NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0299n.06

No. 13-1929

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JESSIE JAMES WASHINGTON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

MICHIGAN

BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, McKEAGUE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Jessie James Washington, proceeding through counsel, appeals the 

sentence imposed upon the revocation of his term of supervised release.

In 2005, Washington pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting bank fraud. He was sentenced 

to 30 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. After commencing his 

supervised-release period, Washington pleaded guilty in a Michigan state court to two counts of 

identity theft and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment. Washington admitted that his new 

crimes violated the terms of his supervised release. He claimed, however, that he did not realize 

that his co-defendant was stealing merchandise until after he had driven her to several stores and

that he did not make the fake identification documents she was using. Washington also denied 

accompanying other women to other stores on previous occasions, claiming that his conduct on 

the date of his arrest was an isolated incident. The district court reviewed the police report, 
No. 13-1929

United States v. Washington

- 2 -

which included statements by the stores’ loss prevention personnel that they recognized 

Washington because he had engaged in similar behavior on previous occasions with other 

women. The district court also noted that receipts for a large amount of merchandise purchased 

on other dates from a number of stores were discovered in Washington’s car. 

Before choosing a sentence, the district court discussed the serious nature of 

Washington’s new crimes, his lengthy criminal history of convictions for similar crimes of theft 

and fraud, and the need to protect the public. The court also cited to application note 4 of USSG 

§ 7B1.4, which provides that an upward departure on revocation of supervised release may be 

appropriate where the defendant’s original sentence was the result of a downward departure, as 

was the case with Washington’s 2005 sentence. The district court then departed upward from the 

applicable advisory range of 21 to 27 months and sentenced Washington to 36 months of 

imprisonment, the maximum sentence available, to run consecutively to his state sentence. On 

appeal, Washington now argues that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the 

district court simply speculated as to his new criminal conduct.

We review for abuse of discretion a sentence imposed on the revocation of supervised 

release. United States v. Polihonki, 543 F.3d 318, 322 (6th Cir. 2008). The district court did not 

abuse its discretion here because its finding as to the seriousness of Washington’s new conduct 

was based not on speculation but on the police reports from his arrest. In United States v. 

Chiolo, 643 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 2011), we affirmed a sentence imposed after revocation of 

supervised release in which the district court departed upward after reviewing police statements 

when the defendant “could not remember” the facts of his new offense. Id. at 180, 181-82. 

Moreover, the district court also properly noted that an upward departure was appropriate under 

application note 4 to USSG § 7B1.4.
No. 13-1929

United States v. Washington

- 3 -

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.