2084 Document: 003112454047 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/03/2016
4

doubt that Policare admitted each drug use during supervised release. Finally, the Court 

stated that it considered statements from all of the parties and the reports of the Probation 

Office.

After considering all the facts of record, the District Court determined a sentence 

above the Guidelines range was necessary and proper. Judge Mannion rightly noted that 

Policare received a significant break at her first sentencing, but failed to take advantage 

of it. He also noted that Policare violated the conditions of her supervised release by 

using controlled substances eight times. Finally, he reiterated that he had been lenient and

worked with Policare to facilitate her treatment.

In sum, because our review of the record leads ineluctably to the conclusion that 

the District Court’s judgment of sentence was well within its considerable discretion, we 

will affirm. 

Case: 16-2084 Document: 003112454047 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/03/2016