United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 21-3624

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Nicole Marie Gorsline,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

Submitted: September 19, 2022

Filed: November 9, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Nicole Gorsline challenges the reasonableness of a sentence of twenty-four

months’ imprisonment imposed by the district court*

 after Gorsline violated the terms

*The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for

the Southern District of Iowa.
of her supervised release. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion, and therefore affirm the judgment.

Gorsline entered the federal criminal justice system when she was convicted

of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and sentenced to 120 months’

imprisonment in 2005. She commenced a term of ninety-six months of supervised

release in 2013, and the court twice revoked her release before the instant

occasion—once for sexual misconduct in a residential reentry center and once after

she was arrested for forgery. The court imposed a four-month prison term for the first

violation. The latter revocation, in 2018, resulted in a prison sentence of a year and

a day, plus thirty-six months of supervised release. The court also modified the

conditions of release in 2017 to require drug treatment after Gorsline tested positive

for the use of methamphetamine.

This appeal arises from a third revocation in November 2021 for twelve

violations of conditions of release: (1) associating with an individual engaged in

criminal activity, (2) frequenting a place where controlled substances are illegally

used, (3) failing to support her dependents and meet other family responsibilities, (4)

failure to comply with substance abuse testing, (5) failure to comply with substance

abuse treatment, (6) obstructing police by providing false information during a traffic

stop, (7) leaving the district without permission, (8) commission of felony forgery,

(9) commission of aggravated misdemeanor theft, (10) associating with another

individual engaged in criminal activity, (11) associating with a person convicted of

a felony, and (12) failing to support her dependents and meet other family

responsibilities on a second occasion.

The violations arose from several incidents. In May 2021, probation officers

found methamphetamine and marijuana in Gorsline’s residence. A methamphetamine

pipe was in plain view on a coffee table; Gorsline’s seven-year-old son was holding

a syringe with suspected methamphetamine. Gorsline’s husband claimed that all of

-2-
the contraband belonged to him, but the district court found that Gorsline knew about

the drugs. During May and June 2021, Gorsline thrice failed to report for drug testing

or drug treatment as required by her conditions. Later in June, police in Illinois

stopped a vehicle in which Gorsline was a passenger. Gorsline obstructed the officers

by providing a false name. Also in June 2021, Gorsline’s two children tested positive

for the presence of amphetamine and methamphetamine in their hair. In September

2021, Gorsline pleaded guilty to theft in Iowa state court. In exchange for the plea,

the State dismissed four counts of forgery that were filed based on Gorsline’s passing

of forged checks in April 2021.

The district court determined an advisory guideline range of twelve to eighteen

months’ imprisonment. But after considering the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the

court elected to vary upward from the range to a term of twenty-four months’

imprisonment, and to forego additional supervised release. The court cited the

number and seriousness of the violations, the length of time over which the violations

occurred, the defendant’s dangerousness to the community, and the need for

deterrence. The court explained that as a result of prior violations, the court had

modified conditions and provided resources and assistance to Gorsline, but that her

recent conduct manifested a “rejection of all of the tools that have been provided to

the defendant.” The court remarked that the positive drug test results for Gorsline’s

children, in particular, “demonstrates an ongoing dangerous situation despite the

resources, despite the opportunities, and despite the efforts of the Court and the

probation office to assist.” We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence

under the same deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that applies to initial

sentencing proceedings. United States v. Merrival, 521 F.3d 889, 890 (8th Cir.

2008); see Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Gorsline argues that the advisory guideline range was sufficient punishment

under the circumstances, and that the district court’s upward variance was an abuse

of discretion. She maintains that the court failed to make an individualized

-3-
assessment based on the facts presented, and unduly emphasized Gorsline’s “recent

relapse” without giving sufficient weight to the previous two years of successful

performance on supervised release.

We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion. The district court

acknowledged that Gorsline had “done well for two years,” but properly gave

individualized consideration to Gorsline’s history and the series of violations that she

committed over several months during 2021. The recent violations involved both

financial crimes and drug abuse, and Gorsline’s conduct endangered not only the

community at large, but her own children. The court properly considered that

Gorsline continued to commit violations despite assistance provided to her after

previous modifications and revocations of supervised release, and it was reasonable

to conclude that a firm sanction of twenty-four months’ imprisonment was necessary

to satisfy the purposes of sentencing.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-