Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02322/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02322-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jaye Lynette Jarrett
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2322

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jaye Lynette Jarrett, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant, *

___________

Submitted: November 20, 2006

Filed: November 30, 2006

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jaye Jarrett appeals the 15-month prison sentence that the district court1

imposed after revoking her probation. We affirm. 

For reversal Jarrett argues that her revocation sentence is unreasonable because

the court failed to consider the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). We disagree.

Our careful review of the revocation-hearing transcript convinces us that the court

considered the section 3553(a) factors, and we conclude that the revocation sentence

Appellate Case: 06-2322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114052
-2-

was not unreasonable. See United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825 (8th Cir. 2005)

(per curiam) (standard of review). 

First, Jarrett’s sentence complied with the advisory Guidelines because the

district court was authorized to add 477 days of unserved community confinement and

home detention to the revocation range of 4-10 months. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.3(d).

Second, the court explicitly considered several of the section 3553(a) factors when it

made reference during the hearing to the court’s initial leniency in sentencing Jarrett

for the underlying conduct, and to Jarrett’s poor history on probation supervision,

which had required the court twice to modify the probation conditions; and notably,

the same district court judge presided over the initial sentencing, the modification

proceedings, and the instant revocation proceeding. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (2)

(requiring court to consider defendant’s history and characteristics, and various

purposes of sentence to be imposed); cf. United States v. Larison, 432 F.3d 921, 923

(8th Cir. 2006) (district court need not mechanically list every § 3553(a) consideration

when sentencing defendant upon revocation of supervised release); United States v.

Franklin, 397 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. 2005) (fact that same judge presided over

original sentencing hearing and revocation hearing implied familiarity with

defendant’s history and characteristics, and district court’s awareness of defendant’s

numerous and repeated violations of release conditions supported inference that court

was aware of relevant § 3553(a) factors).

Jarrett also argues that the district court denied her the right of allocution. This

argument also fails. At the hearing, Jarrett testified extensively in defense of the

alleged probation violations, she presented defense witnesses, and she offered the

court several reasons why her probation should be continued and not revoked. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b)(2)(E) (person at revocation hearing is entitled to opportunity

to make statement and present any information in mitigation). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

_______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/30/2006 Entry ID: 2114052