Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02331/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02331-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Angela J. Tilford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2331

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Angela J. Tilford, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 15, 2004

Filed: November 23, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Angela J. Tilford violated several terms of her supervised release. The district

court*

 revoked Tilford’s supervised release and sentenced her to twenty-four months

in prison, the maximum allowed under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3), even though the

policy statement in U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4(a) advised a sentence of eight to fourteen

months. Tilford appeals arguing the district abused its discretion in exceeding the

recommended Guidelines range. 

Appellate Case: 04-2331 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2004 Entry ID: 1837111 
-2-

The policy statements in chapter 7 of the Sentencing Gudelines are merely

advisory, but district courts must consider the policy statements when sentencing a

defendant whose supervised release has been revoked. United States v. Hawkins, 375

F.3d 750, 751-52 (8th Cir. 2004). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), the court must also

consider the sentencing factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 752. The court

need not refer to every factor, however. Id. When a court mentions some of the

considerations in § 3553(a), we deem the court knew of the statute’s entire contents.

Id. The district court may impose a sentence exceeding the range suggested by

chapter 7 “‘when, in its considered discretion, such a departure is warranted.’” Id. at

753 (quoting United States v. Carr, 66 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)). 

The district court reviewed Tilford’s criminal history and found she had

committed several crimes while on supervised release. Tilford admitted she had

violated several other terms of release. The court stated it had considered the policy

statements in chapter 7 and deemed the advised sentencing range inadequate to

promote Tilford’s respect for the law, to deter her from criminal conduct, and to

protect the public from her commission of further crimes, some of the sentencing

factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court determined a twenty-four

month sentence would vindicate these interests. 

Under these circumstances, we cannot say the district court abused its

discretion in sentencing Tilford. We thus affirm Tilford’s sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2331 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2004 Entry ID: 1837111