United States v. Richey, No. 13-2523 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's imposition of a revocation sentence based on her numerous prior violations. The court held that as a statutory and procedural matter, a revocation sentence may not be based on disputed, unproven allegations in the probation officer's reports. In this instance, however, it was clear from the record that the district court considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors listed in section 3583(e) and based defendant's sentence solely on undisputed facts. Although the district court could have offered a more detailed and precise explanation of the reference to the "reasons" in the adjustment report, or omitted the reference, the court detected no procedural error under Gall v. United States. Accordingly, the court affirmed the revocation sentence.
Court Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. To the extent a revocation sentence is based on disputed and uncorroborated factual allegations contained in an adjustment report, the sentence is procedurally erroneous under Gall; here, however, the district court did not base its sentencing determination on disputed or unproven facts but, rather, relied on defendant's admitted violations. Judge Gruender, concurring.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.