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 s tate 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. H e claimed , however, that he did n o t 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
accompan ying 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 o ccasions 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, t he district court discussed the s erious 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 depa rture 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 advis ory 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
di strict 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 afte r 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 th at 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.