# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 31 24

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tam arra Sh an ay

W as hi ng to n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - Dub uq ue

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 24 , 20 18 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 19 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and STRAS, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

In Sep te m

be r 20 16
, Defen da nt Tam arra Sh a n a y W as hi ng to n pl ed gu il ty to be in g an un la wfu l dr ug us er in po ss es si on of a fir earm , a vi ol at io n of
18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (3 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ). Sh e rece iv ed a be lo w-Gui de li ne s se nt en ce of twel ve m on th s an d on e da y an d was rel eas ed on su pe rv is io n in Ju ly 20 17

. Ove r th e

co ur se of th e ne xt two m on th s, sh e en ga g e d i n act iv it y th at he r pr ob at io n of fic erco ns id ered to b e at le as t fo ur te en vi ol at io ns of th e co nd it io ns of he r su pe rv is ed

rel eas e. As a re su lt , th e p ro ba ti on off ic er p et it io ne d t o re vo ke su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

The di st ric t co ur t co nd uc te d a rev oc at io n he ari ng at whi ch W as hi ng to n 1
ad m it te d co m

m it ti ng te n of th e al le ge d vi ol at io ns

. Sh e co nt es te d fo ur ot he rs , na m el y th at sh e: (1 ) twi ce fai le d to fo ll ow he r pr ob at io n of fic er’s in st ru ct io ns ; (2 ) co m m it te d th e Io wa of

f e n s e of in te rfer en ce wit h of fic ia l act s; an d (3 ) po ss es se d a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e. The pr ob at io n of fic er te st ifi ed regard in g th e fo ur co nt es te d vi ol at io ns , an d th e co ur t be li ev ed h e r te st im on y

. The co ur t al so li st en ed to W as hi ng to n an d

co nc lu de d th at s he ha d “ no cred ib il it y .” The co ur t th en fo un d th at W as hi ng to n ha d

co m m it te d th ree of th e f

o ur al le ge d vi ol at io ns —t wice fai li ng to fo ll ow pr ob at io no f f i c e r i ns tru ct io ns an d in te rfer in g wit h of fic ia l act s— an d ch os e no t to ru le on th e fo ur th as d oi ng so was u nn eces sa ry

.

The co ur t th en pr oc eed ed to se nt en ce W as hi ng to n. It f i r s t c on si de red th e

se nt en ci ng fact or s fo un d in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). Nex t, it po in te d ou t ho w W as hi ng to n co m

m it te d he r vi ol at io ns im m ed ia te ly up on rel eas e fro m pr is on de sp it e ha vi ng rece iv ed “ a si gn ifi can t se nt en ci ng br eak .” The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th a t W as hi ng to n’s be ha vi or co ns ti tu te d a “ pa tt ern ” of in ap pr op ria te co nd uc t an d

o b s t in an ce th at de se rv ed a pr is on se nt en ce. The co ur t th us rev ok ed W as hi ng to n’ s

su pe rv is ed rel eas e an d se nt en ced he r to el ev en m on th s’ im pr is on m en t an d two y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e.

On rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e co ur t co m m it te d no cl ear err o r i n f i n d in g W as hi ng to n vi ol at ed th e te rm s of he r su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The co ur t he ard th e
te st im on y of th e pr oba tio n of fi cer an d co nc lu de d th at th e de fen da nt la ck ed cred ib il it y

. Su ch a co nc lu si on is “ vi rtu al ly un rev ie wab le on ap pe al .” Uni te d St at es v. McGe e, 89 0

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de
, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern 1 Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-F.3 d 73 0, 73 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bri dg e s , 5 6 9 F

. 3d 37 4,

37 7– 78 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

W e al so co nc lu de th at th e se nt en ce im po se d by th e co ur t was su bs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le

. The co ur t ap pr op ria te ly co ns id ered th e req ui si te se nt en ci ng fact or s. See 18 U.S

. C

. § 3 5 83 (e); Uni te d St at es v. W hi te , 86 3 F.3 d 10 16
, 10 21 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (“ W e do no t req ui re a di st ric t co ur t ‘to pr ov id e a m ech an ic al reci ta ti on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s whe n de te rm in in g a se nt en ce. Rat he r, it si m pl y m us t be cl ear fro m th e reco rd th at th e di st ric t co ur t act ua ll y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fa c t o r s in de te rm in in g th e se nt en ce.’” (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W al ki ng Eag le
, 55 3 F.3 d 65 4, 65 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ))). Mo reo ve r, th e se nt en ce was wit hi n th e gu id el i n e r a n g e f o r a Grad e C vi ol at io n of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. See U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s Man ua l § 7B 1.4 ; se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Pet rei ki s , 5 5 1 F .3d 82 2, 82 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at a rev oc at io n se nt en ce is rev ie wed “ un de r th e sa m e ‘reaso na bl en es s’

st an da rd th at ap pl ie s to in it ia l se nt en ci ng pr oc eed in gs ” an d th at “ [a] se nt en ce wit hi n th e Gui de li ne s ran ge is acco rd ed a pr es um pt io n of su bs ta nt iv e reas on ab le ne ss on
ap pe al ” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ).

Co ns eq ue nt ly, we affi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s jud gm en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-