United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3124

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Tamarra Shanay Washington

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Dubuque

____________

Submitted: September 24, 2018

Filed: November 19, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

In September 2016, Defendant Tamarra Shanay Washington pled guilty to

being an unlawful drug user in possession of a firearm, a violation of

18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). She received a below-Guidelines sentence of

twelve months and one day and was released on supervision in July 2017. Over the

course of the next two months, she engaged in activity that her probation officer
considered to be at least fourteen violations of the conditions of her supervised

release. As a result, the probation officer petitioned to revoke supervised release. 

The district court conducted a revocation hearing at which Washington

1

admitted committing ten of the alleged violations. She contested four others, namely

that she: (1) twice failed to follow her probation officer’s instructions; (2) committed

the Iowa offense of interference with official acts; and (3) possessed a controlled

substance. The probation officer testified regarding the four contested violations, and

the court believed her testimony. The court also listened to Washington and

concluded that she had “no credibility.” The court then found that Washington had

committed three of the four alleged violations—twice failing to follow probationofficer instructions and interfering with official acts—and chose not to rule on the

fourth as doing so was unnecessary.

The court then proceeded to sentence Washington. It first considered the

sentencing factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Next, it pointed out how

Washington committed her violations immediately upon release from prison despite

having received “a significant sentencing break.” The court explained that

Washington’s behavior constituted a “pattern” of inappropriate conduct and

obstinance that deserved a prison sentence. The court thus revoked Washington’s

supervised release and sentenced her to eleven months’ imprisonment and two years

of supervised release. 

On review, we conclude that the court committed no clear error in finding 

Washington violated the terms of her supervised release. The court heard the

testimony ofthe probation officer and concluded that the defendant lacked credibility. 

Such a conclusion is “virtually unreviewable on appeal.” United States v. McGee, 890

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern 1

District of Iowa.

-2-
F.3d 730, 734 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Bridges, 569 F.3d 374,

377–78 (8th Cir. 2009)). 

We also conclude that the sentence imposed by the court was substantively

reasonable. The court appropriately considered the requisite sentencing factors. See

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); United States v. White, 863 F.3d 1016, 1021 (8th Cir. 2017)

(“We do not require a district court ‘to provide a mechanical recitation of the

§ 3553(a) factors when determining a sentence. Rather, it simply must be clear from

the record that the district court actually considered the § 3553(a) factors in

determining the sentence.’” (quoting United States v. Walking Eagle, 553 F.3d 654,

659 (8th Cir. 2009))). Moreover, the sentence was within the guideline range for a

Grade C violation of supervised release. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 7B1.4; see also United States v. Petreikis, 551 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2009)

(explaining that a revocation sentence is reviewed “under the same ‘reasonableness’

standard that applies to initial sentencing proceedings” and that “[a] sentence within

the Guidelines range is accorded a presumption of substantive reasonableness on

appeal” (citations omitted)).

Consequently, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________

-3-